TGIF June 2021: Scores
| 1. Matchpoints. E-W vul.
|
6
K
A 10 9 8 6 3
10 7 5 4 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
3
|
Dbl
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
Pass
| 6
| 100
|
|
4
| 5
| 90
|
|
3
| 4
| 80
|
|
5
| 0
| 60
|
|
3NT
| 1
| 50
|
|
Moderator: The panel go for the throat with a penalty pass.
Daniel Korbel: 4. I dunno? I could bid 5. Could partner ever hold: A 8 x x x A Q J x x Q x x? I'm not smart enough to pass. That's a good way to minus 670 versus our grand slam when partner holds: A x x x A Q x x K Q x x x --.
Barry Rigal: 3. Where are the majors? Partner has a good hand and a lot of cards in at least one of the suits. The auction may not get any easier, but at least we will have a lot of space to get to the wrong contract.
Kerri Sanborn: Pass. At this vulnerability, it seems right to go for plus 200 or 500. It would be too difficult to investigate a slam, and precisely 11 tricks in diamonds is like stopping on a dime.
Robert Sauve: Pass. Greedy matchpoints.
David Waterman: Pass. Matchpoints and favourable vulnerability. How can I not?
Christopher Diamond: Pass. Plus 200 seems like our best shot. Payoff to a big diamond fit that makes slam and reduces penalty.
Michael Dimich: 4. West is vulnerable not a fantasist. North didn't Michaels or jump to 4 of a major. Sounds like 9 major cards and hopefully 4 diamonds. Slam baby.
Andrew Krywaniuk: Pass. We should have a decent chance to beat this. Easy pass at MPs.
Larry Meyer: 4. With this shape, I have more than a minimum hand.
Allan Simon: 5. I'd rather bid 6 than pass.
Hendrik Sharples: Pass. They are going to make it some of the time, but I think it will be down 1 or more often enough.
Paul McMullin: Pass. I have 2 1/2 tricks; surely partner has 2 1/2 tricks. If we can make game (or a diamond slam?) then surely they're going down 2 (or 4!) or more.
David Gordon: 4. Enough shape to invite.
Kf Tung: Pass. +500 to beat game our way or +200 to beat all part scores.
Louk Verhees: 4. Surely not passing. On a bad day you make 7 and they 3!
Earle Fergusson: 4. Not defending, but definitely inviting.
Perry Khakhar: 3. I'd bid 3NT vulnerable at IMPs, but I will bid a quiet 3 at matchpoints and hope for a plus.
Bob Todd: Pass. Anything could go wrong here. They will score a lot of club tricks.
|
| 2. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
A 3
A Q 3 2
Q 6 3
A K 6 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
3
|
3
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4NT
| 5
| 100
|
|
4
| 5
| 90
|
|
3NT
| 2
| 80
|
|
5
| 3
| 80
|
|
4
| 1
| 60
|
|
Moderator: It's a multi-horse race with votes for many levels and strains.
Larry Cohen: 4NT. This really should be quantitative. I can bid 4 to set spades as trump. At least that's my argument in the postmortem.
Josh Donn: 4. We would look kind of silly forcing to slam and watching them take the A K, but I don't think 4NT is the answer, even if it's quantitative. They might run seven diamonds, and even if they don't, a singleton in partner's hand is probably enough on its own to belong in some slam.
Jill Meyers: 5. This is tough. I'm bidding 5, asking for a diamond control and hoping partner can deal with a doubleton spade in my hand.
Rick Prouser: 3NT. Very similar to a problem last month, except I could be off two fast tricks in the preemptor's suit. 4NT, which is the value bid, would be quantitative, not Blackwood; while my hand is too heavy to settle for 3NT, inviting without second-round control in diamonds seems anti-percentage.
David Waterman: 3NT. This is a pure guess --- anything could be right. If partner pulls this to 4, I will bid 5.
Christopher Diamond: 3NT. Underbid and questionable. But 3 was under pressure, he could have a diamond doubleton and he can still pull.
Michael Dimich: 5. Massively irritating problem. If partner has one diamond then 5 asks the right question.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3NT. Q x x is a likely stopper, and hearts are still in play.
Larry Meyer: 3NT. If partner has as little as J x in diamonds, 3NT should make.
Allan Simon: 5. My first thought was 4NT natural, but I'd rather gamble on really good spades than on help in diamonds.
Hendrik Sharples: 3NT. Hopefully making 5.
Paul McMullin: 4. Any other bid seems to show more shape than I have. I'm not willing to try NT.
David Gordon: 4. We need to hit diamond shortness and long spades for slam to be likely.
Kf Tung: 4. Slam interest. Partner is favourite to have a singleton diamond!
Louk Verhees: 3NT. Impossible problem. I go for conservative 3NT.
Earle Fergusson: 4. . . allowing for 4 as well as 4.
Perry Khakhar: 4. Won't be great if partner expects positive trump support, but the hand is too good to not make a last train try.
Bob Todd: 4. A lot of wastage here.
|
| 3. IMPs. E-W vul.
| |
4
A K J 5 4
K 10 3
A 10 9 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
2
|
2
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 6
| 100
|
|
3
| 5
| 90
|
|
3
| 4
| 80
|
|
Pass
| 1
| 60
|
|
Moderator: In a 2/1 auction, there is no rush to consume bidding room quickly. So then what's the difference between 3 and 3?
Mel Colchamiro: 3. Let's set the suit and go from there. Nowadays, 3 usually shows five. Over 3NT, 4 will show my shape and my slam ambitions. This is a very slam-friendly hand.
Barry Rigal: 3. Start with clubs, follow with diamonds. No reason to raise diamonds. The opponents are by no means sure to be able to raise spades, and partner might express an opinion if they do.
Zachary Grossack: 3. . . to show a slam-positive hand for diamonds specifically with spade shortness. Because we are in a game force, I could just start with 3 if I didn't have spade shortness. What I owe partner in diamond length I make up for in offensive might. What's one trump among friends?
Robert Sauve: 3. Show fit ASAP.
David Waterman: 3. I don't have room to bid out my shape. I must show my primary support first.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Going to slam which is a likely make opposite as little as a decent suit and he's got more than that. Grand probably on if he has the A. Maybe 4 as a splinter if I was sure that's what it was.
Michael Dimich: Pass. Too bad I can't play a support double in this auction. Forcing pass only other option.
Andrew Krywaniuk: Dbl. I prefer to play double as take-out, but I'm definitely curious to find out what is considered standard. And BWS merely says: Responder's reopening double of a sandwich overcall is cooperative-penalty through the three-level after a two-level response.
Larry Meyer: 3. Support with support. This is a game forcing auction, so there will be time to show our extras later.
Allan Simon: 3. . . what I had planned to bid without the interference.
Paul McMullin: 3. We should have values for game (or more), but I do not know where. Maybe partner can help decide where.
Kf Tung: 3. Pave the way to 3N when partner has guarded spades, and to 5 when partner has 6 diamonds without spade strength.
Louk Verhees: 3. Interesting one. 3 would not promise the world. 3 in my world normally 5 cards. For 3 I am a diamond short but it is descriptive. The advantage of 3 is you support diamonds later and partner has a pretty good picture of your hand.
Earle Fergusson: 3. Will complete my picture with a diamond bid.
Perry Khakhar: 3. Show support. But if partner has wastage, they can make a different decision. Tempted by support double, but 3 is a better description. Not very far to stretch to a slam.
|
| 4. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
A K 7 3 2
---
K 6 5 3
Q 10 7 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
2
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2NT
| 11
| 100
|
|
3
| 3
| 70
|
|
Pass
| 2
| 60
|
|
3NT
| 0
| 50
|
|
3
| 0
| 40
|
|
Moderator: Long gone are the days when an opening hand facing an opening hand automatically produced game (unless you and partner are Roth-Stoners or otherwise dependably solid openers).
Janice Molson: 3. This hand bothers me. I get that people open lighter and lighter, but am I really supposed to merely invite here with 2NT? Sorry, I suspect most of the panelists will, but I bid 3.
Mike Lawrence: Pass. Matchpoints? I pass 2. I'll take a likely plus.
Steve Robinson: 2NT. This misfit looks like an invitational hand. If partner passes 2NT, we'll be lucky to make it.
David Waterman: 2NT. This is a bit swingy. If game is making and partner passes we are getting nearly zero, but it still seems right.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Have to choose some force. I'm choosing this. My campaign for 2NT as an artificial force continues.
Michael Dimich: 2NT. Another paranoia inducer. If partner has no high card values in hearts they should raise to 3NT or bid 3 if they have three.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3NT. It may be a misfit, but we still have game values.
Larry Meyer: Pass. Take the low road with this misfit.
Allan Simon: 2NT. . . along with everybody else.
Paul McMullin: 3. I intend to bid out my pattern. This hand will be a NT disaster if partner is void in spades.
David Gordon: 3. Give partner a chance to show 3 spades.
Louk Verhees: 2NT. This should be an easy one. Bidding game on a misfit with possibly only 22-24 HCP doesn't seem smart.
Earle Fergusson: 2NT. My Spidey sense is tingling, so go with caution.
Perry Khakhar: 3. . . natural and forcing. 3NT (the likely contract) better from partner's side.
|
| 5. IMPs. N-S vul.
| |
Q
J 6 5 4
A K Q 9 7 6 3
Q
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 12
| 100
|
|
2
| 1
| 60
|
|
4
| 1
| 60
|
|
4
| 0
| 60
|
|
3
| 1
| 50
|
|
3
| 1
| 50
|
|
4
| 0
| 40
|
|
Moderator: The vast majority take the middle road of 3.
Roger Lee: 3. I have the playing strength for game, but I don't want to overstate my slam suitability by making a stronger move. Given my hand and the opponents' silence, there is no way partner is passing 3.
David Hooey: 4. Classic.
David Waterman: 3. People will think this an underbid, but this hand is not very playable.
Christopher Diamond: 4. I'd like to have better hearts. I'd also like to have a Lamborghini. Such is life.
Michael Dimich: 3. My hearts are too weak for 4 or 4, too strong in distribution to bid just 2. I've jumped into Goldilocks world and bid 3 --- just right.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. It's hard to evaluate this hand, but it's not a game force.
Larry Meyer: 3. Make the cheaper splinter.
Allan Simon: 3. Wrong hand for 4. Often 3N will be right when 4 is hopeless.
Hendrik Sharples: 4. My extra diamond makes up for my missing aces.
Paul McMullin: 4. In many partnerships, this is a discussed bid promising 4-card support and a running minor.
David Gordon: 4. Good 6 card diamonds with 4 hearts.
Kf Tung: 3. Game invitation, and slam is not excluded!
Louk Verhees: 3. Given the colors partner has spade values and/or 4 spades. You are worth 3 but do not have a great hand for slam unless partner has. I can not bring myself to bid 2. May miss game opposite some random 9 HCP.
Earle Fergusson: 4. Long strong diamonds with 4 hearts.
Perry Khakhar: 4. Might have a chance!
Bob Todd: 4. Not ideal but close.
|
|
