asign the blame for bad biding

[jocdelevat]

[hv=d=s&v=a&n=sj64hakq976d42cqt&w=sk53h5d73cakj8532&e=s97hjt42dakqjt6c6&s=saqt82h83d985c974]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     Pass

 3♣    3♥    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

Hi all

 

I was south. I have a few questions for this board.

1. my pard call director after board played for reason that 3c was not a weak 3 open.Is he right about that? I agree with him but I was not surprise because I saw a lot of players openning a weak 3 with 11hcp. I thought a weak 3 open should be 7 cards 7-10 hcp and no defense.

2. my pard overcall 3h. How many points you need to overcall a weak 3 opening?

I thought you need around 16hcp. How many points you need for a take out double after a weak 3 openning? If you have a weak hand too after preempt it is corect to overcall a weak bid with another weak bid?

 

Thank you in advance for your advice

[HeartA]

Most expert players would not open 3C with West's hand. But if B/I players play strict 1-2-3-4 count and 12 hcp opening, 3C is fine. There is nothing wrong with it.

 

And North's 3H over call with that self-sufficient suit is OK and I believe most players would do that.

 

And finally, North-South had nothing to complain about the result. East-West had cold 3NT. Even doubled, you only only -500. What's the problem?

[gwnn]

3♣ is a typical "fun-bid" (let's see if opps know whether I have 5 pts or 11 very very good pts), but in 2nd seat it's not that good (only if they have agreed upon opening with that too, but still not that good). 3♥ is a good bid. There can be many 10 pointers with no specific extras opposite which you'd like to be in 4♥ or 3NT or... Point count is not of priority. You have no real time to explore game. Agressivity is the point. And "Imagine 10 pointers opposite which u have game". Wishful thinking is nice.

 

Calling the TD is absurd. This opener clearly is outside their understanding and the biggest damage it has done was on their result: after a normal opener East would have probably had no problem bidding 3NT (of course, who knows how they would have played clubs. But diamond run gives him fair count). Calling the TD for a "strong weak" opener is warranted in other situations. Say LHO opens 3♣. Now pd asks RHO "what is this?" and he answers "aa, well, a weak-ish hand, probably around at most 10 pts". Your p now passes and then RHO bids 3NT with 7 pts. He makes because LHO had 16 pts and not "at most 10". This would have strongly suggested that they had another agreement on what 3♣ means and they intendedly stopped you from knowing it. Otherwise everyone is free to preempt with whatever they wish to preempt with. It may need alerting, though, if 5-carders are systemically allowed, encouraged or required.

[1eyedjack]

Don't think I would have bid 3H. But perhaps that is just me.

[Walddk]

Don't think I would have bid 3H. But perhaps that is just me.

If you don't overcall 3♥ I think you have stopped playing the game I know as bridge.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

Please tell your partner not to waste the TD's time:

- 3♣ may or may not be a normal opening depending on culture and skill level

- Even if it's an unusual agreement to open 3♣ with this hand, it may not be alertable, depending on the jurisdiction.

- Who says EW has an agreement to play intermediate 3-openings? If anything, East's failure to double suggests there is no such agreement.

- Where is the damage? Whether NS got a poor result as a consequence of the 3♣ opening is irelevant. The question is if NS were damaged by the failure to alert the opening.

 

The rest of the auction is completely normal. Passing with the North hand would be normal too, this hand is borderline.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

3C is very heavy, to put it nice, but it does not really

hurt the opponents, it hurts more responder, since he

will quite often get certain auction wrong.

 

3H on the other hand is on light side, I would probably

make the bid, but know, that I have streched.

A simple ovecall shows a min.. opener, which North

has, altough I would prefer to open the hand with 3H.

 

The North hand is borderline, and if you pass, that is

certainly fine, altough the suit quality should make you bid.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

Added: I read the remark, that the partner of the 3C bidder

had passed, this makes the 3C bid a lot more attractive,

in other, the bid is ok.

[mr1303]

3♥ looks pretty obvious to me. Equally, I would give strong consideration to 3♣. My pre-empts are sound 2nd seat vulnerable, and partner will play me for something close to this.

[bid_em_up]

Don't think I would have bid 3H.  But perhaps that is just me.

If you don't overcall 3♥ I think you have stopped playing the game I know as bridge.

 

Roland

And I think bidding 3♥ here opposite a passed hand is just asking for trouble.

 

Oh well. To each their own.

[pclayton]

Agree with 3♥, but I don't care much for 3♣; the hand is too strong even at all vul.

[inquiry]

Agree with 3♥, but I don't care much for 3♣; the hand is too strong even at all vul.

At imps opposite a passed hand, I am not as certain as so many people are with 3♥. Have the wrong number of clubs. My club Queen-Ten would be much better for me if they were in a different suit. RHO is unpassed hand and (3C)-3H-(DBL) is penalty double so when 3♥ is wrong it is going to be very wrong.

 

Roland may think I have given up bridge, but here, I have to admit that the knee jerk bid is 3♥, and at Matchpoints I would bid it. At imps, vul, I am going to pass quietly.

 

Roland says those who pass are not playing the game he knows as bridge, I say those who bid 3♥ here are playing the game I know as poker.

[Walddk]

Roland says those who pass are not playing the game he knows as bridge, I say those who bid 3♥ here are playing the game I know as poker.

I am not particularly worried about being hammered at the 3-level at IMPs when I hold AKQxxx. When I have the choice between running a passive risk (pass) and an active risk (bid), I always choose the active one.

 

By the way, I don't like poker much and last I played it was on March 17, 1991 if my memory serves me correctly.

 

Roland

[1eyedjack]

I never thought that passing (v 3H) was clear. Just that on balance I probably would have passed. My reasoning:

The value of the Spade Jack is uncertain, but the Club Q is waste garbage (except possibly in defence), and the 6322 shape does not appeal to me.

I was always taught that sacrificing against a preempt is not generally sound tactics, but I guess it could work here. If we are making 3H then we will certainly be in 4H. Which will be all well and good if we can make 10 tricks, but not much good if we can just make 9. Might have game on, but I reckon that is too unlikely opposite a passed hand to take the shot.

[neilkaz]

I never thought that passing (v 3H) was clear. Just that on balance I probably would have passed. My reasoning:

The value of the Spade Jack is uncertain, but the Club Q is waste garbage (except possibly in defence), and the 6322 shape does not appeal to me.

I was always taught that sacrificing against a preempt is not generally sound tactics, but I guess it could work here. If we are making 3H then we will certainly be in 4H. Which will be all well and good if we can make 10 tricks, but not much good if we can just make 9. Might have game on, but I reckon that is too unlikely opposite a passed hand to take the shot.

We agree completely and I just think this is a too weak to call 3♥ vul at imps opposite a passed PD. However, it is a very close decision for me and I would not criticize anyone who calls 3♥ here.

 

But the complaint about the opening is far off base. People need to play bridge and stop wasting the director's time just because they think an opp's bid is 1 or 2 HCP too heavy or light.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[pclayton]

I never thought that passing (v 3H) was clear.  Just that on balance I probably would have passed.  My reasoning:

The value of the Spade Jack is uncertain, but the Club Q is waste garbage (except possibly in defence), and the 6322 shape does not appeal to me.

I was always taught that sacrificing against a preempt is not generally sound tactics, but I guess it could work here.  If we are making 3H then we will certainly be in 4H.  Which will be all well and good if we can make 10 tricks, but not much good if we can just make 9.  Might have game on, but I reckon that is too unlikely opposite a passed hand to take the shot.

We agree completely and I just think this is a too weak to call 3♥ vul at imps opposite a passed PD. However, it is a very close decision for me and I would not criticize anyone who calls 3♥ here.

 

But the complaint about the opening is far off base. People need to play bridge and stop wasting the director's time just because they think an opp's bid is 1 or 2 HCP too heavy or light.

 

.. neilkaz ..

Open 3♣ all you want. I promise I won't call the director :blink:

[jillybean]

When players don’t understand why it is ok to open 3♣ with 7♣ and 11 points and still call it ‘weak’ or open 1♠ when they only hold 2 ♠ and not alert the bid of course the TD is going to be called.

Fair enough too, its very confusing – we need someone to explain why players are permitted to do this... I couldnt in any intelligible way, it took me long enough to understand it myself.

[paulg]

When players don’t understand why it is ok to open 3♣ with 7♣ and 11 points and still call it ‘weak’ or open 1♠ when they only hold 2 ♠ and not alert the bid of course the TD is going to be called.

Fair enough too, its very confusing – we need someone (Ben  :blink: ) to explain why players are permitted to do this... I couldnt in any intelligible way, it took me long enough to understand it myself.

It is a question of disclosure of partnership agreements. Specifically everyone should be disclosing their agreements with alerts when there is the potential for the opponents to misunderstand their bids. This would include conventional and artificial bids, and bids that are 'unusual' in nature by partnership agreement.

 

In this case, calling the TD over the 3♣ opener is questioning whether EW have an agreement that the 3♣ opener can be this strong and have failed to disclose it. In itself there is nothing wrong with calling the TD for this, although I feel that it is quite clear that there is no such agreement as East would bid 3NT if there was.

 

I would expect the TD to say that West has made a poor bid (or, if being pleasant, deviated from standard bidding) but there is no partnership agreement and hence no infraction and no reason to alert.

 

Most national organisations have established alerting regulations to reduce the number of alerts in the f2f game. For example, Stayman and bids above 3NT are often deemed to be non-alertable (as everyone is expected to know them) but these regulations vary considerably by country. The WBF Policy, and essentially the BBO suggested policy, is to alert everything.

 

With respect to players psyching a 1♠ bid when only holding two spades, psyches are not alertable as, by definition, a psych is a major deviation from partnership agreements.

 

Hopefully this is clear.

 

Where it gets messy is players' concern about concealed partnership agreements (CPUs) and general bridge experience. Deliberately concealing your partnership agreements is cheating but this is very rare. Sometimes partnerships will have implicit agreements through experience: for example, if this EW pair had another similar 3♣ opening, then they would have created an agreement that they are playing intermediate 3♣ openers and they should be alerting appropriately (even though they may not have an explicit agreement).

 

Many of us on these forums debate/argue about the use of general bridge experience. In my opinion beginners and intermediate players have little of this and so adv/exp players should be alerting their general bridge experience when playing them. Others disagree.

 

HTH,

 

Paul

[helene_t]

When players don’t understand why it is ok to open 3♣ with 7♣ and 11 points and still call it ‘weak’ or open 1♠ when they only hold 2 ♠ and not alert the bid of course the TD is going to be called.

Fair enough too, its very confusing – we need someone (Ben  :blink: ) to explain why players are permitted to do this...

Simple - you can bid whatever you want. Period. I can imagine some people would like the rules to be different but I don't understand anybody find it difficult to understand what the rules actually do say about this.

 

Maybe this is a question of semantics. Unfortunately, the English word "must" has (at least) two different meanings:

1) You must use the stop card before making a skip bid.

2) You must open the higher-ranking of two five-cards.

 

"Must"(1) means that the law requires you to do so. If you don't, opps may call the director.

"Must"(2) means that you have the partnership agreement to do so. If you don't, your partner may have an issue with your bidding but the director can't.

 

Many people are not so conscious about language. They tend to think that if two words sound the same and are also spelled the same (such as must(1) and must(2)) they also mean the same.

 

A different issue is that you must(1) disclose all partnerships agreements. This is much more subtle, since you may wonder:

- How to give complete yet brief disclocure

- What excactly is an "agreement" (e.g. in an indy, you may partner someone about whose style you have heard some rumors - do you have to tell the opps about this?)

- What kind of agreements require alert, pre-alert etc.

- What is a special agrement as opposed to general bridge knowledge.

[Blofeld]

I usually err on the side of bidding too much, but I admit that I pass the North hand over 3♣ here.

[Echognome]

I am definitely a 3♥ bidder. Lots of good things can happen when we bid. Partner may find the best lead to defeat their game. We may find a profitable sacrifice. Partner may have a maximum pass and it's our hand. Who knows? But the risk of going for a number with AKQxxx does not bother me. I'm not saying it's impossible, just improbable. Weak my heart suit and put the values outside, then I will be much less prone to bid.

[neilkaz]

Hi JB...

 

In olden times classic preeempts were made by the rule of 1,2,3 and quite a few players needed 13 HCP to feel good about opening. Here, the hand opening 3♣ probably is only good for 7 tricks (sometimes the Q of ♣ is offside, and often the K of ♠ won't score a trick so that opposite a busted PD the hand figure to go down 2 tricks which adheres to the rule for equal vul.

 

In my grandmother's day, quite a few would open this hand 3♣, but in my father's day, what we consider to be an obvious 1♣ opening would have been more common.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[jillybean]

I doubt your average BBO player reads through the bridge laws, I was going to say new players but I have seen plenty of advanced/experts make td calls about this type of bid.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of explaing deviations from a partnership agreements and that it is within the laws to open a ‘usual’ 1♣ hand as 3♣ based on the vulnerability, seat position, suit quality, gut feeling, bad bid, misclick or anything else that makes you want to bid 3♣. An alert is not required unless your partner expects this bid, in this position, vulnerability and so on. To alert and explain ‘stronger than normal 3♣ gives your opponents more information than your partner has – they are entitled to know about your partnership agreements, implicit and explicit not the details of the cards you hold.

 

My understanding is the same for psyches, a players is is permitted to make deliberate and gross mis-statement of their hand, honor strength, suit length provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

(law40)

[neilkaz]

I still wouldn't call the director here since East's actions indicate that nothing spurious was going on since he passed 3♥ rather than taking a shot at doubling it and he also didn't bid 3NT which would certainly seem to have real good chances since he stops ♥, if he had expected PD to have this monster for a 2nd seat 3♣ preempt.

 

In short, I don't think there were any undisclosed unusual agreements here concerning unusually (for "modern" bridge) strong preempts. So..I'd let the director rest and move onto the next hand.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[Cascade]

I like to be conservative opposite a passed hand and the opponent's pre-empt.

 

But this north hand needs so little for game/part-score so I am a bidder.

[kenberg]

The play and defense in 3N has some interesting aspects but it can be made (of course) and probably will be made. And probably bid after an opening of 1C. But it goes for quite a few if the spades are rearranged.

 

Anyway, my idea of a preempt is that it makes constructive bidding by everyone, includiing one's partner, difficult. West can do it when he thinks this is to his advantage, rather than when he has a certain number of points. I, myself, would not open this 3C. An opponent (even the one directly across the table) is free to do so if he chooses. To each his own. If 3C could not be bid on less, then they owe you an alert. But assuming, as seems likely from the E pass, that it just is a preempt, then it's fine (by me).

 

Over 3C I bid 3H, I think. I don't regard it as clearcut.