Game or not

[kenberg]

I also was a four spade bidder. If after the hand is set partner wants to say that he would only have bid three with that holding, I'll accept that. If he feels the need to yell, he needs to find another partner. Partners need to discuss the meaning of bids: Can the negative double be on 4-3, if so should opener with 4-4 have doubled 2D instead of bidding spades (it would seem so since otherwise you might go over a 4-4 to play in a 4-3). Maybe he doesn't play as you do that the first double can be on 4-3 (most don't, in my experience). These discussions can improve the partnership. Agressive second guessing after a hand fails doesn't. In tough spots, I want my partner to trust I will believe he is doing his best and that I will accept the result, good or bad.

 

Ken

[bid_em_up]

For the record, please note, this situation is not being presented accurately. I was the partner in question, and a few hands earlier another questionable call was made on a 4-3-3-3 pattern. I told hearta then, that it has been my experience that it does not pay to be aggressive (in the long run) with these kind of hands.

Then this hand follows.

 

First, the actual auction was P P P 1C (not first seat opener, as the original problem says). Second, noone has asked vulnerability, should it make a

difference. It was unfavorable (We are vul, they are not).

 

What was actually said, after hand was over was:

 

"sen, from now on, I want you to subtract 2 points for each queen you hold" which was meant in a joking manner, and that 3S would suffice. This hand should be downgraded for its flat 4-3-3-3 pattern and its soft "quacky" (QJ QJ) values, imo. 4S says you dont trust your partner to do the right thing when he hears 3S (or 3H, which is a good alternative).

 

I did not yell, did not get mad, never said 4S was a bad bid, or that it was a bad contract, and I certainly didnt leave the table at the time. We played two more hands after this. The entire next two hands, hearta continued to insist that he was absolutely right (one of which, he misdefended one hand because he too busy in his attempt to justify the 4S bid), and upon being requested to let it go and move on, he continued. After 2-3 times of asking that it be dropped, and it wasnt, I stated that I'd had enough and then left. Not because of the bid, in and of itself, but because of the refusal to drop it. I have better things to do with my time at 12:45 am on a work nite than to continue to argue/disagree about a bridge hand, once I have requested that the matter be dropped.

 

But did it die there? Nooooooo!! Instead, in his incessant need to be proven correct, hearta then comes here and posts this. Ok, so the majority agrees

with 4!S, big deal. I do not, but to each their own. Many have suggested that 3S is simply competitive but at unfavorable it really should not be merely "competitive", but highly invitational, imo. (Actually, I'm not so sure they do, the actual majority appears goes to 3S or 3H if it was listed as an option from reading the posts). Good for you sen, feel better now?

 

But does it die there?

 

NOOOOOOOOO!!!

 

Now that he has believes he has a majority agreeing with him, he then comes to table two nights later while I am in the middle of declaring a hand, and says "I posted this on BBO forum and the majority agrees with me". (paraphrased). I stated again, drop the subject. This is akin to my 8 year old going "nanapoopoo, i'm right you're wrong, everybody agrees with me". I get enough of this at home. I dont need it when I am attempting to enjoy my one outlet from working full time and being a full-time single dad. I, again said, let it go and he wouldnt. At this point, I AM mad. And let him know it in no uncertain terms.

 

I really dont enjoy this, its annoying and detracts from my enjoyment of the game.

 

Enjoy your new partners, sen.

[kenberg]

I could be wrong but I sense you two don't have a future as a partnership. My comments apply to the situation as originally presented, and of course I have no knowledge of the accuracy of the presentation. I possibly should not have commented earlier, I promise, with firmness, not to comment further.

 

I wish you both the best, but separately.

 

Ken

[HeartA]

You apparently get emotional, chuck.

 

First of all, you started commenting on the bidding. After you told me to stop I stopped. But then you started again, .... You said the polite way is to stop when the other party asked so. As almost always the case, you then you started again. I would added "the polite way to ask the other party to stop is to stop yourself.

 

It is true that I passed and I don't think it matters as we agreed that we always open full. If it were any difference, it would say it supports MY side, because I had a maximum passed hand, supporting ♠ (and ♣).

 

Back a few weeks ago, I unintentionally made you unhappy by starting talking to you at the wrong moment. But as always, I don't mean to irritate any person. It is true that I should try to keep quiet while playing with you. Well, as I told you, I am as stubborn as you are if not more.

 

I am sorry to make you not happy. But you need to calm down a little.

[keylime]

You held ♠QJ10x, ♥AJ10, ♦xxx, ♣QJx, and pd opened 1♣:

 

pd rho You lho

1♣ (1♦) X (2♦)

2♠ (3♦) ??

To avoid stepping into a quagmire:

 

The biddng went off the rails with a double instead of a clear 1♠ call. Doubling here with QJx♣ and denying the spade suit doesn't allow pard to effectively compete. It was fortunate the auction was able to locate spades.

 

As the auction presents itself, I like the following bids here:

 

1) Double to me is "Pard I'm flat, do the right thing, I have values but no clue where to go". I would NOT want a double as a generic game try here - the 4333 shape has me wondering whether to defend or not.

2) 3♥ is a general try at game, showing values.

3) Pass is definitely not forcing here.

4) Game - with three dead diamonds you actually give pard a reasonable hand since pard is likely short in diamonds. Now every card is magic - they carry full weight.

 

To me it's screaming a game bid only white on red. Especially at IMPs, this hand wants to smack the opps around hard; many constructions yield +500 when game is down. I'm a take the sure profit kind of guy -> I double.

 

With regards to the contretemps, forums may not necessarily be the right place to discuss differences. Neither is at the table during play.

[toothbrush]

The three small diamonds are gold to me. Opps probably have 10 (useless) points in ♦ so partner probably has high cards in other suits.

I bid 4♠

[Free]

Dbl, 3♠ is just competitive imo, and I might need more than minimum for 4♠.

 

4♠ is a close second, but I don't believe opps have 9 ♦'s all the time, which would mean an immediate 2 losers there. Trumps also split 4-1, and we don't even know the vulnerability which can be VERY important in this case!

[y66]

Based on 24 deals in Jack, 4S makes 16 times, goes down 8 times.

 

Assumptions: West has 4 spades; they have 9 diamonds.

 

Now I'll bid 4S. At the table, I think I would have bid 3H (game try). I am very conservative when I have this shape.

 

Game? Yes. Blame? No.

 

Cheers.

[caigao]

y66 Posted on Mar 23 2006, 06:50 AM

Based on 24 deals in Jack, 4S makes 16 times, goes down 8 times.

 

Assumptions: West has 4 spades; they have 9 diamonds.

 

Now I'll bid 4S. At the table, I think I would have bid 3H (game try). I am very conservative when I have this shape.

 

Interesting analysis. 2/3 of the 24 hands makes 4♠ with the assumption of pd had singleton Diamond.

 

What if you make a new assumption that opponents had 8 diamonds? I'd love to see the outcome.

[annebabe]

Perhaps the last bid is unimportant compared to system discussion. HeartA and Bid_em_up can use this hand to discuss their system.

1.) Bid 1 ♠ rather than X at the one level with 4-3. At the two level might need to X with 4-3 or even 5-3.

2.) Opener could use a responsive double rather than 2 ♠.

 

 

My regular "real life" partner and I blame the player who made the FIRST "bad" bid. Next blame goes to the SECOND "bad" bid, etc. "Bad" is defined as misleading, a better bid available, or just plain "not smart" bid.

 

Then the bidding might have gone

 

1♣ 1♦ 1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♦ 3♥ or 3♠ or 4♠ (or??)

[HeartA]

I would like to add something here.

 

The purpose to post a hand here is not for winning an argument. As I said earlier, if my shape were better I would not bother to post here even if Garozzo said I were wrong (I knew I was right). I post the hand here because I have some doubts. Sometimes when most posts disagreed with mine opinion, I also told the other party (usually my pd) that most people agreed with him/her. Some friends who ever disagreement with me can prove this.

 

I am stubborn, and also acknowledge my mistakes. When I was (obviously wrong) and I would say "sorry" immediately. When I recognized I was wrong (more thought, or learned something from this forum etc), I would talk to my partner I was wrong.

 

It is true that I went back and talked to chuck that "most votes agreed with me." This is purely for improvement on bridge. While chuck thinks he is better than I am (might be true), he almost always says in such a way "teach you...", "you never learn...". The thing is I don't have any idol with whom I don't dare to argue. Fred is true expert here, that yet doesn't mean I have to agree with him 100% of the time.

[HeartA]

Audrey,

 

Glad to see you here.

 

I did learn something from this thread. Maybe I need to change my style a little. To bid at one level after opps' interference, could be 4-card only as if no interference. dbl over 1D shows 2 majors.

 

How about 1S over opps 1H overcall? 4-card or 5?

 

I was used to NFB as some of you know. I removed NFB from my profile a few weeks ago.

[Al_U_Card]

Any agreement is better than no agreement......with a pick-up pard, make the value bid......HA!

 

For spades you have 8 losers (-1 for the good spades) Pard (if he has a stiff D) is 4414 or 4315 with at best 7 losers.

 

Just how good are your opps and your pard's playing skills? Everything factored in, I would game try (even with 3D if I had to) and if 3S is the answer, I would respect it. With this balanced hand opposite shape, the opps will also have some shape so ruffs will lurk.

[mikestar]

Given the auction that went before, I like X as "game invitation with the option of defending". With a stiff diamond, partner will accept unless he is ashamed of his opening (unlikely in fourth seat). With a doubleton, partner can stop in 3♠ with poor defense and leave it in with good defense, as I would in the hand in question.

 

Neither the 3♠ nor the 4♠ alternatives are horrible bids: much depends on opener's minimum standards for a fourth seat opening. So there is no need for the partnership acrimony. (Not that acrimony is helpful even when a bid is horrible!)

[HeartA]

Given the auction that went before, I like X as "game invitation with the option of defending". With a stiff diamond, partner will accept unless he is ashamed of his opening (unlikely in fourth seat). With a doubleton, partner can stop in 3♠ with poor defense and leave it in with good defense, as I would in the hand in question.

 

Neither the 3♠ nor the 4♠ alternatives are horrible bids: much depends on opener's minimum standards for a fourth seat opening. So there is no need for the partnership acrimony. (Not that acrimony is helpful even when a bid is horrible!)

mike,

 

As I wrote in my previous post, we agreed to open FULL in any seat.

[bid_em_up]

Actually, what we are supposed to have agreed to is sound/full openers in 1st/2nd seat. Third/Fourth seat openings may be light (10-11, possibly even a good 9), in order to protect the passing of a good 11/12 count in 1st/2nd.

 

Or at least, thats what I am playing, anyway.

[HeartA]

Chuck,

 

As I said, I am as stubborn as you are. If you don't stop, I won't. To open with 10-11, or 9 at 3rd or 4th position? Could you show me an example (even you played with other pd)?

 

Everytime we play as pd, you set up cc. If I asked you "no (rev)drury?", you would say, "we open full".