Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - hoki

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2024 MAY MSC
« on: March 24, 2024, 08:41:55 PM »
A 5 Clubs Clearly denying a spade control, prepared to stop in 5H.

B 3 Hearts Showing strength, prepared for 5C or whatever.

C: 2 Spades Showing my sixth spade, but if pard prefers notrumps, then so be it.

D: Pass I'm all for opening weak in third seat - but with only eight real points and no aces, well I feel
one has to draw the line somewhere.

E: 2 Spades Seems to describe my hand perfectly - reasonable points, reasonable suit, and club tolerance.

F: 4 Clubs Big hand with longer clubs than hearts.

G: 2 Hearts Thought long and hard about 4D - do we or don't we want opps to try 4S?

H: Diamond 8 Sort of hoping to prevent declarer running dummy's diamonds before trumps have been drawn.

Cheers, Oliver

2
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2024 FEBRUARY MSC
« on: December 22, 2023, 04:46:42 AM »
A Pass (double is still takeout, lol!).

B Double. The problem comes next round: Do I bid 1NT over 1S (yes) and do I pass over 2S (yes)?

C 1NT, someone bid that on B, so stoppers have never ever worried any of the panellists afaics.

D 3C, checking back to see if responder raised with just three-card support - and inviting game at the same time.

E 2D, just as "obvious" as the 1NT bid someone else suggested - or double with a singleton spade?

F 3NT, which doesn't necessarily mean that I'm giving up on slam - just that it's IMPs and I'm hoping nine tricks are easier than ten.

G 3C, game looks a long way away.

H SJ - so the impossible opening bid is based on a running spade suit. Huh? Duh.

Seasons greetings, Oliver

3
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2024 JANUARY MSC
« on: December 01, 2023, 03:24:07 AM »
Only E and G the same as Jock.

PROBLEM A: Pass, sure an underbid but other options lack appeal.
PROBLEM B: 4 Hearts, considered 3NT but both options give up on slam.
PROBLEM C: 3 Diamonds, can always bid 4H next time.
PROBLEM D: (c1), nothing looks particularly savoury.
PROBLEM E: 3 Spades, would accept 3D at IMPs.
PROBLEM F: 3 Diamonds, at least this is forcing, preparatory for settling for 3NT.
PROBLEM G: 4 Clubs, middle of the road action?
PROBLEM H: Spade 9, the unbid suit but a gambling club might strike gold.

Anyone know who's running the IAC club now that Sanja seems to be full-time
employed by BBO? Can't do a session next week because of undergoing cataract
surgery - and didn't run a play & discuss session last month because of being
out of town. (Email: hoki@orcon.net.nz .)

4
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 December MSC
« on: October 27, 2023, 09:00:03 AM »
Afraid none of my answers match Dick's, but two agree with Jock: A and G.
That likely means Dick will score higher than I do because the panel is
essentially an optimistic bunch whereas I generally prefer to take the low
road.

For instance, on A I agree with Jock that for slam to be in the picture pard
will need enough extras to bid again. In the meantime I am showing a
balanced hand with stoppers in the black suits as well as just four hearts.

On B (3NT) partner will also need something more for slam to be in the
picture. Also, I'm not convinced that showing preference for my first suit
puts us in a game-forcing situation.

On C I'm currently favouring 2, believing I need more points for 2;
yes, a negative double might work.

D: c2, the only "systemic" option.

E: Dble, sandbagging doesn't appeal to me and there is the risk that it goes
all-pass and we miss a game.

F: 1S

H: fourth down from the longest and strongest, imvho still the best way to avoid
team mates' wrath.

Cheers, Oliver

5
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 NOVEMBER MSC
« on: September 29, 2023, 10:22:38 AM »
Not final, but here goes:

Problem A:  3 !C  fairly "standard" as most pointed out.

Problem B:  2!D  more descriptive and less of a lie than either 1S or 1NT.

Problem C:  3!S  agree with the majority (for a change).

Problem D:  3!D  not with the majority 3NT which might need eight more tricks on top while leaving the three-level free for partner to find another bid.

Problem E:  2!D since you really do need four hearts to bid 2H.

Problem F:  1NT, it's rare that panellists worry about little things like stoppers.

Problem G:  3!C  "normal" game-force.

Problem H:  !S5  shouldn't really be giving anything away and might have some useful side effect.

6
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 September MSC
« on: July 28, 2023, 03:51:39 PM »
D The problem with 3 is that it's forcing, which is why I prefer 3.

E The problem with passing and then bidding 3 is that you might find
yourself facing a 4 in front of you. What then? I prefer to get my spade bid
in now and then leave it up to partner what to do over 4.

7
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 September MSC
« on: July 28, 2023, 03:39:58 PM »
A First I read Jock's answer and was convinced even though Todd admits partner
might be showing a 5=4=4=0 (or 5=4=3=1?) hand. Then I read Todd's answer
and again I was convinced. Oh dear, I hope not all the problems are going to be
like this. In the end I plumped for 4, in the hope that this is the safest game
in case we can't run nine tricks in 3NT after a spade lead.

8
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 JULY MSC
« on: May 28, 2023, 10:10:42 PM »
A 5
The plan is to settle for slam in the suit of partner's choice.

B 2NT
Normally I would raise to 3 and move on, but these panellists
seem to prefer to show shape and not care about such piffling
matters as stoppers.

C 3
I'm reluctant to bid hearts again since that would show seven
of them.

D Pass - and lead a trump.
They do say that trump leads are mandatory against doubled
suit partscores. With partner passing in the direct seat I don't
expect that our side can make game - and the hand does meet
the rule of nine.

E Double
The problem is whether to raise a 3 response to the four level
or whether to rebid my hearts, probably the latter.

F 3NT
If my earlier pass shows at least something, then this does not
have to end the auction.

G 3
Hmmm, no comment.

H C6
not K, which would have been my
choice against 3NT (misread the problem first time around)

9
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 JUNE MSC
« on: April 30, 2023, 08:34:46 AM »
A: 5C, although I did toy with that fancy idea of trying a 4D splinter bid
(but rejected that idea as being too much pie-in-the-sky stuff when it is not even
certain that we can make game)

B: 1 NT, second-guessing the panellists who normally don't give a stuff about
piffling things like stoppers (at the table I'd probably agree with 1S)

C: 2D, forward-going but non-forcing constructive in standard is fine

D: 2S, in the hope of coping with any continuation (3D over 3C should
show heart support)

E: 4D, a cue bid with maybe 4S to come (over 4H)

F: Pass - haven't I already bid my hand (if not overbid it, lol)

G: 1D, at matchpoints I'd like to explore for a major-suit first
before committing to notrump with the hidden agenda of maybe
deterring a diamond lead against a NT contract

H: S8, my thinking (as misguided as I sometimes may be) is
that a partner who wanted a heart ruff would not double
because surely I would be expected to lead a heart normally
without the double

10
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 APRIL MSC
« on: February 24, 2023, 09:03:37 AM »
A   3, have to be consistent with my philosophy that bridge is bridge and poker is poker

B   4, changed from 3 after reading Jock’s comments – and Dick’s

C   1NT – or double?

D   Dble – and pass 2♣ which I doubt will be left in (but can bid 2 if doubled?)

E   2♣, can’t stomach being stuck in NT

F   1♠, “normal” (dare I say that?)

G   4, would love to bid 4 as a control bid, but is it?

H   ♣7, mol by elimination (what I said last time)

11
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 MARCH MSC
« on: January 30, 2023, 11:39:41 PM »
Oliver:
PROBLEM A: Pass - fulfills the rule of nine
PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds - limited by being a passed hand
PROBLEM C: 3 Hearts - uninspired
PROBLEM D: 1 Notrump - protecting the heart holding
PROBLEM E: 5 Clubs - still possible to stop in game but not giving up on slam
PROBLEM F: 6 Hearts - science fails me
PROBLEM G: 2 Spades - just a simple advance cue bid, leaving more room than 3S
PROBLEM H: Spade 2 - by elimination

12
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 January MSC
« on: November 28, 2022, 09:05:14 AM »
Problem A: 3 !D - but it's close to double which I'd do ony if I was prepared to pass 3!C from partner in the hope that partner has five clubs.

Problem B: Pass. I don't feel as if my values and partner's are sufficient to secure nine tricks for a notrump game. After all, I've only got 12 HCPs and partner has shown a distributional hand.

Problem C: 1NT. I'd rather show a balanced hand than suggest that I have some distribution.

Problem D: 5 !C. It is IMPs, so feel we gotta be in game.

Problem E: 1 !D.

Problem F: 3 !S, then 4!H, showing more strength than a direct 4!H.

Problem G: 3 !C. Perfect for "non-forcing constructive".

Problem H: !C 3. Nothing appeals. Who does like lead problems?

13
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2022 December MSC
« on: October 31, 2022, 07:00:59 AM »
I have tried to construct hands based on the bidding.  Here is what I have come up with:

                    2
                    Q987x
                    Kxxxxx
                    x

AJx                               KQxx
AKJxx                           x
xx                                QJ10
xxx                              KQ9xx

                   98654
                   103
                   A2
                   AJ106

Certainly 3N is off on any lead except a club.  Give declarer the Q !H instead of the J, then 3NT will make on any lead.  Maybe someone can construct a hand where 10 !H defeats the contract when a  !S lead does not.

I stuck this hand into a double dummy solver and the contract makes on any
lead except a spade - but it requires double dummy play to make (declarer
has to assume South is short in both red suits). So sadly I don't see how this
proves anything. Put me into the hating leads camp.

As for Jock's hand, that is a pretty aggressive game-forcing 2D bid on a sickly
looking 12-count (Qx, AQxxx, Qxx, Qxx). I'd rather keep a low profile with that
hand and just stick in a more sedate 2NT bid on the second round (and if I
knew that my partner opened 12-counts on a regular basis I could even seeing
myself taking the low road of rebidding 1NT at that stage).

The only thing that might make me change my choice of a club lead is to switch
it to a little one in case North's singleton is the nine. Give East a 4=2=3=4 shape,
including the nine of hearts, then leading the ten of hearts might be just what the
doctor ordered for declarer to claim the contract.

14
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2022 December MSC
« on: October 26, 2022, 05:58:21 AM »
A  4♠, a typical matchpoint gamble and hopefully one more likely to be successful
     than the alternative gamble of 6♣. If you are confident with a Minorwood 4♣ then be
     my guest and go for it; in contrast a regular 4NT could get you too high if we don’t
     have the requisite number of key cards for slam.

B  double, maybe if I say it loudly enough or write it in capitals my partner will under-
     stand that it is takeout .

C  my first tactical choice since 2♠ is an underbid and 3♠ leaves partner no room to
     express an opinion; I could even try 2 over 2.

D  5♣, fortunately it’s IMPs and I prefer to take heart ruffs with low trumps in dummy;
     if we were behind in the match I’d consider 6♣, but not 4♠ since I don’t relish the
     thought of having to use partner’s top spades to ruff my heart losers.

E  3♣ since I’d hate the thought of having to cope with 2♠ from partner should I double.

F  2, another “tactical” choice since the thought of having to cope with some number of
     hearts bid from partner over a double or notrump bid is traumatic

G  5♣ which in contrast to 3NT might see us reach slam if partner, holding a couple of
     useful kings, sees fit to raise us.

H  ♣J, am always a sucker for “standard” leads; really can’t see how a spade lead into
     declarer’s four card suit which is likely to contain two or three hours can help us.

15
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2022 November MSC
« on: September 25, 2022, 09:06:31 PM »
Okay, I'll change my answer of 2 on F to double so as not to break consensus.
However, at matchpoints I would risk bidding the major.

On the others:

B 2NT: A singleton honour with West or any honour with partner is enough to create a stopper.

D 3: In these days of lighter and lighter opening bids I trust partner and make
a courtesy raise.

E Redouble: One way to invite game; am prepared to stop in 3 if partner is minimum.

G 3: Support with support; I would hate to have to face partner later and explain
why I couldn't find it in me to admit of fine trump support.


PROBLEM A: Pass
PROBLEM B: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 3 Spades
PROBLEM E: Redouble
PROBLEM F: Double
PROBLEM G: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Diamond 6


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5