TGIF July 2026: Scores
| 1. IMPs. Both vul.
|
A J 6
A 4
A K J 9 7 6 4 2
---
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
2
| |
|
3
|
Dbl
(1)
|
Pass
| ? |
| (1) No ace or king; two queens max.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3NT
| 12
| 100
|
|
5
| 4
| 70
|
|
4
| 1
| 60
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: Though many of the problems this month come from play in the Greensboro NC Regional, the moderator gave a lovely shout out to the Penticton Regional in his preamble.
Josh Donn: 3NT. This seems like the game with the best chance of making. Even if a club lead will kill me, why should I expect a 3 overcaller to find it?
August Boehm: 4. 3NT is a thought, but the gamble runs the twin risks of surviving clubs and running diamonds; if they don't run, minus 500 is possible.
Barry Rigal: 5. I'm not worried 4 isn't intended as forcing. It is. But 5 seems where I want to play. Yes 3NT might make, but my cardiologist has warned me against such actions. (And my partner's even more at risk than me.)
Michael Dimich: 4. Give partner a chance to offer a 4 bid if they hold 5 or 6 spades to the queen. 3NT is for all the luck sacks who haven't been punished enough yet.
David Waterman: 3NT. Seems like the most practical bid.
Christopher Diamond: 5. Most likely game.
Larry Meyer: 5. Even if partner only has 2 small diamonds and the Q, 11 tricks are likely.
Perry Khakhar: 3NT. Doesn't even feel like our hand, yet we have an opportunity to steal a vulnerable game!
Paul McMullin: 5. Maybe this will make!
Hendrik Sharples: 3NT. Now that slam is out of the question I'll guess what pays best if it's right.
Ranjan Bhaduri: 4. If partner had passed 3, what would it have meant?
Louk Verhees: 3NT. Tough proposition. Can bid 5 or 3N. Not so likely they lead a club.
Timothy Wright: 4. When I bid 2, I was planning on being in 3NT or 5, unless partner had a bust and no fit. Hence 4.
Mike Roberts: 4. Given that I opened this 2, I have a minimum. Who knows - partner might bid 4?
Bob Todd: 5. 3NT is too much for me at IMPs.
Gareth Birdsall: 5. Weird agreement. Does that mean pass shows something like at least an A, a K or 2Q and a J?
|
| 2. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
3
6
A Q J 9 8 3
A 10 9 8 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
1
(1)
| ? |
| (1) Strong, 16+HCP, any shape. In BBS, 1NT, 2NT and 4NT all show minors.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2NT
| 8
| 100
|
|
4NT
| 4
| 80
|
|
4
| 2
| 70
|
|
3
| 0
| 60
|
|
1
| 2
| 50
|
|
1NT
| 1
| 50
|
|
2
| 0
| 50
|
|
Moderator: The panel favour the 2-suited overcalls, despite the disparity in suit length and quality.
Larry Cohen: 4NT. Wouldn't 3NT also show minors? That's about the level I want, but because you are making me choose between 2NT and 4NT, I'll take the high road. Even if it is wrong, it may be right (pushing them too high).
Janice Molson: 2NT. Too big to bid 4NT because I could be going minus on our plus hand. 1NT isn't enough with this distribution.
Daniel Korbel: 1. I'll bid clubs next.
Sheri Winestock: 4. It is commonly held that you don't show a two-suiter when the higher suit is longer and stronger as partner will preference to the lower suit with equal length. That being said, I would like to take up a lot of room to make it uncomfortable for the opponents to find their best fit. Jump ball.
Michael Dimich: 2NT. 4NT is too unilateral.
Samuel Krikler: 2NT. Take up some bidding room but don't overdo it until you know more about the West hand.
David Waterman: 2NT. . . and I might show further signs of life. 2NT is plenty high enough to throw a spanner in their works.
Christopher Diamond: 2NT. I want 3NT to show minors also.
Larry Meyer: 2NT. 6-5, come alive. Take the middle road of the NT choices given.
Perry Khakhar: 3. Gotta block the majors if possible. I'd rather bid 1 (CRASH) showing 2 suits same rank to get both my suits in. But not standard BBS.
Paul McMullin: 2NT. Might as well preempt them a bit.
Hendrik Sharples: 1. Six bagger before the 5-card suit.
Louk Verhees: 1. Choice between 1 (going slow) or some number of notrump. The problem is the difference in suits. I start with 1 and bid until 5-level if needed.
Timothy Wright: 2NT. I expect to make 9 or 10 tricks in a minor.
Mike Roberts: 1. I'm going to compete to 4m, but not 5 (by myself). I want partner to know my shape because they'd pick clubs with 2-2 or 3-3 in the minors over xNT.
Bob Todd: 3NT. Try and involve partner.
Gareth Birdsall: 4. Still gives a tricky problem without giving a blueprint of my hand.
|
| 3. IMPs. E-W vul.
| |
9
J 6 4 2
Q 7 6 5 4 2
6 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 11
| 100
|
|
4
| 4
| 70
|
|
1
| 2
| 60
|
|
5
| 0
| 30
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: The panel preempt in diamonds, even though the hand has a 4-card major.
Kerri Sanborn: 3. I'm more concerned with preemption than accuracy. I have admiration for 4, but that's my limit!
James Holzhauer: 4. No point in mentioning hearts, and I want to shut out spades.
Zachary Grossack: 1. Certainly not passing. Why not show my four-card major on the way? We could have a huge double fit. The question is this: If partner rebids 2NT, do I just gamble 3NT?
Michael Dimich: 1. Bridge Bulletin bidding bible says 2= GF, 3= limit, so I am stuck. I will bid 1 and hope we have an undisturbed auction and play XYZ.
David Waterman: 4. Even if we have a double fit, we will likely be defending spades, and diamonds will be better. Best to make life as difficult as possible for them.
Christopher Diamond: 4. . . since apparently I can't use 3. I'd be more reluctant if my major was spades.
Larry Meyer: 4. Bid to the level of the expected fit.
Perry Khakhar: Pass. I don't think we're stopping them. 3 preemptive will simply get them to move when right. If partner has the 18-19, 3 will bring 3NT which likely goes down.
Paul McMullin: Pass. Feels like bidding misleads partner and gets me in trouble.
Hendrik Sharples: 3. Looks like a preempt to me.
Louk Verhees: 4. 3 fine too.
Timothy Wright: 4. Time to make West guess.
Mike Roberts: 3. If I bid 1, and the opps bid to 4, partner will think I have values when I bid 5.
|
| 4. IMPs. None vul.
| |
K 10 9 6 5 4
10 9 7 2
2
7 5
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Dbl
(1)
| ? |
| (1) In BBS, 3 = weak, 3 = mixed raise.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 11
| 100
|
|
4
| 4
| 60
|
|
3
| 2
| 50
|
|
2
| 0
| 40
|
|
1
| 0
| 20
|
|
Moderator: The majority treat this hand as a weak raise.
Josh Donn: 3. 4 is enterprising, but the opponents don't have a spade fit, so I don't feel as much urge to blast. This hand is light in high cards for a mixed raise, but I expect the distribution to compensate.
Daniel Korbel: 4. I bid 3 and the table and it didn't work out. So I'll bid 4 this time.
Jeff Meckstroth: 3. Not worth a mixed raise in my opinion. Definitely a good weak raise.
Michael Dimich: 3. The hand is too distributional and weak for a mixed raise.
David Waterman: 3. No point in bidding 4. It is not as if LHO was going to bid spades.
Christopher Diamond: 4. After forgetting to enter last month I have my bidding boots on.
Larry Meyer: 3. Bid to the level of the fit.
Perry Khakhar: 4. I know what to do for 4. But I don't need to mislead partner. Of course, a diamond mini-splinter would be great.
Bob Kuz: 4. Where is my fit-showing jump bid?
Paul McMullin: 3. Seems descriptive.
Hendrik Sharples: 3. I'm too old to bid 4.
Louk Verhees: 3. Weird hand. Could bid mixed but still a stretch. At equal vulnerability, weak should show something.
Timothy Wright: 3. This is why we play 3 as weak.
Mike Roberts: 3. Close to a mixed raise, but these hands can collapse quickly.
Bob Todd: 3. This would be stretching the limits of a mixed raise but it might work.
|
| 5. Matchpoints. E-W vul.
| |
Q J 9 7 3 2
A 3
9
A K Q 5
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
2
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 17
| 100
|
|
3
| 0
| 70
|
|
2NT
| 0
| 40
|
|
3
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: Not a lot of variety in our panel's picks. We will see how they handle the follow-up next month.
Steve Robinson: 2. Shows at least five spades and is forcing. I play that a 3 raise by partner shows two spades, and 4 or 4 shows three spades with 4 showing short clubs. If partner has short spades, he can bid 2NT or 3 to show a minimum reverse. 3 by my partner would show a game-forcing reverse.
Harrison Luba: 2. . . forcing, getting more information from partner. Over 3, I'll happily bid 3NT. Over 3, it's a little tougher, but I think I'm happy bidding 4.
Michael Dimich: 3. The old adage about bidding where I live. If partner rebids diamonds I can offer 3.
Samuel Krikler: 3. Agreements vary after a reverse, but this bid is unconditionally GF.
David Waterman: 3. This is natural, so might as well bid out my powerful hand.
Christopher Diamond: 3. No idea where I'm going. Maybe he can help.
Larry Meyer: 4. 3 would either be fourth suit or Lebensohl, so bid out my shape and show my extra values.
Perry Khakhar: 3. Natural and GF. Also takes up the least space. We may inevitably end up in 3NT brute force contract with this misfit.
Paul McMullin: 3. Should be a GF. Let's explore!
Hendrik Sharples: 2. I play 3 artificial so don't have that choice.
Ranjan Bhaduri: 3. Fourth suit forcing.
Louk Verhees: 2. Assuming forcing for 1 round.
Timothy Wright: 3. To be followed by 3.
Mike Roberts: 2. Mandatory start, and 3 chews up a lot of room. I suspect partner is x-5-6-x.
|
|
