TGIF May 2013: Scores
| 1. IMPs. Both vul.
|
---
A 7 5 4 3
K Q J 10 9 7
9 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
1
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 13
| 100
|
|
2
| 5
| 80
|
|
Dbl
| 2
| 70
|
|
Moderator: Most of the panel set forth describing this two-suitor by bidding their longer, better suit.
Larry Cohen: 2. This is the direct way to reach an eight-plus card heart fit. If that doesn't materialize, I will bid my diamonds next (and it may have to be at the five level).
Mike Lawrence: Dbl. A nightmare! It is possible that we do not want to find hearts. I do not bid hearts now and then 5 later because getting put back into hearts with a poor holding would be bad.
Barry Rigal: 2. The problem here is not just how to bid our hand, but how to cope with the inevitable spade raise to 3 or 4. I hate 2 then 3, though I agree it might work. 2 deals more realistically with competition, planning 4 over 3 and 4NT over 4.
Brad Bart: Dbl. Setting the stage for when West bids 4, I have a comfortable 5.
Stephen Vincent: 2. Can't go too far wrong bidding a suit of that quality, although it might make finding a potential heart fit more challenging.
Martin Henneberger: 2. Looking forward, the opps will be bidding spades at a high level. If I bid hearts now and diamonds later I will be sorry when pard corrects back to hearts. The diamond suit is playable opposite a void.
Larry Meyer: Dbl. Let partner know about both my red suits while preserving bidding space.
Eugene Chan: 2. With a spade void and tolerance for partner's clubs, I like this hand a lot and plan to bid, bid, and bid!
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2. Start with my longest and strongest suit. If the opps jam the auction I can still imply hearts via double and pull.
Bob Kuz: 2. Doesn't stop partner or me (later) from bidding hearts .
Perry Khakhar: Dbl. Most of the time they have a 9+ card spade fit and we have the balance of points, so a preempt is surely coming. This heart suit is just too ratty to bid by itself. My next bid will likely be 5 over 4.
Norm Tucker: Dbl. This is a powerful hand so will get more info from partner, then bid red suits.
Mike Roberts: 2. I think that I'll be bidding over 4 next; I hope to bid 4N and then convert 5 to 5, which should show this kind of hand. It's doubtful that 6 makes when 6 doesn't.
Bob Zeller: Dbl. If I bid 2 now, I may lose the heart suit when they pre-empt in spades. If I bid 2 I'll probably lose the diamond suit and I'd be implying longer hearts than diamonds.
Brian Zietman: 2. There is a problem of partnership understanding here. Do we play forcing or non forcing free bids? What does a cue bid mean in this situation? Does a negative double guarantee only a 4 card heart suit? Well whatever, I intend to reverse later in hearts.
Timothy Wright: 2. Even if we knew partner would never leave in a negative double, it will be hard to show 5=6 in the reds unless we bid the suits per se.
David Gordon: 2. I don't like double with the extreme shape. If opps bid 4 I will try a 4NT bid to show a higher ranking second suit which in this case can only be hearts.
Amiram Millet: 2. Intending to show hearts later.
John Gillespie: 2. I would open 1 so why not 2?
Plarq Liu: Dbl. Negative double, then show my diamonds.
Beverley Candlish: Dbl. I would double first and then bid diamonds.
Kf Tung: Dbl. Start with a double and follow up with a game try in the appropriate strain.
|
| 2. Matchpoints. N-S vul.
| |
5 3
K J 9 6
J 10 7 6 3
10 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
1
|
Pass
| |
|
2
|
3
|
3
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 14
| 100
|
|
5
| 3
| 70
|
|
Dbl
| 2
| 60
|
|
3NT
| 1
| 50
|
|
Moderator: Again, there's a clear majority reaching for the same call.
Jill Meyers: 5. I think there is a good chance that partner is void in hearts and could have six clubs and five diamonds, or else she might have competed with 2NT (with 6-4, for example).
Kerri Sanborn: 3NT. If we have a game, this is probably where it is. It will not necessarily end the auction. Partner heard me pass last round when I could have bid 1NT.
Mel Colchamiro: 4. I'm not convinced we can get plus 300 versus 3 doubled, but I am pretty sure we can make plus 130 in 4. If partner bids 5, he'll make it. And if I bid 4 in tempo, I might get a crack at 4 doubled.
Karen Walker: Dbl. . . taking the sure thing. I have no idea if we can make 5 (or 3NT?), but I do know they can't make 3.
Stephen Vincent: 4. Hoping the opponents will keep bidding.
Martin Henneberger: 4. Since 3 is a reverse, I can show support now with 4. Insisting on 3NT or 5 seems a bit rich.
Larry Meyer: 4. Support with support.
Eugene Chan: 3NT. Partner is obviously void in hearts and probably 6/5 in the minors. But 9 tricks is easier than 11 so I will make the matchpoint call of 3NT.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4. 3 X-1 would not be enough to protect our plus, whereas 4 has many possible ways to win.
Bob Kuz: Dbl. I don't think anyone is bidding slam. If partner has a high card reverse this should be more than game.
Perry Khakhar: 4. At matchpoints, this is the Goldilocks bid to be followed by a double of 4! At IMPs, I admit I would have shot it out at 5 due to the vulnerability.
Norm Tucker: Pass. Should be a plus score and not enough HCP to go to the 4 level vulnerable.
Mike Roberts: 4. Can't go too far wrong in raising partner.
Brian Zietman: 4. What's the level of my opponents? If I bid 4 will they be tempted to bid 4 for minus 800? But partner has reversed so if he has A x x, --, A K x x and A K x x x maybe we have a vulnerable slam.
David Gordon: 4. Your partner reversed all by themselves and you have 5 card support. Give a boost and hammer 4.
Amiram Millet: 5. Partner has a strong distributional hand. Expecting a game.
John Gillespie: 4. Pard's hand is big, mine isn't.
Plarq Liu: 4. . . then double.
Beverley Candlish: 5. My partner has reversed and cannot have too much in the major suits. With my 5 diamonds, I would close my eyes and bid 5.
Kf Tung: 4. Support pard and he can decide on 5 or not.
|
| 3. Matchpoints. E-W vul.
| |
A 8 7 5 4 3
---
A 7 6 4
J 10 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
2
|
3
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 13
| 100
|
|
4
| 4
| 80
|
|
3
| 1
| 60
|
|
4
| 0
| 60
|
|
3
| 2
| 50
|
|
Moderator: Most of the panel bid game based on the prospect of a good fit.
Steve Robinson: 4. . . a splinter in support of spades. Partner could have K Q x 5 x x x K x A Q x x and we might make seven.
The Sutherlins: 3. Partner has an opening bid with three or four spades and a stiff diamond. Let's ask partner to focus on his club holding.
Geoff Hampson: 4. This hand appears to fit nicely, but I don't want to overstate my strength or divulge which lead to make.
Martin Henneberger: 4. 3 should show a good hand for spades. A 4 splinter will get us to a good slam when pard holds as little as K x x x Q x x x 2 K Q x x, not to mention the 100 better hands they could hold. Who am I to judge slam isn't there?
Larry Meyer: 4. Even if pard has as little as 4 small spades, small doubleton diamond, and K Q, 4 is likely to make.
Eugene Chan: 4. Regardless of partner's hand, I have no interest in 3NT. I only balanced 1. Partner should not be expecting much more than what I have for my 4 level cuebid.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4. If partner has 3 trumps, a club honour, and diamond shortness then we are in great shape.
Bob Kuz: 4. Partner should have spades, hearts and around an opening bid. I need K Q x x and short diamonds.
Perry Khakhar: 4. K x x x K J x x x 2 A Q x? Why choose the higher cue bid? Is that your hand partner? Even with all that heart wastage, 4 should be comfortable.
Mike Roberts: 4. This hand could become huge very quickly. Partner has long hearts - let's see if they're strong hearts as well.
Brian Zietman: 4. Partner could not muster an overcall over 1 so I do not see a future beyond game. My spades are scrawny and the club losers do not look attractive.
Timothy Wright: 3. Hoping for a club cue from partner.
David Gordon: 4. 3 shows some sort of constructive raise with likely 4 trump.
Amiram Millet: 3. This may be our limit.
John Gillespie: 4. Pard's hand might be slammish with a heart trap.
Beverley Candlish: 3. Partner is showing a limit raise or better.
Kf Tung: 4. You have spade fit, good controls and shape.
|
| 4. Matchpoints. E-W vul.
| |
Q J 10 9 4 3
A 4
7 4 3
K 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
1
| 15
| 100
|
|
2
| 3
| 70
|
|
Pass
| 2
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 50
|
|
Moderator: Too little to open one, too much to open two?
Jeff Meckstroth: 1. At favorable vulnerability, this hand is much too heavy for a weak two-bid.
Jill Meyers: Pass. Too good for 2, not good enough for 1.
The Gordons: 2. Yes, we have two outside controls. But we have a good suit and a hand that doesn't approach being a one-level opening.
Stephen Vincent: 2. Too good for 2, not good enough for 1. At the vulnerability I take the conservative approach.
Martin Henneberger: 1. The 10 9 make this suit good enough to open at the 1 level and rebid. Less attractive alternatives of a weak 2 or pass are just that: less attractive.
Larry Meyer: 2. I think a weak 2 gives a better description of this hand than opening at the one level.
Eugene Chan: Pass. This won't be a popular choice but I won't open without 2 quicks. And this is too good for 2 at favourable vulnerability.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 1. This hand is a little bit too strong to preempt at these colours.
Bob Kuz: 1. Get the top suit in as early as possible. Too much defense for 2.
Perry Khakhar: 1. What to do: Pass, 1, or 2? Too good for 2. Pass is just wrong with this good suit and some outside defense. I will owe partner a J and open!
Mike Roberts: 1. The 10 9 swings it for me.
Bob Zeller: 1. The modern style.
Brian Zietman: 3. All looks good for a pre-empt. 1. It is in spades, 2. 10 points, 3. solid suit and 4. favourable vulnerability. Who needs a 7 card suit?
Timothy Wright: Pass. For some, there are no hands between 1 and 2, but I think this qualifies (2 high honors outside my suit but not enough HCP to open).
David Gordon: 1. Open and then make minimum rebids.
Amiram Millet: 3. Considering vulnerability and MP score.
John Gillespie: 1. Too much outside for a weak 2. Too much to pass.
Beverley Candlish: 2. If E/W has the balance of the points, it will make it more difficult for them to find the right contract.
Kf Tung: 2. You are in first seat. Do not take unnecessary risks by bidding 1 or 3.
|
| 5. IMPs. None vul.
| |
K Q J 9 8 3
A K 7 6
J 3
5
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
2
|
2
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 16
| 100
|
|
2
| 2
| 70
|
|
3
| 2
| 60
|
|
Moderator: The perennial choice when finding a fit: show your second 4-card suit, or rebid your 6-card suit.
Steve Weinstein: 2. 2 is a new suit, it's forcing, it's the cheapest bid and, assuming the hand diagram is correct, I even have four of them! Partner could have as many as five hearts (see problem 1).
Mike Lawrence: 3. Things are not the same when partner's response is in competition. 2 is a close second choice.
The Joyces: 2. Because partner did not make a negative double, we think the message that we hold six spades is more important than showing four hearts.
Stephen Vincent: 2. Partner's 2 bid, as opposed to double, reduces the chance we have a heart fit.
Martin Henneberger: 2. For me 2 creates a force to 2NT or 3 of a suit. For that reason I can pattern with 2 now without fear of being passed. Having this agreement is paramount to avoid having to leap to create a force.
Larry Meyer: 2. Bid out my shape.
Eugene Chan: 2. Stylistically, 2 does not promise extra length but hopefully opportunity will arise to pattern out.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2. One potential advantage of 2 over 2 is that it permits suit agreement at the 3 level, leaving more room for cue-bidding.
Paul Sontag: 3. Makes it easy if OHO has A K Q and A. Not too interested in hearts. Some (not me) play 2 virtually denies hearts (no DBL).
Bob Kuz: 2. The problem?
Perry Khakhar: 2. I kind of like this hand possibly for a slam in diamonds, hearts or spades, on a good day. But there is no reason for not bidding normal, for now.
Mike Roberts: 2. To be followed by 3 forcing spades. I like this hand.
Brian Zietman: 2. Tough decision. 2 - no, too strong. 3 - no, too weak. I will settle for 2 and repeat my spades later (if I get the chance).
Timothy Wright: 2. 2 then spades later shows a better hand than rebidding 2 here.
David Gordon: 2. Chunky 6-4 with a bonus tolerance for partner's primary suit upgrades this to a 6-4-6 hand as opposed to a 6-6-4 hand.
Amiram Millet: 2. If we find a fit, even a game is possible.
John Gillespie: 2. Probably followed by 3 showing a pretty good 6-4.
Beverley Candlish: 2. If partner had hearts, he could negative double. I would just bid my 6 card spade suit again.
Kf Tung: 2. You are comfortable to tell pard you have 4 hearts and then bid spades again.
|
|
