TGIF December 2009: Scores
| 1. Matchpoints. N-S vul.
|
---
Q 9 8
A K 7 6 4 3
A 8 4 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
2
|
Dbl
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 11
| 100
|
|
3NT
| 2
| 80
|
|
4
| 3
| 60
|
|
5
| 0
| 30
|
|
2NT
| 1
| 10
|
|
Moderator: South can play in diamonds, clubs or notrump, but has no idea how high. Eleven experts trot out the all-purpose cuebid.
Don Stack: 3NT. In diamonds, we might make anything from four to seven. If this were IMPs, it would be an even tougher problem, and we would surely have to explore for slam. At matchpoints, I am going to take what is going to be a great score.
Larry Cohen: 3. This problem looks familiar - maybe I have answered so many panel questions that they all start to look familiar. There's no rush to bid some number of diamonds or a matchpoint-sick 3NT.
Kerri Sanborn: 4. In the age of Lebensohl, 4 should be forcing. Sure, it's possible that 3NT is the top-scoring contract, but this hand is so slammish, that it's worth the investigation.
Michael Dimich: 3. A nasty problem .. options are a pig 3NT, a deep pass, or a gusto 3 hoping for the right shape from partner.
Eugene Chan: 4NT. I am prepared to play 5 and hope partner figures out I have extras with longer diamonds than clubs.
Stephen Vincent: 3. The real problems will come later.
Eurydice Nours: 3. Since Lebenshol over weak 2 is in place, 3 is a game going bid.
Yue Su: 3. A cuebid shows GF values and keeps open the possibility for 3N.
Martin Henneberger: 3NT. Since 3 isn't forcing I will bid the practical matchpoint game of 3NT. Looking for a magical minor suit slam will lead to a lesser scoring contract when slam isn't there, not to mention how to look!
Larry Meyer: 3. Cue bid to show strength, will bid diamonds next round.
Mike Hamilton: 3. An extension of Lebensohl allows a cue-bid followed by 4 over partner’s 3 or 3NT to show a game-going hand or better in diamonds. I prefer this to a direct 4 because it better signals the option to bid beyond game.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4. 3NT will probably go down if West underleads his A K x x x x, and 5 could fall victim to an uppercut unless partner has a maximum. I will take the (probably unpopular) safe road.
Kai Zhou: 3. A necessary lie, but what else can I do?
Mike Roberts: 3. I don't know where we're going, but this has to be the start.
Kees Schaafsma: 4. Assuming Lebensohl, this is game-forcing.
Merv Adey: 4. Tempted to bid 3 only in case partner thinks he has a spade monster, but I have too much for that don't I? At least 4 is forcing.
Paul Mcmullin: 3. Partner isn't done telling me about his spades.
Chris Buchanan: 3. Shows values; if partner has a non-minimum they will bid again and if they pass, this is likely the limit of the hand.
David Gordon: 3. Start by setting a game force and then bid diamonds.
Ben Ong: 2NT. Presumably this means minors, with the intent of bidding diamonds again.
Brian Zietman: 4. I hate to by-pass 3NT but surely we have at least game if not slam in one of the minors.
Chris Diamond: 2NT. Ugly. I can't Q playing Lebensohl so will probably bid 3NT next and hope I get some MP's. Good place for transfer advances.
Perry Khakhar: 3. Tough to tell whether the limit of the hand is 3NT or a slam in a minor. I think I need more input from partner, so punt!
Amiram Millet: 3NT. The only practical bid.
|
| 2. IMPs. None vul.
| |
2
A K 7 5
---
K Q J 9 7 6 5 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
1
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
5
| 7
| 100
|
|
6
| 3
| 60
|
|
1NT
| 3
| 20
|
|
2
| 1
| 10
|
|
2
| 1
| 10
|
|
2NT
| 1
| 10
|
|
Pass
| 1
| 10
|
|
3NT
| 0
| 0
|
|
Moderator: When you have a freak, there is often no right or wrong bid. The panelists want to bid their clubs, but are worried that any number of clubs will imply spade support.
The Gordons: 1NT. We were taught never to put an eight-card suit down as dummy. We don't expect the auction to die, and we will later bid clubs naturally. We don't see any other way to do so without bidding 1NT first.
Allan Falk: 1NT. I can't naturally bid any number of clubs this round, short of 6. 2 is a cuebid, 3 is a mixed raise, 4 is a splinter and 5 is exclusion Blackwood. I can't pass 1, so the best hope is that East doubles, to let me back in with a natural club bid.
Mike Lawrence: 6. Any lesser number of clubs is artificial. I think we should play in clubs, and this is the easiest way to do it.
Jeff Meckstroth: 2. This is an impossible problem with no good answer.
Barry Rigal: 2NT. I feel like abstaining, but life is too short. 2NT will likely not end matters. Anything I bid is ridiculous.
Steve Robinson: 1NT. There is no bid to describe long clubs here. Maybe someone will bid over 1NT and I'll get another chance. I expect to hear someone bid diamonds.
Kerri Sanborn: 2. This hand is too freaky. When you hold a surprise for partner, try and let him in on the secret.
The Sutherlins: 5. Our best chance must be to play in clubs. Partner will understand that this is to play and not a super splinter. If a 4-4 fit exists, it may still be better to play in clubs.
Brad Bart: 1NT. I've seen this hand before. Pard has the A and enough to cover the majors, but trumps break 4-x to go down in 6.
Michael Dimich: 5. 2 = spade fit, 3 = fit showing, 4 = splinter... I'm left with a practical Vincent IMP bid of 5.
Eugene Chan: 3NT. I have club stoppers and entries, a practical bid. If partner assumes I have a balanced hand, my next bid of 5 should clarify matters.
Stephen Vincent: Pass. This may lead to a silly result if LHO passes but it's going to be impossible to describe this hand to partner by bidding now.
Yue Su: 2. I think this one is the hardest in 5 questions.
Martin Henneberger: 1NT. I certainly want to slow this auction down with a potential misfit, however I owe partner a bid. The best way to show values and slow the auction is to bid 1NT. Any club bid won't be natural at first strike, however later it can be.
Larry Meyer: 3NT. Rolling the dice, either it will pay off, or I will have to apologize to pard.
Mike Hamilton: 2. With 9 playing tricks in clubs, I’ll bid as if West passed. East might be trapping spades and my suit might be the only one at the table that can stand bad breaks. If we don’t find hearts, I might end up bidding what I think I can make.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2. I have 9 tricks. Probably should make a forcing bid.
Kai Zhou: 2. I can bid the clubs to the 5 level, so my partner can pass. :)
Mike Roberts: 1NT. This hand is close to worthless if partner is void in clubs, unless we play in clubs.
Kees Schaafsma: 5. No, no voidwood. Pard has short clubs, so I can't have a void.
Bob Todd: 2. . . then I hope to recover. I'm sure an immediate 5 would be treated as exclusion and probably a delayed 5 may also be misconstrued!!
Merv Adey: 2. This is obviously going to be ugly, but I don't think 5 exclusion would help matters..
Paul Mcmullin: 2. Sometimes you are stuck with bidding what you have.
John Gillespie: 3NT. . . and pray. The pointed suits are semi-balanced.
Chris Buchanan: 2. Where do they find these hands? (Ed: Cam Doner.) This seems like the best action at this time.
David Gordon: 2. Dbl! Oh wait .. uh .. pretend you have 5 hearts and bid...
Ben Ong: 2. Maybe opponents play 1 forcing. No reason to not bid 2 here.
Brian Zietman: 2. Must hear another bid from partner.
Chris Diamond: 2. I'm probably going to bid clubs until he believes me. Hoping for 5 but probably 6. Good spot for transfer advances.
Perry Khakhar: 3NT. Partner failed to make a take out double even though he is very short in clubs. Worst possible holding would be 5251! In which case if they attack hearts on the go, we may not even be able to scramble 9 tricks. But it is IMPs and Hamman's rule applies.
Amiram Millet: 2. Will clarify later. Might still have a game in hearts, clubs or NT.
|
| 3. IMPs. Both vul.
| |
10 9 6 5
Q 5
A 4
Q J 9 6 5
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
Pass
|
Pass
| |
|
1
|
Dbl
|
2
(1)
| ? |
| (1) Weaker than if North had passed.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 10
| 100
|
|
Dbl
| 6
| 90
|
|
3
| 1
| 30
|
|
3
| 0
| 10
|
|
Moderator: All panelists take an approach to find a game in spades. But there is general disagreement about what to do about the club suit.
Jeff Meckstroth: 2. This hand is not worth any more at this point. If we have a game, partner will bid again.
Barry Rigal: Dbl. Double denies spades or shows a balanced raise to 3, suggesting only four spades. With spades and competitive values, I bid them.
Jill Meyers: 3. I think they will compete to 3, and then I will bid 3. If I bid 2 and they compete to 3, I don't want to bid 4.
The Coopers: 2. What's the problem? If we have a game, 4 is the most likely one. The hand is not strong enough for any other action.
Eugene Chan: 3. Bad spades. Dubious queen of hearts. Still have opportunity to show spades if opps compete in hearts.
Stephen Vincent: 2. This is most likely to get us to game if such exists. Q x is almost a minus value.
Martin Henneberger: 2. I have the right values to compete with 2. I considered bidding 3 but then I would be guessing to bid 3 over 3. I don't like having to guess at a higher level so I bid spades now as partner may only have 3.
Larry Meyer: Dbl. Showing values, asking pard to bid a suit.
Mike Hamilton: 3. I have invitational values for a spade contract, but a cue-bid here shows spades and a minor. This extra information might help us reach the best contract. Spades will play one trick better from partner’s side at least half the time.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2. I have 9 poor quality points. Same bid I would make if East hadn't intervened.
Kai Zhou: 2. 3 is also OK, but do not think I would be given another chance to bid 3.
Julien Levesque: 3. Confirm spade holding and a side suit, if pard bids 3NT we oblige with a pass.
Mike Roberts: 2. I'll sell out to 3. If I wasn't going to, I'd bid 3, then 3.
Bob Todd: 2. With soft values - tread lightly. The Q isn't of any value yet.
Merv Adey: 2. Exactly the wrong heart holding for more.
Chris Buchanan: 2. 8-10 and 4-card spades; exactly what I have.
David Gordon: 3. Preparing to bid spades over hearts.
Brian Zietman: Dbl. A typical responsive double.
Chris Diamond: 2. A free 2 enough with doubleton heart queen.
Perry Khakhar: 2. I hate my spade suit and my Q. But despite all that, I do have enough for a free bid 2, so.......
Amiram Millet: 2. The Q doesn't carry it's weight.
|
| 4. Matchpoints. N-S vul.
| |
A K Q J 7 2
8 3
9
Q J 8 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
2
|
Pass
|
2
| |
|
Pass
|
3
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3NT
| 15
| 100
|
|
4
| 2
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 0
|
|
4
| 0
| 0
|
|
Moderator: Bidding 3NT leads to a practical and the highest scoring contract. The panel majority take that route.
Mike Lawrence: 4. My failure to jump in spades earlier should be meaningful to my partner.
Steve Robinson: 4. I have a suit that can play opposite a void. If all partner needs is spades, I have them.
Eugene Chan: 3NT. Expect partner will pass and a very flat board.
Stephen Vincent: 3NT. If 3NT is the right spot, as in practise it so often is, this is the only way we're going to get there.
Martin Henneberger: 3. Tough problem. 3, 3 or 3NT could all work. I will choose 3 for many reasons. 1) Partner might not be able to bid 3NT if I bid 3, 2) Partner might infer a singleton heart if I choose 3NT now. 3) I really don't know yet where to play.
Larry Meyer: 3NT. Pard should be able to provide 3 tricks.
Mike Hamilton: 3NT. I’m betting my spades are self-sufficient. I lack top clubs, so I want to play this misfit in the game that requires the fewest tricks. I’ll gamble I can produce the 3 tricks I need outside spades before the opponents can take 5.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3NT. This seems too obvious. Even if partner was void in spades, he would probably have a club honour (and a few tricks of his own).
Kai Zhou: 3. Looks like no fit, I would bid 3 if honor doubleton.
Julien Levesque: 3NT. By inference 3NT both limits the hand as for outside values, and denotes club stopper[s].
Mike Roberts: 3NT. Poor honour structure for slam.
Kees Schaafsma: 3NT. On 0-6-5-2 I expect pard to bid again.
Merv Adey: 3NT. Hamman's Law...Partner can pull. And often does, in my experience. Why is that?
Paul Mcmullin: 3NT. I'm sure partner is void in spades; I'll hope to manufacture an entry to my hand in clubs.
Chris Buchanan: 3NT. Well I am not happy about this but I do not believe this is the right time to show partner a 2-piece in hearts. I will need two or three tricks from partner for this to make but I will need the same in any other game.
David Gordon: 4. Your suit has no clear outside entries so make it trump.
Ben Ong: 3. I can't pass. The only other option is 3NT and 4. Am I ready to sign off with 3NT?
Brian Zietman: 3NT. Typical match points choice, at IMPs I choose 4.
Chris Diamond: 3NT. I don't really see any advantage of temporising with 3 on this hand.
Perry Khakhar: 3NT. Seems to be the only logical choice!
Amiram Millet: 3. It's a self-sufficient suit but the hands don't fit.
|
| 5. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
J 7 4 2
7
Q 10 7 6
Q J 10 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1NT
|
Pass
|
Pass
| |
|
2
(1)
|
Pass
|
2
(2)
| ? |
| (1) One major.
| | (2) Pass or correct.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 12
| 100
|
|
Pass
| 3
| 70
|
|
2NT
| 0
| 40
|
|
Dbl
| 2
| 20
|
|
Moderator: The panel majority are not willing to let East-West play 2.
Betty Ann Kennedy: 2. Having failed to transfer, I'm known to hold a four-card suit. Even if playing negative doubles it's too risky to make that bid - my values are offensive, not defensive.
Mike Lawrence: Dbl. North should recognize from his holding that I don't have hearts.
Barry Rigal: Dbl. All first doubles are takeout and this is one of them. Bidding 2, suggesting a four-card suit, is fine as well.
August Boehm: 2. Partner will play me for exactly four spades because I didn't transfer. If double were negative, I would bid that, but a Bridge Bulletin Standard pair won't have that agreement.
Michael Dimich: 2. A wake up bid for partner. I can only have 4 spades as I didn't transfer earlier. I am short in hearts - pick a spot.
Eugene Chan: Pass. Not worth the expenditure of brain power on hands like these. Pass and hope the next hands are more interesting.
Anssi Rantamaa: 2NT. Pick a minor partner.
Stephen Vincent: 2. They appear to have found their fit. Partner will realize I don't have 5 since I didn't transfer immediately and will bid appropriately.
Martin Henneberger: Dbl. Classic takeout double. The route the opps use to get there is irrelevant. It's all noise and I bid as if this auction had gone 1NT by partner 2.
Larry Meyer: Pass. Better for them to play 2 of a major that's not breaking, instead of us playing 3 of a minor in an 8-card fit.
Mike Hamilton: Dbl. If hearts is their suit, this is effectively a takeout double and we’ll compete for the partscore. If not, they are in a misfit with less than half the deck and we are on the offensive.
Andrew Krywaniuk: Pass. I can see that West must have hearts, but partner probably can't tell. I suppose if I double and West passes then partner may realize this and play the double for takeout. This doesn't seem like the best time to make up a convention on the spot.
Kai Zhou: Dbl. Natural T/O double, 4441 oriented. 2NT should be at least 54 minors I assume.
Julien Levesque: Pass. I don't like this auction. Stayman should have been used in the first place, not a pass. Now it's too late to pipe up.
Mike Roberts: 2. If double were clearly takeout, I might do it. But this is safe; partner knows I only have 4.
Joel Forssell: 2NT. Minors.
Kees Schaafsma: Dbl. T/O, protecting our partscore.
Bob Todd: 2. I would have transfered with 5 so 2 is convertible.
Merv Adey: 2. Think pard .. think...
Chris Buchanan: Pass. No redeeming features to entice a takeout double (remember partner may pass).
David Gordon: 2. Shows 4 spades as you would have transferred with 5.
Brian Zietman: Pass. The points are balanced but I prefer to be on defense.
Chris Diamond: 2NT. If I'm stuck maybe they will be too. Hope to find a playable minor.
Perry Khakhar: 2. Since I didn't transfer, this must be a 4 card suit with shortness in hearts. Pass or correct partner!
|
|
