Taking the lottery out of it

[1eyedjack]

I was the main offender on this hand:[hv=d=s&v=b&n=shqdaq98765ckj984&w=sak54ha32d3c76532&e=sqt9762hk9876dcqt&s=sj83hjt54dkjt42ca]399|300|Scoring: IMP

S...W...N...E

P...P...1♦..3♣(1)

3♦..4♠..5♦..P

P...5♠..6♦..P

P...X...P...P

P

 

(1) Both majors

 

Lead ♠7 result +1

Par contract 6♠X -2, which is a good sac against 5♦

[/hv]

 

Well, I was West, and it might have worked out better if I had opened in 2nd seat (heck, anything could only have worked better). I should have diagnosed the void on the bidding, but North could not have been that confident when bidding 6 (after risking stopping in 5). Partner says she should have diagnosed the void on lead and held it to tick. Well, maybe. Partner says she should have bid 5S over 5D. Again, maybe. I probably should have sniffed at slam our way to make, rather than just bidding 4S.

 

I'm not looking for blame on this, I know I take the lion's share, but I am hoping to use it as the launching point for some discussion on how to anticipate the problems so as to take some of the lottery out of the 5 level decision.

 

You can never take all of the lottery out of it, and you can assume that it will get to the 5 level very quickly, so you only have a few bids available (ie one chance in the auction) to distinguish hand types.

 

It seems to me that there are two basic approaches.

 

Approach 1 is apply fast arrival to get immediately to your best guess of the final spot. This means that the opponents are making their 5-level decision based on the least amount of information and, logically, will choose wrong more frequently as a result.

 

Approach 2 is to use the various bids available which should not reasonably be used as natural to prepare your side for the high level decision on the assumption that, rightly or wrongly, the opponents will take the push and give the decision back to you.

 

Approach 1 is the practical (indeed only) approach if you have not discussed what the alternative bids mean. But I feel that approach 2 is likely to be the winning strategy, if you have taken the trouble to prepare and agree on the meaning of the bids. Indeed, on this example, using approach 1 "worked" on this occasion because North chose wrong in bidding 5D. But that is not much use if our side then makes a wrong decision about whether to defend 5D or bid again.

 

On grounds of frequency I would expect North to take out the "insurance" of bidding 5D whoever is making what, so West should on this hand assume that he is going to have a 5 level decision passed back to him.

 

So, I would be interested to know whether the peanut gallery have any suggestions about (eg) the meanings of West's other alternatives to the 4S bid chosen, and whether there are some general "meta" rules that might be applied in other situations (where the amount of available bidding space will not be identical). Instinctively it does not seem sensible to use either of 3N or 4C as natural bids.

[whereagles]

I'll admit to not having this problem because I'd have opened 5♦ in 3rd seat <_<

[pbleighton]

"I'll admit to not having this problem because I'd have opened 5D in 3rd seat"

 

Agree, but to the problem as stated:

 

If you have sophisticated pertnership agreements about high level interference, that's better than if you don't. I don't. So, I think 4S is a good bid.

 

Double is a bad bid at IMPs. The payoff is low, and the bidding indicated a lot of distribution, quite possible a spade void.

 

Peter

[jdonn]

This reminds me of the other thread over the 5♠ bid on whether to bid 6♣ or double. When there is lots of distribution and you aren't sure who can make what, it's just so important to buy the contract at imps. 4♠ was a normal bid, the auction might simply have ended there. Later on I think west just has to keep sacrificing, even up to 6. He is almost sure no spades will cash, and if a couple hearts were cashing or something it's just too bad. It's a chance you can't afford to take at imp scoring.

[Codo]

I respect all descissions.

4 Spad was fine, 5 Spade a double shot and double could have worked.

 

They made a "blind" guess at the 5. level andf a new one at the 6. level.

 

The first was right, the second was wrong. Happened, bad luck.

But it could have been vice versa. Spade could have been 2-1, HEarts 3-2, pd could have Kx in clubs with clubs 4-2....

 

It was not? So what, this happens. If I get a Dollar for any lucky slam the opps made against me, I would be quite rich.

 

Fort all the 5 Diamond openers: You had lost a slam swing in this hand, which makes the bid a looser- at least in this case.

[matmat]

i dunno. i think you could have let your partner in on the double fit secret with your second bid. 5h instead of 5s would place her in a better position to make a decision over the double, i think.

[kenrexford]

As a peanut, I use "flag bids" in many auctions of this type. "Flag bids" are calls that "flag" a suit in a two-option situation, as a type of suit-specifying Lebensohl-ish approach.

 

Here, 3♣ showed both majors. I have (strangely) passed in first seat. Now, I have a monster. 4H or 4S would identify a fit but imply "weaker" or less defensive or whatever. 4C would flag/show hearts, and 4D would flag/show spades; each flag bid would show a stronger hand, or more defense, or whatever. The precise difference between the natural and the artificial is contextual, and the ultimate definition may play out by later decisions and/or forcing pass alternatives.

 

With a passed hand, I have boxed myself in a bit. I would assume that the natural call (4S) showed poor defense and that the cue (4D) would imply defense. I have a weird and unexpected strength in quick tricks. Thus, I have little ability to describe this hand. I suppose that my extreme diamond shortness, instead of heart shortness, would induce me to describe this as not defensive, a strange definition for a hand with a count of three quick tricks. Thus, I would probably bid 4S if forced to pass initially. The theory would be to encourage partner to "sacrifice" when he holds the actual hand that he holds.

 

All this being said, I cannot provide a deinitional stance for the difference because AKxx-Axx in the majors is impossible for me, even if AKxx-Axx-xxx-xxx, as a passed hand. I would open that hand. Add a stiff, and I am boggled.