TGIF June 2025: Scores
| 1. Matchpoints. N-S vul.
|
A 10 6 5
K Q 10 8 4
Q 4 3 2
---
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
1
|
Dbl
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 9
| 100
|
|
3
| 3
| 70
|
|
4
| 1
| 60
|
|
2
| 0
| 50
|
|
Rdbl
| 0
| 30
|
|
2
| 0
| 20
|
|
Moderator: The panel splinter to make the next round of the auction easier if/when the opponents bid 5.
Jeff Meckstroth: 4. In case a 5 call is coming, I want partner to have the picture.
Jill Meyers: 3. My first choice would be 2NT showing a four-card invitational-or-better raise. I could also cuebid.
David Waterman: 4. Downside: If the opponents end up in clubs, they know how to play the suit. Upside: Partner will know what to do in the auction. That is more important.
Craig T. Wilson: 4. Splinter.
Michael Dimich: 3. Three choices: 2, 3 (fit showing) or 4. 3 preempts West and gets partner off to the right lead in defense.
Christopher Diamond: 4. There could be magic.
Larry Meyer: 4. He who knows, goes. 11 HCP + upgrades for 4 trumps and a club void = enough for game.
Allan Simon: Pass. Partner can make this.
Paul McMullin: 3. If partner bids again, he'll probably make it.
Mike Roberts: 4. This gives a lot of information to everyone about my hand, but it feels appropriate (if 3 isn't fit-showing).
Lars Erik Bergerud: 4. Descriptive. Void, 4+ support in spades and opening values.
Kf Tung: 4. Best chance to buy 4. The slow route invites trouble.
Bruce Rogoff: 4. I'm not stopping short of game with this much power and shape, so let's see if we find some magic. Is K x x x x x A x x x x x x out of the question?
Louk Verhees: 4. I don't play a lot of matchpoints, so generally I use an IMP approach. You could bid 4 here directly.
Timothy Wright: 2. We have a 30-point deck, so I want to keep slam in mind.
Bob Todd: Rdbl. Hope to slow down the club sacrifice.
|
| 2. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
10
K 3
10 9 6 5
A K 9 8 5 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Pass
|
1NT
(1)
| |
|
Pass
|
2
|
Pass
| ? |
| (1) Forcing.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 7
| 100
|
|
2
| 3
| 80
|
|
3
| 0
| 60
|
|
3
| 1
| 50
|
|
3
| 1
| 50
|
|
Pass
| 1
| 40
|
|
Moderator: Should you raise? And if so, which suit? The majority make the strongest raise possible in diamonds.
Larry Cohen: 2. For starters, this hand is too strong for anything else. For newer readers: this is called the impossible 2 because I denied having that suit already. It is completely artificial.
Amber Lin: 2. I would rather show an invite, but at matchpoints, I'd also rather play in hearts and I'm less worried about missing game. If partner has 16+, they will bid again.
David Waterman: 2. I would like better trumps, but I think this is clear. Diamond fit and a super max.
Michael Dimich: 2. Every bid is flawed but 2 seems the least problematic.
Christopher Diamond: 2. This grew up quickly. The only issue with the impossible spade raise is it might let them in.
Larry Meyer: 5. He who knows, goes. 10 HCP and upgrades for spade shortness and club length means enough for game.
Allan Simon: 2. I have matchpointitis.
Paul McMullin: 3. 2 is a close second choice.
Lars Erik Bergerud: 3. Splinter, slam-positive without passing 3NT. Yes, they are weak diamonds, but excellent hearts and clubs.
Kf Tung: 2. Rule of Prudence. Will partner bid one more time?
Bruce Rogoff: 2. Given the opponents' silence there's an excellent chance partner is short in clubs, maybe 4-5-3-1. That doesn't help our hand, and majors is where the money is, so I'll content myself with 2.
Louk Verhees: 2. Easily feasible you make a game. Matchpoints convinces me to go low. It would have been good to know how many diamonds pard promises.
John McAllister: 2. Easy.
Timothy Wright: 2. Showing a good raise of diamonds is the best way to get to game when it is right.
Bob Todd: 3. Putting a diamond in my hearts.
|
| 3. Matchpoints. N-S vul.
| |
A 10 5
---
A J 10 8 4
Q J 9 8 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
1
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
1NT
| 6
| 100
|
|
2
| 3
| 80
|
|
3
| 3
| 70
|
|
1
| 1
| 50
|
|
2
| 0
| 50
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 20
|
|
Moderator: Here's a hand type that needs prior discussion with partner. Do you think 2 is natural? Or a forcing cuebid?
Mel Colchamiro: 2. . . hoping we can get it all sorted out later.
Barry Rigal: 2. 2 here is artificial, though I'd like it to be natural, of course. So I have to bid 1NT or 1. And while I believe 1 has many ways to win, I'll bid 1NT.
Kerri Sanborn: 3. My partnership plays this as natural and invitational. Certainly works here.
David Waterman: Pass. Very tough. 1 or 2 or even 1NT could work, but I will let him scramble for tricks at as low a level as possible.
Michael Dimich: 1. A little daring but it may work. Another awkward bidding hand.
Christopher Diamond: 1NT. And I'll be looking at 2 or 3 next bid. But I guess you have to bid something.
Larry Meyer: 1NT. Notrump is where the money is, but go slow with this misfit.
Allan Simon: 1NT. Nothing clever comes to mind.
Paul McMullin: 2. Seems right to show both my suits.
Mike Roberts: 2. I think this is natural, even though they opened 1.
Lars Erik Bergerud: 1NT. Pard will often rebid 2 and then I just have to say Pass. 2 may be interpreted as some degree of heart support.
Kf Tung: 1NT. To play.
Bruce Rogoff: 1. Kinky, but we have to do something, and everything else looks worse. I won't be upset if pard raises to two.
Louk Verhees: 1NT. You are kind of endplayed into bidding 1NT. 2 would be a cuebid of some sort.
John McAllister: 1NT. Tough, but really only one option.
Timothy Wright: 2. This hand got a lot worse all of a sudden.
Bob Todd: 2NT. Torn between 1N and 2N.
|
| 4. Matchpoints. E-W vul.
| |
A K 10
A Q 9 7 6 4
Q 4
A 6
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2NT
| 10
| 100
|
|
3
| 1
| 60
|
|
3NT
| 1
| 50
|
|
3
| 1
| 40
|
|
4
| 0
| 40
|
|
4
| 0
| 30
|
|
3
| 0
| 20
|
|
Moderator: Another variation of the Bridge World Death Hand. The panel majority treat it as a balanced 18-19 and rebid 2NT, in an effort to keep spades as a possible strain.
Larry Cohen: 3. There will never be a good answer in standard for this hand unless you play some form of Gazzilli. Sorry, students/readers: I don't plan on teaching or writing about it.
Steve Weinstein: 2NT. I'm not willing to miss a spade fit. Thanks for the Flannery advertisement!
Josh Donn: 3NT. . . showing a game force with six hearts and no shortness. It isn't ideal to have three good spades that partner can't find out about, but no other bid seems like an improvement.
Steve Robinson: 3. Of 3, 3 and 2NT, 3 is the best. This will teach partner not to respond 1 holding four low spades unless he's good at playing 4-3 fits.
David Waterman: 3. 2NT is clumsy, 3 an underbid that overstates the hearts, and any direct spade raise is lying about the trump length. Hence the manufactured jump shift. This will lead to a bad result if pard has 4 weakish ones.
Michael Dimich: 2NT. Seems clear cut.
Christopher Diamond: 2NT. Maybe we can check back to a spade fit.
Larry Meyer: 3. I really should have 4-card support to make this bid, but it's pretty good 3-card support, and the strength is right.
Allan Simon: 2NT. The Bridge World ghost hand!
Paul McMullin: 3. Wishing the Q was in a different suit.
Mike Roberts: 2NT. 3 is the value bid, but gives up on finding a 5-3 (or better) spade fit.
Lars Erik Bergerud: 2NT. Finds 5-3 in spades, but not 6-2 in hearts. The heart suit is not good enough for 3NT showing 3-6 in the majors.
Kf Tung: 2. I need room. Sorry for the inconvenience if any.
Bruce Rogoff: 2NT. A little strong for this, but should get us to the best strain if partner doesn't pass. Other options feel worse. Opening 2NT wouldn't have been terrible either.
Louk Verhees: 3. Horrible problem without special agreements. Choices are 3 or 2NT.
John McAllister: 3NT. Annoying.
Timothy Wright: 3. I would like better hearts for this, but you can't have everything.
|
| 5. Matchpoints. E-W vul.
| |
6 3
A K 6 5
A 8 4 3 2
A 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
2
|
Dbl
| |
|
3
|
Dbl
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
Pass
| 7
| 100
|
|
4
| 3
| 90
|
|
5
| 2
| 80
|
|
4
| 1
| 50
|
|
Moderator: The panel see blood in the water.
August Boehm: 4. Another polling question: Does partner deny four hearts or is he announcing two places to play (my preference)?
Zachary Grossack: Pass. Show me the money! Double shows points, not spades, may or may not have four hearts. I likely have four tricks vs red opponents.
David Waterman: Pass. This should be unanimous at this form of scoring and vulnerability.
Michael Dimich: 4. E/W vul probably have a 10 card fit. If so, all we need is a singleton spade with pard. 4 screams slam interest if pard has a singleton spade.
Christopher Diamond: 4. Can still find hearts if he has them. Hard time finding diamonds if I bid hearts.
Larry Meyer: 4. My worthless doubleton spade is telling me not to get too excited.
Allan Simon: Pass. Partner has fewer than 4 hearts. 5 is scary.
Paul McMullin: Pass. Yumm! Vulnerable undertricks!
Mike Roberts: Pass. Not guaranteed, but the conditions (vul, form of scoring) make this feel right.
Lars Erik Bergerud: 4. Responsive double at high level shows values without a clear direction. Pard will bid 4 if he happens to have 4 hearts together with long clubs.
Kf Tung: Pass. +500 is on the horizon.
Bob Zeller: Pass. This is an easy pass with them being vulnerable. I expect at least +500.
Bruce Rogoff: 4. Partner often has hearts, and reluctance to bid them himself since I haven't guaranteed four. I'd pass if one of my diamonds was a club: very close call.
Louk Verhees: Pass. Generally we play Dbl of 3 as game forcing. I am sure here we don't, so that does make it an awkward problem. Also Dbl doesn't deny 4 hearts. Shooting for a top.
Timothy Wright: 4. Partner has shown the minors, and I have a definite choice.
|
|
