TGIF April 2021: Scores
| 1. IMPs. E-W vul.
|
K 10 8 3
---
K Q 4 3 2
K 5 3 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
2
|
Dbl
|
4
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 6
| 100
|
|
Dbl
| 4
| 80
|
|
5
| 3
| 70
|
|
4NT
| 2
| 60
|
|
5
| 0
| 50
|
|
Moderator: A split panel with many viable options in regards to both level and strain, their top choice is 4.
Kerri Sanborn: 4NT. Should be takeout for the minors if I don't bid again. Very tough call here. Anything could work, from a responsive double to 4, 4NT, 5, 5, 5NT. At least partner knows I have stuff and minors. Perhaps a slam decision can come from her side. The question is, if she bids 5, do I pass or bid 5?
Daniel Korbel: 4. Yes, we may have better contracts. But what can I do? I don't really want to double with a heart void. I don't really want to bid 5 when 4 is playable a level lower. I feel fixed and I'm staying fixed.
Janice Molson: Dbl. There are so many possible bids. I don't know what is right. Double is takeout and so hopefully my partner will bid. But I am a terrible guesser, so I will not try to figure out the strain.
Rick Prouser: 5. Even though there are clear signs of danger, it seems right to be optimistic and drive to slam. While 5NT might ask partner to choose among the three available suits, that could be unclear without prior agreement. 5 avoids any ambiguity about the spade suit being an option.
David Waterman: 5. And I will raise 5 to 6.
Christopher Diamond: 4. Worth more but no easy way to find out. If not 4 I might as well commit with 5NT.
Larry Meyer: Dbl. Too strong to sign off in 4.
Michael Dimich: 5. E/W vul implies extreme distribution so bid 5 first and over their 5 bid 5.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 5. If partner has no heart wastage then presumably he has 2 or more aces.
Perry Khakhar: 4. This should have a play. It's a 30 point deck, but not enough to move past game. Maybe if partner has extras, he will ask after our free bid.
Chris Buchanan: 4. Too many holes to fill without the room to investigate anything more.
Hendrik Sharples: 4. Practical. Vul vs not opponents should have something other than trump length here.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 5. After the Dbl partner should have the right points to make slam in his favorite suit.
David Gordon: 4NT. Asking for partner's better minor. If opps compete to 5 then will bid 5.
Mike Roberts: 4. I'll stay fixed.
Louk Verhees: 4NT. Very interesting. A lot depends what you expect partner to do with 4 spades if you Dbl. Can easily be slam, a grand even. Can't get myself to bid 4 nor Dbl.
Earle Fergusson: 5. Slam is likely, but which suit?
Plarq Liu: Dbl. I think take out is still true over 4.
Peter Qvist: 5NT. Pick a slam.
Kf Tung: 4. Too much to lose if both sides can make a game!
|
| 2. Matchpoints. N-S vul.
| |
A K Q 4
A 4
J
K J 10 9 6 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
3
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
Dbl
| |
|
Pass
|
4
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
5
| 6
| 100
|
|
4
| 5
| 90
|
|
5NT
| 3
| 80
|
|
4NT
| 1
| 60
|
|
5
| 0
| 50
|
|
6
| 0
| 40
|
|
5
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: Another preemptive auction with another split panel. The top choice is 5, trying for slam in a black suit.
August Boehm: 5. Two can play this game. Slamward bound: 6 over 5 should imply spades as well.
Larry Cohen: 5NT. I doubt we are off two aces, and I doubt we can sensibly ever reach seven, so 12 tricks it is. Partner might have only majors, in which case I can correct 6 to 6. If partner chooses clubs (unlikely), I'll be happy there.
Mike Lawrence: 4NT. . . ace-asking. I will bid 6 if partner has an ace. I don't see a method to sort out a grand.
Zachary Grossack: 4. In theory, I should be making a slam try --- not that partner's 4 shows slam interest in this situation, but it does show some oomph, as they are forcing to game and I have significant extras for my balancing double. The problem lies in that I don't really know how to make an effective slam try. What does 4NT mean here? Or I could try 5 (which might be in danger), but it's hard to imagine partner accepting with the right hand. 'Survive the preempt.' I'll settle for 4.
Robert Sauve: 4. Hope pard bids again. He is showing majors.
David Waterman: 6. I would like 4NT to be old-fashioned Blackwood here, but it isn't.
Christopher Diamond: 4. Again worth more but he might have stretched for strain. Not even sure what 4NT would be.
Larry Meyer: 5. Too strong to sign off in 4 or 5.
Michael Dimich: 6. Best slam --- you can pitch a losing spade on hearts if spades break badly.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4. How many IYC questions have shown us the other side of this auction? Partner will stretch to bid 4 holding equal length in the majors, even with not enough HCP.
Perry Khakhar: 5. We may eventually end up playing in 6, but I need to try and play this in 6. So, 5 followed by 6 will resolve this I think.
Chris Buchanan: 5. . . to keep the grand alive and force to 6. Partner could have J x x x K Q x x A x A Q x.
Hendrik Sharples: 5. Correcting 5 to 6 should (hopefully) get the black two suit message across, otherwise would have bid 6 directly.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. This will be a good contract. Partner did not have enough to bid on his own so slam is out.
David Gordon: 5. Will bid natural and then pull 5 to 5.
Mike Roberts: 4NT. Natural makes no sense. The only thing that does is straight Blackwood.
Louk Verhees: 5. How much room do you give partner? Not blasting slam as we can be off 2 keycards. Could bid 4NT but not sure what it exactly means.
Joel Forssell: 4NT. Blackwood.
Earle Fergusson: 6. Correct hearts to spades.
Plarq Liu: 4. Respond to cuebid with cheapest suit.
Kf Tung: 6. Partner is confident for 4 or 4 with his hand, so 6 is a good contract with your cards!
|
| 3. IMPs. None vul.
| |
6 4 2
---
Q J 8 4 3
A Q 7 6 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
1
|
2
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 8
| 100
|
|
Dbl
| 4
| 80
|
|
4
| 2
| 70
|
|
2
| 1
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 40
|
|
3
| 0
| 40
|
|
Moderator: The majority show their good support with a cuebid.
Jeff Meckstroth: Dbl. I will support spades next, hopefully giving partner a good picture of my hand.
Steve Robinson: 4. It's difficult to evaluate a void, so I'll play partner for A Q J x x and something else. This might get LHO to bid 5, which could be good for us.
Josh Donn: 3. The void qualifies this hand as having too much potential to merely bid 2.
Robert Sauve: 2. Take the slow approach with the master suit and bad trumps.
David Waterman: 3. It is the wrong hand type for 4. 3 for the lead is a good shot, but too unilateral.
Gary Harper: Dbl. Planning to jump to 4 if partner shows a fit in either minor. Otherwise will invite in spades.
Christopher Diamond: 2. Low balling everything this month. Nearly worth a limit raise.
Larry Meyer: 3. 3-card trump support and a useful void is a great support hand.
Michael Dimich: 3. You have a fit and invitational values.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. The problem with 'double and support spades later' is partner will think you are showing the other minor with spade tolerance.
Perry Khakhar: Dbl. Responsive Dbl followed by 3 should give partner a picture of my hand.
Chris Buchanan: Dbl. I will correct to spades later.
Hendrik Sharples: 3. Dbl might be a better description, but I don't want to defend 2 doubled.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. We have a fit, I can ruff hearts, so why introduce the minors?
David Gordon: Dbl. Responsive dbl then a spade bid hits the spot.
Mike Roberts: 3. . . and then spades at the cheapest level. At least I'll get the lead.
Earle Fergusson: Dbl. I am bidding 4 over 4.
Plarq Liu: 2. If we have a fit in spades we do not need to discover a minor fit.
Kf Tung: 2. Go slow. Your handling charge would be high when partner holds 3 or 4 hearts.
|
| 4. Matchpoints. Both vul.
| |
A K Q J 3 2
Q 10 8 7
Q 6 5
---
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1NT
(1)
|
Pass
|
2
| |
|
Pass
|
2NT
(2)
|
Pass
| ? |
| (1) Forcing one round.
| | (2) Invitiational.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 6
| 100
|
|
3
| 6
| 90
|
|
3
| 3
| 60
|
|
3NT
| 0
| 40
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 20
|
|
Moderator: Over half the panel commit to spades while the minority attempt to sort out strain via a 3 fragment bid.
Larry Cohen: 4. No need to waste time patterning out with 3.
Jill Meyers: 3. . . forcing. Partner will know I am very short in clubs and should be able to judge what to do. I don't want to commit to 4, as partner could have x x x x x K J x x A K x x when 3NT would be easier than 4.
Jeff Fang: 3. Should be forcing, offering a choice of games.
David Waterman: 4. 3NT is unsound.
Christopher Diamond: 4. Don't see much point in 3 and 4 is very likely our best game.
Larry Meyer: 3NT. With my 2 red queens, partner should be able to come up with 3 tricks outside of spades.
Michael Dimich: 3. Volleyball bidding. I've shown my 6/4 and interest in some sort of game.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3NT. 6 spade tricks is two-thirds of the way to 9. I'd be more confident about this choice at IMPs.
Perry Khakhar: 3NT. 4 may be safer, but this could be all the matchpoints.
Chris Buchanan: 3. Shaping out my hand.
Hendrik Sharples: 3. Game forcing unless playing with a bot.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. Need help in the red suits, yes, but why tell the opponents that?
David Gordon: 4. Let's play in spades.
Mike Roberts: 3. How else can I pull a slow 3NT to 4? Without gadgets, 3 would be forcing, though.
Louk Verhees: 3. Most flexible and forcing the way I play it.
Earle Fergusson: 4. I can't imagine another bid.
Plarq Liu: 3. Complete of my 6-4 description.
Kf Tung: 3. Two red queens are not as good as an ace.
|
| 5. IMPs. None vul.
| |
A K 10 7 2
10 9 8 4
J 7 2
4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
1
|
1
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 7
| 100
|
|
3
| 5
| 80
|
|
2
| 2
| 60
|
|
4
| 1
| 50
|
|
2
| 0
| 40
|
|
3
| 0
| 20
|
|
Moderator: With 4 trumps and good controls, this is a powerful little hand. Do you show a mixed raise? A limit raise? And if a limit raise, which of the cuebids do you choose?
Larry Cohen: 2. . . shows a limit raise or better in hearts. I have a limit raise or better in hearts.
Barry Rigal: 3. This hand isn't nearly as good as it might look. My theory is that the defenders might get a diamond or spade ruff, and partner surely has wasted values in clubs.
Mel Colchamiro: 2. If my minors were reversed, I'd take a shot at 4.
David Waterman: 4. No alternative springs to mind.
Gary Harper: 3. Not sure if mixed raises are on our convention card, but it was described to me as one card too strong for a weak jump raise.
Christopher Diamond: 4. Why overthink? 4 is likely to be a decent spot and I don't want them to find a possible club fit.
Larry Meyer: 2. 4-card trump support and a singleton is a great support hand.
Michael Dimich: 3. Torn between 3 and 3. Finally succumbed to 3.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. . . mixed raise. It would be nicer if we played mini-splinters here.
Perry Khakhar: 2. We play mini splinters, so 3 would show this hand. But since that is not a part of BBS, I will push forward with an esoteric cue bid.
Chris Buchanan: 2. If 3 was a splinter that is what I would really do.
Hendrik Sharples: 4. Might make, and forces them to the 5 level if they have a club fit.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. A good raise in spades. That's what I have. Will compete to 3.
Leonid Bossis: 3. . . mixed raise. If unavailable (reserved for something else) then 2 = limit raise with 4+ card support.
David Gordon: 2. A shapely limit raise.
Mike Roberts: 2. The diamond holding is really bad.
Louk Verhees: 3. . . mixed. Not sure how good my hand is.
Earle Fergusson: 4. Should be close, let them guess.
Plarq Liu: 2. Support partner's suit is our #1 priority.
Kf Tung: 3. Go fast with your ace, king and singleton.
|
|
