TGIF June 2022: Scores
| 1. Matchpoints. None vul.
|
A K Q 7 6 3
Q 10 9 3
---
6 5 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
1
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 8
| 100
|
|
3
| 2
| 80
|
|
4
| 1
| 80
|
|
2
| 1
| 70
|
|
4
| 1
| 70
|
|
4NT
| 1
| 40
|
|
Moderator: Can you have too many ways to support partner? Bridge Bulletin Standard plays fit-showing jumps here, which gets the majority vote.
Jeff Meckstroth: 4. I'm giving up on slam to hopefully get a diamond lead. At IMPs, I would splinter looking for the possibility of bidding slam, but here I want to keep my hand a secret in hope of a favourable lead.
Barry Rigal: 2. I'm delighted we have a fit jump available. I plan, if allowed, to bid 4 next, then give up over a signoff.
Zachary Grossack: 3. . . should be a 10-card fit jump, whereas 2 would show nine cards in spades and hearts, both with four hearts. If partner gives it 4, I'll be calling for slamantha.
Stephen McConnell: 2. How do I keep from getting a club lead, yet find the right contract? 2 could be right. Don't like 4 with the void when I also have a solid spade suit. I need to get a better feel for how good or bad partner's hand is and if opener has anything more to say. If pard keeps discouraging, we'll stop in four, but six or seven are very much in play.
Craig T. Wilson: 3. Splinter.
Michael Dimich: 4. Hope this will get us a diamond lead.
David Waterman: 2. Splintering won't help. I need time to get him to appreciate his minimum hand with a club control.
Christopher Diamond: 2. A cunning person (McCully) would show a club void then use GSF. Being non-cunning I will coax a club cuebid then GSF.
Larry Meyer: 2. Cue bid to show limit raise or better support for hearts.
Perry Khakhar: 2. I play mini splinters, so 3 is a perfect bid allowing an easy club cue. 4 takes too much space, so compromise.
Allan Simon: 6. Rather than the scientific approach (diamond splinter, spade cue bid) I prefer to jump to slam and give East a lead problem. I don't expect many points in your contest, but that's my call!
Paul McMullin: 2. Expecting partner to rebid 2 if his overcall was just a lead director; will bid game over 2, or splinter if he bids anything else.
Kf Tung: 4. Slam potential. Shows short diamonds, 4 trumps.
Earle Fergusson: 2. Followed by exclusion Blackwood.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. I like this hand enough.
|
| 2. IMPs. Both vul.
| |
10 7 6 2
10 2
A 10 7
A 10 4 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
Pass
| |
|
2
(1)
|
4
(2)
|
Pass
| ? |
| (1) Weak.
| | (2) Both majors.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
5
| 5
| 100
|
|
5
| 4
| 90
|
|
4
| 4
| 80
|
|
6
| 1
| 50
|
|
4NT
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: A 3-way race between a signoff (4) and two types of slam tries (5, 5). 5 gets the nod.
Daniel Korbel: 5. . . a slam try in an unspecified major. I think I'm a little too strong to bid only 4.
Mike Lawrence: 4. Because we don't have a guaranteed game, I'm not looking for a slam.
Stephen McConnell: 5. If pard is 6-6, one of my aces is worthless. Having four spades and a doubleton heart is a real plus. I'll let pard decide how good their majors are.
Michael Dimich: 5. I have too much to bid only 4.
David Waterman: 4. A guess.
Stephen Vincent: 5. 4 doesn't exactly leave much room for slam investigation does it?
Christopher Diamond: 4. Huge hand but no way to cheaply investigate. I got got.
Larry Meyer: 4. If partner has the cards needed for slam, he will bid again.
Perry Khakhar: 5. We could be holding x x x x x Q x x K J x x x. Partner forced to game and we have 4 trumps and 2 outside Aces!
Allan Simon: 4. Partner rarely has the perfect hand.
Paul McMullin: 4. Partner had other lines to use with a strong hand.
Kf Tung: 5NT. Now partner cannot go wrong.
Earle Fergusson: 5. Too good for 4.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. Should be enough unless partner has significant extras.
|
| 3. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
7
9 6 4
A Q 8
J 9 8 7 5 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
1NT
| 7
| 100
|
|
1
| 6
| 90
|
|
Pass
| 1
| 50
|
|
3
| 0
| 20
|
|
2
| 0
| 10
|
|
2
| 0
| 10
|
|
Moderator: The panel are split between the standard 1NT and the sneaky 3-card major.
Steve Robinson: 1. I rarely do this, but I think this is the hand to have a club mixed in with my hearts. I hate bidding 1NT with a singleton spade.
Stephen McConnell: 1NT. What else? You are not asking me to bid 2 on a three-card suit, are you? Can't do it.
Michael Dimich: 1NT. I would like to bid 1 but nobody on the panel will consider it, so 1NT (wrong sided) it is.
David Waterman: 1NT. What else?
Stephen Vincent: 1NT. I'm too unimaginative to bid anything else.
Christopher Diamond: 2. Doesn't look notrump-y. This might help him more if he's got a big hand.
Larry Meyer: 1NT. Show a sign of life while denying a 4-card major.
Perry Khakhar: 1. Might play ok even if partner raises. 1NT is totally out of the question with this hand.
Allan Simon: 1NT. I think I'm stuck with 1N. At least it's not a lie, like the alternatives.
Paul McMullin: 2. Looking for the cheapest disaster.
Kf Tung: 1NT. Promise partner 7 points.
Earle Fergusson: 1NT. No second choice.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 1NT. The systemic bid.
|
| 4. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
7 6 3
K Q 7 6 5 3
4
A K 10
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
2
|
2
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 7
| 100
|
|
3
| 1
| 70
|
|
3
| 2
| 70
|
|
4
| 2
| 70
|
|
3
| 2
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: The panel keep it simple: 4.
Janice Molson: 3. I hate this hand. Anything could be right. I don't really have the high-card values for 3, but that might get us back to hearts. So ... 3?
Steve Robinson: 4. . . diamond shortness with spade support. This allows partner to bid 4 to encourage and I'll sign off. If he has A K Q and an ace, we'll get to slam.
Kerri Sanborn: 4. My hearts are not good enough to rebid; my hand is not good enough for game. It's possible we will miss game, but unlikely.
Stephen McConnell: 4. 3 is not forcing. I'm light on standard point count, but heavy on trick-taking ability in spades. 3 is also a possibility, but I don't want to get too carried away.
Michael Dimich: 3. I have enough to raise --- the rest is up to partner.
David Waterman: 3. What else?
Christopher Diamond: 3. Better spades would be nice but looks like it's worth a try.
Larry Meyer: 3. Support with support.
Perry Khakhar: 4. The practical bid! Partner has shown 5+ spades, and invitational+ values. I will bid game!
Allan Simon: 3. The problem with 3 is that partner may well rebid 3N and I will be tempted to correct that to 4. Better to show your spade support now, such as it is.
Paul McMullin: 3. I would want better spade support before I would splinter in diamonds!
Kf Tung: 3. Support spades, will show 6 hearts later if appropriate.
Earle Fergusson: 4. Don't want to miss game or encourage slam.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. Agreement: I play this as 8-11, but North America plays it forcing.
|
| 5. IMPs. N-S vul.
| |
K 7 2
A K Q J 5 3
3
Q J 9
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
2
|
2
|
5
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
6
| 7
| 100
|
|
5
| 6
| 90
|
|
6
| 1
| 70
|
|
5
| 0
| 50
|
|
Dbl
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: There was much to decide on both level and strain: you have extras and two viable suits to play. The overwhelming majority choose hearts.
August Boehm: 6. An old-fashioned slam try. Even if we're overboard, at this vulnerability, opponents often save.
Jill Meyers: 5. I am not supporting spades with six solid hearts. Partner is going to know I have a good hand by bidding vulnerable vs not at the five level. I don't have to push myself higher.
Stephen McConnell: 6. I hate preempts. Based on partner's vulnerable bid, 6 it is.
Michael Dimich: 5. Robbed of bidding space so a conservative call in some respects.
David Waterman: 6. A guess.
Stephen Vincent: 6. Might make: might provoke a bid of 7.
Christopher Diamond: 6. I'm sick of being pushed around this set. With nothing else outside spades he's likely to have the A.
Larry Meyer: 6. Partner promised a good hand, so expect him to have values in both black suits.
Perry Khakhar: 5. Vulnerable game has to be bid. Easily could be a slam, but no safety. We may easily be missing two cashing Aces. No way to tell.
Allan Simon: 6. They will probably sac anyway. I prefer playing in hearts, as I might survive a 4-1 break in spades if partner has A Q x x x x x x x A K x x.
Paul McMullin: 5. Guessing game --- this may make 4, 5, 6, or 7 spades. I try for a plus score.
Kf Tung: 5. If we miss 2 Aces partner can pass or correct to 5. If not he should move on to small or grand slam in hearts or spades.
Earle Fergusson: 6. Can't do less. A Q x x x and A gives a good play, but if they cash 2 quickies, c'est le vie.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 6. Since AQ-A gives play, I'll try for the optimum.
|
|
