TGIF February 2015: Scores
| 1. IMPs. None vul.
|
J 9 6 5 4
Q 10 5 3 2
9 2
10
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
Dbl
|
Rdbl
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 7
| 100
|
|
1
| 6
| 90
|
|
4
| 2
| 60
|
|
2
| 0
| 50
|
|
2
| 0
| 50
|
|
3
| 1
| 50
|
|
3
| 1
| 50
|
|
Moderator: With most of the values in the deck accounted for, South is in the liberating position of being able to bid whatever he wants without promising anything in the way of high-card points. Sounds like time for a cuebid!
Steve Weinstein: 2. This doesn't show values after the redouble. 4 is tempting, but that seems like too much.
Barry Rigal: 3. After the redouble, 2 retains its meaning, but 3 is available for this hand. There is no other sensible meaning for the call, so one might as well use it for this!
The Sutherlins: 1. We want to get both our suits in because we may have a good save. We will bid 2 next, if possible.
Daniel Korbel: 3. Hopefully this boxes them nicely without backfiring on us!
Mel Colchamiro: 4. Poker. Against most normal dummies, four of a major won't go down more than two, so my downside is minus 300 and who knows? My bluff might push them over the edge.
Stephen Vincent: 1. Will bid hearts later if not too high.
Jongseok Oh: 2. My partner knows my HCP is very low, so cue bid means 4-4 in the majors or more.
Larry Meyer: 1. I want to show both my majors cheaply.
Eugene Chan: 1. Partner asked me to bid so I bid. May have subsequent opportunity to show hearts.
Kevin Contzen: 4. If opponents go to 5, bid 5 and pard can choose.
Andrew Krywaniuk: Pass. Another systems question? Boo. I think forcing pass is still the standard here.
Ian Greig: 3. Whether to ask partner to choose a major at the two-level or the three-level? Probably depends a bit on precisely what hands double may contain (e.g., a weak NT with some diamond length).
Perry Khakhar: 2. I think that I am safe up to the 3 of a Major level. Let them guess.
Leonid Bossis: 1. I'd bid 2 if there was an agreement over redouble to shows shapely weak hand with both majors.
Timothy Wright: 1. I want to be able to bid hearts cheaply later. Pass is not awful, but we should bid to show a decent enough hand.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 1. Agreements matter here. Without them I'll give a preference and bid hearts later, up to the 3-level.
Chris Diamond: 2. Michaels!!!!
David Gordon: 1. I play direct advance over RDBL shows nothing extra. Plan to follow up by competing with hearts and pulling any penalty doubles below game to hearts.
Amiram Millet: 1. I'm not encouraging a heart lead here.
Plarq Liu: 1. Have to bid. Cheapest suit.
Beverley Candlish: 2. . . showing both majors.
Kf Tung: Pass. This is not your hand and you want to sell out. If West passes pard will name his suit, and you will sell out again.
Bob Todd: 1. I hope to bid more.
|
| 2. IMPs. None vul.
| |
---
A K 10 9 4 3
Q 9 5 4 2
8 6
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
2
|
2NT
|
3
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 13
| 100
|
|
4
| 3
| 70
|
|
5
| 1
| 50
|
|
6
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: The majority of the panel see the potential for slam, but thanks to East's pesky 3 bid, there is no safe way to move forward.
August Boehm: 4. Slam chances look good enough to risk the five level.
Steve Robinson: 4. No way to investigate a slam, and the heart game figures to be a reasonable contract.
Stephen Vincent: 4. Partner probably has too much in spades to look for slam.
Jongseok Oh: 4. 4 is enough.
Larry Meyer: 4. With 6-5, prefer the suit contract.
Eugene Chan: 4NT. When I correct 5 to 5, partner should expect this hearts/diamonds 2 suiter.
Kevin Contzen: 4. Too strong for a simple preference, even at the 4 level. If pard has first round controls, she can investigate slam, otherwise we end up in 5.
Yue Su: 4. Opponents made good bids and I have to respect that.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4. I can see a case for just blasting 6 (often gaining on a spade lead).
Ian Greig: 4. 3-X might be lucrative, slam in a red suit might be good, but 4 seems to be middle of the road.
Perry Khakhar: 4. Seems fairly classic! Goldilocks bid! Not too high, not too low opposite a limited partner.
Paul Mcmullin: 4. I plan to bid 5 over 4.
Leonid Bossis: 4. I'd bid 4 if it was Texas transfer by agreement.
Timothy Wright: 4. Bid what we can make.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. . . and possibly 5 over 4; 4 direct is too greedy for me.
Chris Diamond: 4. Simply to much for a sign off. So about the only slam try available.
David Gordon: 4. Partner should own a sound strong Notrump. Partner's anticipated wasted spade values will keep us out of slam.
Amiram Millet: 4. With 6-5, I come alive.
Plarq Liu: 4. Maybe I will lose slam. But they surely will bid the 4 save.
Kf Tung: 4. . . and then 5. Very slammish indeed, and you will land on 6 or 6.
Bob Todd: 4. There is potentially a lot of wastage in partner's hand. 4 by them may help.
|
| 3. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
K 8
J 7 3
10 4 2
A K Q 7 6
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Pass
|
2
| |
|
Pass
|
3
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 6
| 100
|
|
3
| 6
| 90
|
|
3
| 2
| 70
|
|
3NT
| 1
| 60
|
|
4
| 2
| 60
|
|
5
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: Making the cheapest bid in a forcing auction is a handy way to keep the ball in the air while not necessarily saying much of anything.
Larry Cohen: 3NT. Partner would likely have splintered with shortness in a red suit. Opposite 5-2-2-4, 3NT is likely the right spot, especially at matchpoints. 3 should guarantee 3-card support. I guess it looks strange to bid 3NT with neither really stopped!
Jeff Meckstroth: 3. Trying to save bidding space. This leaves room for partner to bid 3, then I can bid 3.
Kerri Sanborn: 3. When partner couldn't bid 2NT, this hand became unsuitable for that strain. The only other call I might consider is 4, but it IS matchpoints.
Mel Colchamiro: 4. Partner can still bid 4 with A Q 10 x x. 3 here might well lead us down a road from which there is no return. Even if 5 here is a form of picture bid, I won't do it. Picture bids are not my style.
Stephen Vincent: 3. It seems a bit much to bid 3NT with both red suits unstopped.
Jongseok Oh: 3. South wants north bid 3NT or 5.
Larry Meyer: 3NT. Not enough shape to consider 5.
Eugene Chan: 4. 2/1 bidders expect 3 to be forcing and showing extras. Hence 4 initiates a slam try.
Kevin Contzen: 3. If pard has stoppers, she can bid 3NT. If pard doesn't have stoppers or shortness, 5 is dangerous.
Yue Su: 3. If partner bids 3, I will bid 3 showing 2 spades.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. Temporize to let partner declare NT.
Ian Greig: 3. Might be important to play either 4 or 3NT from partner's side.
Perry Khakhar: 4. Because spades pay better and are the likely best spot. Also it guarantees no red suit controls the way that I play.
Paul Mcmullin: 4. Should be weaker than 3, hopefully ends the auction.
Timothy Wright: 3. I'm worried that we have 10 tricks in 3NT if partner is 5-4 in the blacks, but that they can take 5 or more first.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. Pard should play, but game may easily be unmakeable.
Chris Diamond: 3. Seems natural to show some spade support.
David Gordon: 3. I'm supposed to have 3 spades but some old timers call ((Ax or Kx) = 3). Problem with bidding a red suit at the 3 level is partner may have the other one stopped and bid 3NT. But maybe you can scare off the killing lead by doing that. Can I change my answer?
Amiram Millet: 3. Checking for 3NT from partner or even slam.
Plarq Liu: 3NT. Gamble Time?
Beverley Candlish: Pass. Where am I going?
Kf Tung: 3. Keeping 3N and 4 by North open.
|
| 4. IMPs. N-S vul.
| |
K J 4
9 5 4 2
K J 10 8 3
7
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
Pass
|
1
|
Pass
| |
|
2
|
Dbl
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 12
| 100
|
|
3
| 3
| 80
|
|
3
| 1
| 60
|
|
2
| 0
| 50
|
|
5
| 1
| 50
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 40
|
|
Moderator: Excited about partner's delayed takeout double, the panel jump to 4.
Mike Lawrence: 4. Partner is unlimited. 3 is possible, intending to bid 4 next.
Geoff Hampson: 3. I plan on following spade bids (or club bids) with diamond bids at whatever level I have to - probably 4.
Stephen Vincent: 3. As partner failed to overcall 1, he probably has only 4. While spades will play well enough if opponents are kind enough never to lead trumps, diamonds looks to be a better spot.
Larry Meyer: 3. Diamonds should be our best spot to play, and also the suit I want pard to lead if defending.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. This is full value for a 3 bid whether or not Lebensohl was available.
Ian Greig: 3. Should show a smattering of values with 2NT available to show a weaker hand (since partner could still be quite strong with some club length).
Perry Khakhar: 3. Even if we are playing good/bad 2NT! Most likely hand that the trapped partner holds is 4144 or 4135. This should play well.
Paul Mcmullin: 2. Will pull to 3 if doubled loudly enough.
Timothy Wright: 3. At IMPs, I am more willing to try for the 9-trick partscore given that it will be the safer contract more often than a 4-3 spade fit.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. Opposite the expected 4144 this is good enough.
Chris Diamond: 4. A very good hand opposite pard's expected shapes. Not enough to bid game.
David Gordon: 3. Pard has spades and diamonds. What's the problem?
Amiram Millet: 2. Intending to punish 3.
Plarq Liu: 3. Partner makes a takeout on hearts.
Kf Tung: 3. Either you play 3 or pard will lead a diamond against 3.
Bob Todd: 4. I will give partner some wiggle room.
|
| 5. Matchpoints. E-W vul.
| |
K 7
J 9 8 7 5 3
K 8 3
K 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Dbl
|
1
| |
|
1
|
2
|
2
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 9
| 100
|
|
2NT
| 5
| 80
|
|
Dbl
| 3
| 70
|
|
3
| 0
| 40
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 40
|
|
Moderator: Although, the panel place a high value on the K, the majority simply advance with 3.
Steve Weinstein: Dbl. Extra values, no good bid - isn't that what double always means? (OK, how about when I want it to mean that?)
Kerri Sanborn: 2NT. We already know there was no support double, so hearts look iffy. The club king is wearing 'fancy pants,' and I can easily envision nine tricks.
Roger Lee: 3. I'm not going to pass, and while it is possible we can make 3NT, I think this hand is too soft to try for it.
Stephen Vincent: 3. 2NT might strike gold but the odds are against it.
Jongseok Oh: 3. If south is declarer, the K is almost 1 trick, invitational.
Larry Meyer: 3. Tell pard about my modest club support.
Eugene Chan: 3. 3NT could be cold. Partner can take further action if he/she has an approriate hand.
Kevin Contzen: Dbl. We need to compete to the three level, but the strain is unclear.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. Does partner hold 3 spades or does West have 5? Make a noise to see if the opps will take another push.
Ian Greig: Dbl. Takeout.
Perry Khakhar: 2NT. The next bid will tell us whether we play in 3, 3, or 3NT.
Paul Mcmullin: 3. I am at the top of my range for not redoubling - hopefully my pointed kings will have value.
Timothy Wright: 3. Double to show values could work, but where are our tricks coming from?
Chris Diamond: 2NT. Strange looking bid but 3NT is our most likely game.
David Gordon: 2NT. If playing support doubles then 2NT seems to stand out.
Amiram Millet: 3. Partner has to decide if 3 is better. Will punish any 3 level bid from them.
Plarq Liu: Pass. My hand is not strong enough.
Beverley Candlish: 3. I would compete up to 3.
Kf Tung: 2NT. You do not want to double 2 but +100 is worse than +110 or +120.
|
|
