TGIF November 2024: Scores
| 1. Matchpoints. None vul.
|
9 8 6 5
A 8 7 4
K 7 5 4
9
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
1NT
|
Pass
|
2
| |
|
Pass
|
2
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 8
| 100
|
|
2NT
| 4
| 80
|
|
Pass
| 3
| 70
|
|
Moderator: A garbage Stayman hand gone wrong? The majority opt to play a 4-3 fit at the 2-level.
Daniel Korbel: 2NT. Yuck. I could pass, but that could be even sillier. I have enough high-card points to have a hope to make 2NT or even 3NT.
Jill Meyers: Pass. My choices are pass and 2NT. I don't really want partner to accept a notrump invitation. I have a 7-count with no spots so I will take my shot and pass.
Zachary Grossack: 2. The 2 bid is certainly up for debate! But now that I'm here, I will try to avoid going minus as is likely in 2NT, opting instead for a hopeful 4-3 major-suit fit. I have bad spots for notrump.
Michael Dimich: 2. Scramble time at matchpoints.
Christopher Diamond: Pass. Well here's another nice mess you've gotten me into. I suppose the plan was to pass so I do. 2NT is a stretch and I don't know if junk Stayman applies.
Stephen Vincent: 2NT. Partner has a distressing tendency to hold a 3325 distribution in this situation.
Larry Meyer: Pass. Game prospects are unlikely, so let partner play in a suit he has not denied.
Paul McMullin: 2NT. At least partner should know where most of the missing honors are.
Kf Tung: 2. I have AK and singleton club, and still want to find 2, 2, 2N.
Hendrik Sharples: 2NT. Why did I bid??? Now I get to choose between 2 and 2NT. Yum I guess will follow up with more craziness.
Mike Roberts: Pass. Yes, the lack of a 2 call by them (or a double of 2) means that this could be a 4-2 fit. But it might not, NT could play badly, and if we could make 2NT, we'll be in 3NT down 1.
|
| 2. IMPs. None vul.
| |
A K 10 7 4 3
Q J
A Q J 8
5
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
2
|
Pass
|
2
(1)
| |
|
Pass
|
3
|
Pass
| ? |
| (1) Artificial, forcing to game.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 5
| 100
|
|
3
| 4
| 90
|
|
3NT
| 1
| 60
|
|
3
| 2
| 60
|
|
4NT
| 2
| 60
|
|
4
| 1
| 50
|
|
6NT
| 0
| 20
|
|
Moderator: You've set up a force, so what now?
Steve Weinstein: 3. Give partner as much room as possible. 3 should show a doubleton honour, but most would expect three.
Daniel Korbel: 4NT. . . natural, quantitative, nonforcing. Not perfect. I'm not lying about what trump is with 3. My second choice is 3.
Steve Robinson: 3. I know that 3 shows three hearts, but Q-J doubleton looks like three. If partner raises to 4 to show a minimum opener, I'll pass. If he bids something else, I'll force to slam. All other bids do not allow opener to show a weak opener or an extra-strength opener. Setting trumps ASAP allows the partnership to explore slam.
Kerri Sanborn: 3. So many things to say, so little room. Facing a doubleton spade, we could easily have slam, but opposite a stiff or void, game is probably the limit. I feel like 3 could still be three-card support, and I would not know what to do over 4. So let's buy a little time.
Michael Dimich: 3. Seems too obvious and gives partner room to show a doubleton spade.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Walk it and investigate. Don't want to lock into hearts yet.
Stuart Carr: 3. See if partner bids spades. Final contract may be hearts, spades or NT.
Larry Meyer: 3. We're in a game force, so I can bid out my shape and keep our options open.
Paul McMullin: 3. Torn between 3 and 3 - so I am sure neither of those gets 100!
Kf Tung: 3. Show the 6 spades.
Louk Verhees: 3. I want to hear (voluntarily) if partner has 2 spades or not. With 2 he will bid 3, otherwise 3/3NT.
Hendrik Sharples: 3NT. Lots of points, 12 tricks seems far away. Even I should be able to make 3NT.
Mike Roberts: 3. 3 is right if pard has the 10. 5-6 against.
|
| 3. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
J 9 8 6 4 2
5
A Q 5
Q 3 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
2
|
3
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3NT
| 8
| 100
|
|
Pass
| 6
| 90
|
|
3
| 1
| 50
|
|
4
| 0
| 30
|
|
3
| 0
| 20
|
|
Moderator: Of the many viable options, the panelists settle on two: 3NT or Pass.
Mel Colchamiro: 3NT. Many choices here: 3NT, 3, 4, pass. How strong is partner? Opener could have anything from a shapely two-suiter to a 5-4 hand with solid values. Passing and 4 expose my diamonds to the opening lead, and 3 makes it a practical impossibility to reach 3NT. I bid 3NT. But really, who knows?
Josh Donn: Pass. Players will regularly stretch this bid with minimal 5-5 hands. Because partner didn't make a support double, our best spade fit is 6-2 and it might easily be worse. So 3 it is.
Michael Dimich: 3NT. Partner did bid over 2.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Sorry Bob Hamman. Give a chance to show spade help. Assume he has a decent hand. Will bid 3NT over 3.
Larry Meyer: 3. This hand will take more tricks if spades are trump.
Paul McMullin: 3. I want to give partner a chance to offer a 3 bid before I land us in a club contract.
Kf Tung: 3NT. Usually it will be 3N in the end.
Louk Verhees: Pass. Could be 9 top tricks in 3NT (on diamond lead). Or not.
John McAllister: 3NT. Tough!
Hendrik Sharples: 3NT. If partner has trash I've chosen poorly. I think 3 shows extras.
Mike Roberts: 3NT. Especially if, due to support doubles, 3 denies three spades.
|
| 4. Matchpoints. E-W vul.
| |
A 10
K J 9 8 2
J 7
9 7 5 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
Pass
|
1NT
| |
|
Pass
|
2
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
Pass
| 8
| 100
|
|
2NT
| 3
| 80
|
|
3
| 3
| 70
|
|
2
| 1
| 50
|
|
Moderator: The panel majority duck and cover on a misfit deal.
Larry Cohen: 2NT. Partner should have extras, so I'm worth this invitational move. For notrump purposes, I have ample coverage/stoppers in their short suit.
Amber Lin: 3. My heart values don't look very useful, but I need to make a courtesy raise in case my partner has a big hand.
Barry Rigal: Pass. This is an unambiguously natural 2 limited by the failure to bid 3.
Michael Dimich: 2NT. Great value cards in hearts and secondary fits in partner's suits.
Christopher Diamond: 2NT. Strong spots and minor honors in his suits rate an upgrade.
Larry Meyer: 2. Hoping to go plus by taking a false preference to partner's expected 5-card suit.
Paul McMullin: 3. Is there a second choice?
Kf Tung: 3. I have 4 clubs. Partner will take care of the rest.
Louk Verhees: 3. Partner can have up to 16/17. Could pass.
John McAllister: 3NT. I hate this game.
Hendrik Sharples: 3. Partner could easily have enough for game.
Mike Roberts: 2NT. I'm not that happy about this, and would pass at IMPs. But if 2NT makes, +110 will be bad.
|
| 5. IMPs. None vul.
| |
K 8 7 6 5 4 2
K
A 9 8
Q 9
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1NT
(1)
|
Pass
|
2
| |
|
Pass
|
2NT
|
Pass
| ? |
| (1) Forcing.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 13
| 100
|
|
4
| 1
| 60
|
|
Pass
| 1
| 50
|
|
3NT
| 0
| 20
|
|
Moderator: The overwhelming majority plug away with 3.
August Boehm: Pass. Don't have to stretch for every nonvul game.
Jeff Meckstroth: 4. It could be right to play 3NT, but spades is my best bet.
Zachary Grossack: 3. Generally when we have a long, poor suit, it fares better to play in it as trump. In notrump, you often will not have time to set up the suit in its entirety. While I think 4 would be too much, I will offer this suit for a third time.
Michael Dimich: 3. I do have 7 spades and am not interested in going further in spades unless partner has some support here.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Will probably play better in spades. He can go if he wants to.
Larry Meyer: 3. This hand will take more tricks if spades are trump.
Paul McMullin: 3. Minimum HCP, extra spade... We CAN stop short of game here.
Kf Tung: 3. AKKQ and 7 spades. That's all I have.
Louk Verhees: 3. Could be right to pass. Just not doing it.
Hendrik Sharples: 3. Hoping partner has more than 0 spades.
Mike Roberts: 3. I'm not sure if this is 100% non-forcing, but it seems accurate. Partner could be void, so I can't just bid 4.
|
|
