TGIF January 2022: Scores
| 1. IMPs. Both vul.
|
10
A 9 7
K Q J 5
K Q 8 3 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
1
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2NT
| 7
| 100
|
|
3NT
| 4
| 80
|
|
2
| 3
| 70
|
|
1NT
| 0
| 50
|
|
2
| 1
| 50
|
|
Moderator: Bridge Bulletin Standard is long overdue for an overhaul. This problem, as well as problem 3, are proof positive. Here's the conundrum: Partner overcalls, so is a new suit by you forcing? Does a cuebid promise a fit? Does is make a difference if you're a passed hand?
Larry Cohen: 3NT. . . a bit of an overbid, but we are vulnerable at IMPs and the 10 could be a huge card. As to only one heart stopper: Even if West leads one, he likely has only four, so one stopper is enough oppostive a dead min like: A J x x x x x x x x A x x.
Janice Molson: 2. Check with the system used here: 2 is nonforcing and cuebids don't promise fits. Just too strong, vulnerable at IMPs. I cuebid, then bid 2NT.
Josh Donn: 2NT. I could bid 2, but a natural 2NT seems more to the point.
Anssi Rantamaa: 2. My next bid will be in NT if I get one.
Christopher Diamond: 3NT. Transfer advances anyone? 2NT is no man's land. Is 2 even forcing? Vul at IMPs. I blame Hamman.
Larry Meyer: 3NT. Game values, no fit for pard, opps' suit well stopped --- he who knows, goes.
Michael Dimich: 2. This wins if partner passes or bids 2. An immediate 2NT bid takes up too much space.
David Hooey: 2. . . forcing. 3NT is probably the final contract. 4 and 4 are also possible.
Perry Khakhar: 3NT. No other bid makes sense. If partner is 5-5 in the majors, we may belong in hearts. But in that unlikely scenario (no Michaels), partner is likely to pull. Not many hands make sense for a slam.
Paul McMullin: 2. Downgrade a bit because of the stiff spade. I expect another chance to bid.
Hendrik Sharples: 2. This frequent type of hand is why I play this as forcing one round.
Mike Roberts: 2. This is assuming that 2 is nonforcing. If so, I have to cuebid, then bid clubs to set up a force (2 doesn't show a fit). My problem with 2/3NT is that partner won't know what to do with 6 spades.
Allan Simon: 3NT. I'm pretty sure all roads lead to 3N, so I'll bid it right now without giving any information to the defense.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. In my methods this is forcing. 3NT next, probably.
Earle Fergusson: 2. . . then 3NT over 2 or 2.
Lars Erik Bergerud: 2NT. Partner has a decent hand here, but 3NT is over the top. 2NT is the value bid and we'll reach a game when partner has 11+ HCP.
Bob Kuz: 2. Why is this a problem?
Kf Tung: 2. Will partner hold A x x x x K x x x A x x x?
|
| 2. IMPs. None vul.
| |
---
A 8 5
A 10 8 3
A K J 9 7 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
2
|
3
|
3
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 8
| 100
|
|
6
| 4
| 80
|
|
4
| 2
| 70
|
|
5
| 1
| 60
|
|
Moderator: Almost everyone on the panel makes a move toward slam.
Mike Lawrence: 4. It looks like East is bidding with a diamond fit. Because we can make 6 facing: 8 7 4 3 2 K 4 3 2 Q 10 3 2, I owe partner a very strong sequence to see if 7 is there.
Daniel Korbel: 4. We could easily have a slam or even a grand slam: J x x x K Q x x Q x x x x; or be going down in game: A x x J x x x x Q x x x x. 4 should definitely deliver spade shortness here because I must have some controls in the red suits to be trying for slam. Hopefully partner will be able to evaluate the fit well enough to give me a little boost when his hand is working.
Roger Lee: 6. I'd rather not allow my left-hand opponent to support spades cheaply, so I'll just bid what I think I can make.
Christopher Diamond: 4. Trying to coax a heart cue bid for 6.
Larry Meyer: Dbl. Asking pard to bid 3NT if he has a spade stopper.
Michael Dimich: 4. Allows partner to cue bid at the 4 level.
David Hooey: 4. Slam is likely and cue bidding is the only way to get there.
Perry Khakhar: 4. If I can draw a 4 cue from partner, I can see slam (maybe a grand). The 3 bid by a passed hand must be a fit for diamonds.
Paul McMullin: 4. Maybe this will help partner decide what to do after I bid 6.
Hendrik Sharples: 6. I wish I knew if 3 was a limit raise or a preempt.
Mike Roberts: 6. Even if partner can cuebid both red suits (e.g., 4-4-4-5), I still don't see how to confidently get to 7. And I'm not willing to stop below 6.
Allan Simon: 4. This is a bid Rob Crawford taught me. LHO will surely bid 4 now and we've got them where we want them.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. . . since at least 5 is on the table.
Lars Erik Bergerud: 6. East has diamonds or more likely length in both majors since pard couldn't negative double. I just jump to the contract I believe we can make, but it will probably not keep the opps out of a good sacrifice in 6/6. Untactical? Yes.
Bob Kuz: 6. Bidding what i think I can make.
Kf Tung: 4. Good hand and slam interest in clubs.
|
| 3. IMPs. Both vul.
| |
---
A K J 8 6
9 7 5 4 3
J 6 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Pass
|
1NT
(1)
| |
|
Pass
|
2
|
Pass
| ? |
| (1) One-round force.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 7
| 100
|
|
4
| 3
| 70
|
|
2
| 1
| 60
|
|
3
| 4
| 50
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: The panel opt to raise diamonds.
August Boehm: 3. . . fit jump; if not a part of IYC, it should be.
Jeff Meckstroth: 4. It is tempting to bid five, but partner could just be 5-3-3-2.
Jill Meyers: 3. Partner doesn't even promise four diamonds. I don't have more than a 3 bid and I'm not bidding 2.
Barry Rigal: 2. I've looked stupid before. I wish 3 was fit. Arguably by a passed hand or if a direct 3 was natural and invitational, then 3 here should be fit. That discussion will have to wait.
Christopher Diamond: 3. In fantasy land he'll pattern out with 3.
Larry Meyer: 3. Keep the auction alive in case pard has extras. If he doesn't, he should be in a safe part score.
Michael Dimich: 2. If partner is 5-3-4-1 then 4 will play well.
Perry Khakhar: 5. Who knows! I know one thing: I don't want to miss a possibly making vulnerable game!
Paul McMullin: 3. Clearly a diamond contract, will bid 4 over 3NT and let pard decide about trying 5.
Hendrik Sharples: 3. If I bid 3 partner holds Q 10 x. If I bid 2 partner holds singleton deuce.
Mike Roberts: 3. A bit of an underbid. Maybe 3 should show this type of hand, but it's just hearts, invitational without discussion.
Allan Simon: 3. Too bad that in a bidding contest hosted by Bart we don't play the eponymous convention.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. It's called a courtesy raise. Always do that with 5.
Earle Fergusson: 2. Enough for now. Will bid diamonds if I get a chance.
Lars Erik Bergerud: 2. We may belong in 4 and partner may have only 3 diamonds in some cases. Shows tolerance for at least one of pard's suits so he is not supposed to pass with a singleton heart. 4 next.
Bob Kuz: 3. Normally, I play fit showing jumps. Sadly, not in this sequence.
Kf Tung: 3. Game interest with diamond fit. Will partner bid 3 with 5-3-4-1?
|
| 4. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
A K Q
A Q 7
7
J 9 6 5 4 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
1
| 10
| 100
|
|
3
| 2
| 60
|
|
2
| 1
| 50
|
|
2
| 1
| 50
|
|
2
| 1
| 30
|
|
2
| 0
| 30
|
|
3
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: Look at that list of possible calls. None of them are any good.
Steve Weinstein: 1. First time ever I'm rooting for partner not to raise my suit.
Steve Robinson: 3. There are four possible bad bids available: 1, 3, 2 and 3. So I'll choose what I think is the best of the bad.
Robert Sauve: 3. Least of all evils.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Tempted to bid 1. The hand from hell again. 3 should be something like this.
Larry Meyer: 3. The ruffing value and the great trump honours should compensate for the lack of a fourth trump.
Michael Dimich: 1. Keeps the auction moving.
David Hooey: 2. Enough for now. A heart raise looks right but 2 is too wimpy and 3 too much. When pard bids hearts or diamonds, I will bid 3.
Perry Khakhar: 3. I'd like to bid 3. That must be a splinter for hearts. But since we don't have clarity, 3 it is.
Paul McMullin: 1. Temporizing?
Hendrik Sharples: 1. No answer is very good, I've had good luck bidding 1 here.
Allan Simon: 3. The Lawrence convention. 3 is a splinter, 17-19 HCP (close enough!) and 3-card support.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. High enough opposite a silent partner. If he moves I can do more.
Earle Fergusson: 1. Hearts next time, if given the chance.
Lars Erik Bergerud: 1. Low and flexible, the smallest distortion and A K Q is normally at least as good as J 10 x x. 2 or 3 is too committal, you can always give preference to hearts later.
Bob Kuz: 3. I don't like my other choices of 2, 2, 2, 2NT or 3.
Kf Tung: 2. Forcing, tell me more.
|
| 5. IMPs. E-W vul.
| |
---
A Q 10 6
10 9 7 4 3
A K Q 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
1
|
Dbl
| |
|
Pass
|
1NT
|
2
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
Dbl
| 14
| 100
|
|
2NT
| 1
| 50
|
|
3
| 0
| 40
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 40
|
|
3
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: What's with all these penalty-sounding doubles holding a trump void? The panel overwhelmingly opt for a second double: the first double was for takeout; the second one also, but with extras.
Zachary Grossack: Dbl. Not penalty! A classic values, no-clear-direction double. With so few values in my long suit, I will offer partner some flexibility. Had I a concentration of values in my long suit, I would have chosen 3NT directly. I have nice defense if partner wants to defend, but partner must remember that the 2 bidder also takes the vulnerability into account when they bid.
Christopher Diamond: Dbl. Might be another choice but I don't know what it is.
Larry Meyer: 3NT. Bidding the most likely game.
Michael Dimich: Pass. You can't always treat your opponents as idiots. Your partner has a bid available if they are at the top of their range.
David Hooey: 2NT. Is this competitive or invitational?
Perry Khakhar: Dbl. Over to you pard! Clearly a cooperative double. Tricks, misfit and extra values. I have all of those! I will raise to 3NT as required if partner doesn't sit for this.
Paul McMullin: 3. I am probably going to get too high on this hand. Maybe everyone else will too.
Hendrik Sharples: Dbl. I play this as extras, not penalty.
Mike Roberts: 3. I'm not sure this still shows extras, but then again, I'm not sure I have them. I think double is a flatter hand.
Allan Simon: Dbl. If partner leaves it in, I'm okay with that.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: Pass. If 1NT is the most descriptive call I'll take my chances on defense.
Earle Fergusson: Pass. Not sure if either double or 2NT is takeout, so I am stuck with passing and pulling double to 2NT if given the chance.
Lars Erik Bergerud: Dbl. Extras and still takeout.
Bob Kuz: Dbl. Cooperative.
Kf Tung: Dbl. Good hand, I am angry with the 2 bid. I want to bid 3---RHO has given me the chance to show all 3 suits.
|
|
