Whose mistake?

[Fluffy]

My point was, it is very strange to ask which bid was the worst mistake and to be told by a plurality that the worst mistake was not doubling a cold partscore into game.

 

It's like asking "whose fault was it that the company went under?" and getting a response of "it's your fault, because you didn't embezzle money from the company coffers." How could a decision that was correct, as the cards lie be to blame for a poor result? If I had actually doubled 2♠ and gotten the result of -470, and posted this same question, would I be told "no one was to blame, you just got fixed?"

 

Suggesting that I should double a contract that I think will make, and that actually does make, and that a failure to do so is primarily to blame for a result, seems really off-base to me. Perhaps "offensive" is a bad choice of words, but I reiterate that I wouldn't want to partner anyone who blames bad results on my failure to double cold partscores into games at IMPs. And from your standpoint... would you rather play with someone who often penalty doubles making partscores into game? Or would you rather have a partner who exercises caution and good judgement in these situations? Evidently a lot of people would rather the partner who doubles making contracts. Weird.

What I would like is a partner that doubles when I ask him to do it and doesn't mastermind these deals, apply judgement when you should, not when you aren't asked to do so. If I make a stayman and partner fails to bid 2M because he thinks its doubleton ♣AQ is good for NT I will be upset, regardless of the contract reached being best. Sorry for repeating myself, but I still believe doubling was the best thing to do.

 

If what you were asking is wich of the bids was the one that led to the bad result it is fairly easy then:

 

1♦: pass would lead to pass out. So it is worse

first pass: opening would probably mean -50 or -100.

3♣: Even being on auto-forcing position, passing would lead to only -110

redouble: converted 300 into 600

double: in the end it converted -470 into -600

[luke warm]

My point was, it is very strange to ask which bid was the worst mistake and to be told by a plurality that the worst mistake was not doubling a cold partscore into game.

adam, i'm sorry but this reasoning makes no sense to me...

 

1) when 2♠ came to you, how did you *know* it was cold?

 

2) what does your partner's double of 2♦ say to you?

 

3) how would you expect partner to bid if she felt it was your hand and they were in trouble?

 

4) did your partner have her bid?

 

5) did you have your bid (1♦)

 

How could a decision that was correct, as the cards lie be to blame for a poor result?

the truth is, you only know the decision was correct now, *after* the fact... if that isn't resulting the hand, please tell me what is...

 

If I had actually doubled 2♠ and gotten the result of -470, and posted this same question, would I be told "no one was to blame, you just got fixed?"

absolutely

 

I reiterate that I wouldn't want to partner anyone who blames bad results on my failure to double cold partscores into games at IMPs.

your partner says "it's our hand.. i think we can beat a 2 level major suit, at least if it's the suit i have"... so how is it you knew it was cold?

 

And from your standpoint... would you rather play with someone who often penalty doubles making partscores into game? Or would you rather have a partner who exercises caution and good judgement in these situations? Evidently a lot of people would rather the partner who doubles making contracts. Weird.

if someone "often" does that, it would be a cause for concern... if someone *never* does it, it would be a cause for concern... it comes down to, what was partner telling (asking) me to do, and do i trust her judgment?

 

And that one good bid in this entire awful mess was the pass of 2♠. And yet this is the bid most people pick as the "biggest mistake

well there's no doubt that on this hand pass was better than double (after all, as we've been told, the hand was cold)... but i still think this is after the fact thinking.. while i'll probably never play as well as you do, or as fluffy does, i have to agree with him that going by the result isn't always the best way to judge a bid

[awm]

My point here is:

 

(1) I do not think this is a hand where partner has "asked me" to double. I think partner has shown a decent hand with cards in at least one major, and I am allowed to use my judgement as to what action is best.

 

(2) My hand is very poor, a light third seat opening. My partner is a passed hand. It is IMPs. They are not vulnerable. I have too many hearts -- since partner apparently has a bunch of them (he promised length/cards in a major) and I have THREE, it seems likely there will be fast ruffs in dummy. My minor suit cards are kings and queens, not aces. All of these things point to doubling being wrong.

 

(3) I do not think my pass says "I do not have four spades." I think pass says "I think 2♠ is probably making, or at least it's likely enough that I don't want to double it."

 

How do I know? I don't know, perhaps 2♠ will be one down. What I do know is that with nonvul opponents, opposite a passed hand, I am not going to get rich defending on this pile of junk. Deal out reasonable hands for everyone else at the table based on the auction a few hundred times, and I think you will find that 2♠ will make a lot more often than it goes two down.

 

Should I have opened 1♦? I dunno, maybe not. Certainly if I knew my partner was this ready and willing to hang me for a light opening bid, I would've passed. If you want to blame my 1♦ opening for this disaster I can accept that. I think it had some redeeming features, but obviously it's not a wonderful bid that I am proud of making.

 

When I get a bad result, and ask which bid to blame, what I'm looking for is one of three things:

 

(1) A bid that was just wrong, and misdescribed a hand. Perhaps my 1♦ bid was in this category. Perhaps partner's initial pass was. Partner's redouble definitely falls into this category, but at that point perhaps the damage was already done.

 

(2) A bid where someone applied judgement, and ended up making a reasonable decision that worked out really badly. If I had doubled 2♠ and it had made, perhaps it falls into this category. I think many bids in this auction can be second-guessed.

 

(3) A claim that it's just a fix. Everyone did everything in a reasonable way, but the cards just didn't lie right.

 

But yet many people here are pointing to a place where judgement was applied and a reasonable decision was made, which was right on the lie of the cards. How can this be the cause of the problem?

 

I would be happy if I never doubled a making partscore at IMPs. People say if you never double a making contract you're not doubling enough... but I think that has a lot more to do with matchpoints. At IMPs, I don't double for one trick sets.

 

Like I said, I don't want to play with a partner who thinks I must robotically double a contract that I think is more likely to make than to go two down. Partner's double of 2♦ is not, cannot be an order to double 2♠ since he's already limited his hand by the initial pass. This is not akin to refusing to show a four-card major in response to stayman... it's a lot more like looking at a bad fourteen count and deciding to decline partner's limit raise. I prefer to play in partnerships where this kind of judgement is allowed.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

Partner's double of 2♦ is not, cannot be an order to double 2♠ since he's already limited his hand by the initial pass.

<snip>

In other words, you did think, that the dbl did not create

a forcing pass situation, contrary to your partner.

 

In other words, you had a disagreement in the bidding,

which led to the result, discuss the whole thing with partner

and forget the result.

 

Marlowe

[pclayton]

I tend to agree with Adam.

 

The double of 2♠ at IMPs is pretty questionable. I might do it and I might not. Frequently, this is a rhythm double we all see ourselves making.

 

I can't believe the votes for the pass of 2♠ vs the redouble. Redouble is such a tilt call - how can that possibly be defended?

[luke warm]

well phil, you're right... but i personally never got around to discussing the xx, the pass of 2S got in the way B)

 

but you did entertain the idea of doubling 2S... i've really only objected to the "this pass must be right cause the contract was cold" reasoning... it seems to me that can't be ones argument

[han]

Just to get this straight, I agree with Adam about the pass/double of 2S, I just didn't agree with the term offensive. Of course, it is easier to be offended about a hand when your partner has made a crazy redouble and blamed the result on you...

[temp3600]

My point was, it is very strange to ask which bid was the worst mistake and to be told by a plurality that the worst mistake was not doubling a cold partscore into game.

 

It's like asking "whose fault was it that the company went under?" and getting a response of "it's your fault, because you didn't embezzle money from the company coffers." How could a decision that was correct, as the cards lie be to blame for a poor result? If I had actually doubled 2♠ and gotten the result of -470, and posted this same question, would I be told "no one was to blame, you just got fixed?"

 

Suggesting that I should double a contract that I think will make, and that actually does make, and that a failure to do so is primarily to blame for a result, seems really off-base to me. Perhaps "offensive" is a bad choice of words, but I reiterate that I wouldn't want to partner anyone who blames bad results on my failure to double cold partscores into games at IMPs. And from your standpoint... would you rather play with someone who often penalty doubles making partscores into game? Or would you rather have a partner who exercises caution and good judgement in these situations? Evidently a lot of people would rather the partner who doubles making contracts. Weird.

You forget to consider that a pass of 2S leads to 3CX -2, -500. On the actual deal you are screwed whatever you do, because of the lucky lie of the cards for EW. The "good judgement" of not doubling 2S is, in my opinion, an illusion.

 

Suppose that cards are not lying in such a friendly way for EW. Now 2S is probably down 1 or 2 while NS barely make 3C, or are down 1.

 

I think that doubling 2S will lead to an equal or better result than passing most of the time.

[mikeh]

If we are looking for root causes of getting a bad board, they are, in order of appearance:

 

opening 1♦ on garbage: this bid reflected an inadequate (in my view) understanding of the purpose of bidding, which is not merely to make a noise (I am sorry that this sounds harsh, but it both reflects and explains my view)

 

redoubling: an act of insanity, confirming that neither partner has an adequate understanding of the purpose of bidding

 

The 1♦ bid is the cause of the occurrence of a disaster; the redouble was the cause of the magnitude of the disaster. The 1♦ started the fire, the redouble sprayed gasoline on it.

 

I started to write a caustic diatribe about the lunacy of doubling 2♠, but I think my thoughts are already known. You doublers may be great bridge players, but I am glad not to be on a team with you. BAM, maybe, imps.... not a chance.

[luke warm]

I started to write a caustic diatribe about the lunacy of doubling 2♠, but I think my thoughts are already known. You doublers may be great bridge players, but I am glad not to be on a team with you. BAM, maybe, imps.... not a chance

only a few of the doublers, and/or those who entertained doubling, are really good bridge players, and i'm not one of them... but i don't know why you'd want to write a caustic diatribe, given the calm nature of your first post on this subject, in which you said

 

North's pass of 2♠ is reasonable. Doubling would be an overstatement of values... he had none and he'd already shown more than that.

that is an excellent reason to pass (or not double), especially if one believes that pass can't be forcing on a passed hand partner (which i happen to believe)... however, i still object to anyone using the result of a hand as a defense for a particular bid, and adam did later admit that maybe the 1D opening was partially to blame for the result

 

i haven't defended my choice of double, mainly because it's easy to be cowed by better, more experienced players.. but i chose that bid because i felt it's what partner wanted me to do, if i had defense against their contract... if a person disagrees with that, well and good... but i would like to know how partner would have bid if he *did* want me to double an e/w contract