one bad bid after another

[jillybean]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sakqjt972h6dq84cj&s=s653h542dak93c963]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     Pass

 Pass  1♠    2♥    2♠

 Pass  3♦    3♥    Pass

 Pass  3♠    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

Who's to blame, North 3♦ or South pass ?

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sakqjt972h6dq84cj&s=s653h542dak93c963]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  Pass

 1♥    4♠    5♥    Dbl

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

 

A few boards later; what went wrong here. Maybe it just a matter of style. B)

[pbleighton]

1. I would have opened 4S, but in the context of your question, I would blame North more, as South has a rotten hand despite the diamonds. 4S seems clear.

 

2. 4S by North is *bold*, even by my standards at favorable, but I don't mind it, as long as pd won't be shocked. Obviously pd was shocked B)

 

Peter

[mikeh]

1. North is 3rd seat with 8 solid ♠s and 8131 shape... open 4♠... make LHO bid at the 5-level. There is no realistic slam possibility here...at least, not our way.

 

Having opened 1♠ and heard a raise (!!!.. we didn't expect that, surely) we have to bid game now.. 3♦ as a game try is just plain wrong. Even if game doesn't make, it will be a good save.

 

South is not blame free either, but it is easier to sympathize: the ♦s are great, but the rest of the hand stinks, and the trumps are ugly. North screwed up 3 times (4♠ at the last call was another missed opportunity) and South made a borderline debatable call (and, maybe, if all the calls were in tempo, which I bet they weren't) S might possibly have reevaluated over 3♠.

 

2. 4♠ by north is flat out weird... some would say that 2♠ is enough and others that this is worth 3♠... count me in the former, but I respect the latter group. 4♠ is far too unilateral. South's double is sick... sick....sick. Just exactly how many defensive tricks did S expect if S had paid the slightest attention to the bidding? I wouldn't defend (let alone double) 6♥... I'd probably (but not certainly) defend (but not double) 7♥.

[Winstonm]

I don't mean this as insensitive, arrogant or mean-spirited - if anything it is a condemnation of my own inabilities of comprehension.

 

But hands like this are the reasons I cannot play with nor care to play against those of this skill level - I simply have no clue as to the thinking processes that could lead to such ends. It baffles me.

 

Perhaps if you posted the thinking processes behind each choice of bids there would be more help available? To me, it is not so important for you to understand what a good player would do, but to analyze your own thinking to see where that led you astray.

[pclayton]

Open 4S on the 1st. In the actual hand, North heard a raise, which should have been enough. Even after the signoff, East is still in there. Souths pass over 3H shows a little encouragement so North had another chance. 300 percent blame to north here: 100 percent times the 3 opportunities to bid 4S.

 

4S on the 1st is a little bizarre. I totally agree with the double - its clear the opponents have a slam and this is the only way to slow them down.

 

Just kidding - double is crazy.

[skjaeran]

1. I'd split the blame 95-5, 95% to north who should have bid 4♠ on every opportunity (absolutely clearcut - no options there), 5% to south who had a debatable raise to 4♠ on two occasions (I'd have raised to game over 3♥).

 

2. Nothing to add - crazy 4♠ by north and shocking double by south.

[mike777]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sakqjt972h6dq84cj&s=s653h542dak93c963]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     Pass

 Pass  1♠    2♥    2♠

 Pass  3♦    3♥    Pass

 Pass  3♠    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

Who's to blame, North 3♦ or South pass ?

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sakqjt972h6dq84cj&s=s653h542dak93c963]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  Pass

 1♥    4♠    5♥    Dbl

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

 

A few boards later; what went wrong here. Maybe it just a matter of style. :)

Jb...these are two great great hands.

I encourage you to ask your favorite exp bbo forums players to discuss these hands in depth....These hands need to become really really easy for you and for me.....

 

These are really easy hands....please discuss in depth with the top forum players.

ty for posting

[jillybean]

I appreciate the honesty. :)

To answer Winstons questions; I was south and as for the thinking on board 1; I have great ♦ but the rest of the hand awful; 3343; if my partner has anything reasonable he will bid 3♠.

Board2; after the previous 1♠/3♠ bidding I had no idea what type of hand my partner had; maybe a monster; nothing to lose and I didnt care.

As for skill level listed on profile; it is an irrelevant, hopeless measure of ability.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 facing a pased partner, I would say

4S instead of 1S

 

#2 is it the same North?

Dbl of 5H is not a good bid, you may beat it

or you you may not, you have at most one

and a half dev. trick and partner did never

promise one.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Fluffy]

Try not to count HCP when having 65, 74, 83.... it doesn't help all, more like reversed.

 

2♠ normally covers 2-3 tricks, you have 8, you are in the 10-11 range.

 

---

 

Soth decision is way closer than north's decision, I think pass is still wrong though, the fact why you use natural trial bids instead of the pedestrian 1♠-2♠-3♠-4♠ is precisely to determine this is a maximum.

[mikeh]

Hey, jb

 

My post was pretty blunt... but no more blunt than the way that we used to talk to each other when I was starting to learn the game (I say: starting, because that learning process never ends) and a group of us would go to the bar after a game an rehash our triumphs and, more importantly, our failures.

 

Consistency is a useful virtue... the North player displayed a troubling lack of it on these two hands....due, I am sure, to inexperience. The

'blame' has been well-touched on by the posters here.

 

On the second hand, S certainly has a trump holding that suggests, in a vaccuum, that EW maybe are guessing wrong at the 5-level: but the bidding has filled in any vaccuum. Admittedly, the North hand doesn't look like a 4♠ bid... but, as S acting over 5♥, picture what a 4♠ bid should look like.

 

Would it be the least bit surprising to catch North with AKQxxxxx void Jxx xx? Wouldn't we all happily bid 4♠ with this? Now, look at South's hand.... we have a 12 card ♠ fit, so we know that one of the opps is ruffing, and West will play us for the trump length, even if we don't double....so if opener, who has the longer ♥ and the stronger hand, has the ♥J, they are making slam..in my earlier post, when I said I wasn't sure I'd defend grand, I have in my mind that your trumps were Q9xx..with Q109x, I'd defend grand but I wouldn't double: if LHO owns AKJ8xx and I double when they own ALL the outside cards, I may well score no trump tricks.

 

Getting back to the actual hand, it is almost never right to make a penalty double, other than in a forcng pass situation, when our expectation is, at best, to beat the contract one trick..note that this is imps we are talking about. I wouldn't expect to come close to beating 5♥, anyway.

[jillybean]

#2 is it the same North?

Yup, the same pickup 'expert'; we have perhaps 8 boards experience.

 

Hey, jb

 

My post was pretty blunt...

 

No offence taken, it was received in the spirit of a bar room rehash. I really don’t know when to whack em or not and I see this was just, silly.

 

Getting back to the actual hand, it is almost never right to make a penalty double, other than in a forcng pass situation, when our expectation is, at best, to beat the contract one trick.

 

This is a great description and really gives me something to think about; I usually double in this type of auction if I think I can beat the contract by one trick.

[mikeh]

Getting back to the actual hand, it is almost never right to make a penalty double, other than in a forcng pass situation, when our expectation is, at best, to beat the contract one trick.

 

This is a great description and really gives me something to think about; I usually double in this type of auction if I think I can beat the contract by one trick.

At imps: consider:

 

If they are not vulnerable and you double a game contract, hoping to beat it a trick:

 

1. you beat it and go +100. At the other table, your teammates play a partscore and go +140. You win 6 imps. Had you not doubled, you'd win 5 imps

 

2. You beat it and go +100, and your teammates play the same contract and go -50: you win 2 imps: had you not doubled, it would have been a push

 

3. The contract makes. You go -590 and your teammates go +420: you lose 5 imps.

 

There are other combinations of results (they may make an overtrick, they may redouble, they may go down 2 and your teammates results may be surprising, etc.

 

But the point is that the double for 1 trick sets gains, usually, at most 2 imps, and will cost, when the contract makes, 5 imps. So you need 5-2 odds to break even: you must assess that they rate to fail, on all plausible lies of the cards, far more often than they rate to make.

 

Ypu can do the same arithmetic for vulnerable contracts: the figures are a bit different, because you rate to gain 3 imps by the +200 and still lose the same 5 imps when wrong... but remember that the overtrick is more costly!

 

The auction will usually give you a lot of clues: thus, when partner preempts at favourable vulnerability, you should not count on his hand for any tricks at all. Now, can you beat the contract in your own hand? If you have a side suit King, for example, unless you hold the Queen as well, assume (unless the bidding tells you otherwise... say, if RHO had shown length and strength in the suit or had cue bid the A) that the A is behind you...so your K is NOT a trick.

 

In general, if the opps bid with confidence, be pessimistic when doubling. If the opps have a stretch auction.. where they struggle into game after each bidder has limited his hand, and you have a surprise for declarer, then be optimistic (unless the double will give away the situation: many doubled contracts are made when they would have failed without the double to warn declarer of a bad trump break)

[ArtK78]

First hand - opposite a passed partner, a 4♠ bid is clear. You don't know who is making what, but you are virtually sure that you are not making slam, and you have 8 tricks in spades. So bid game.

 

Second hand - the 4♠ bid is too much. Even 3♠ is pushing it, but not nearly as much.

 

The double of 5♥ is bad with so many spades and virtually no defense outside of trump. Opposite a 4♠ bid by partner, I would bid 5♠ with Jxxx of spades. Maybe the opps will bid 6♥ which I will defend (but I will not double). And if 6♥ made, it would not be a total shock, although I like my chances more than at least one previous poster.

[Winstonm]

I appreciate the honesty.  ;)

To answer Winstons questions; I was south and as for the thinking on board 1; I have great ♦ but the rest of the hand awful;  3343; if my partner has anything reasonable he will bid 3♠.

Board2; after the previous 1♠/3♠ bidding I had no idea what type of hand my partner had; maybe a monster; nothing to lose and I didnt care.

As for skill level listed on profile; it is an irrelevant, hopeless measure of ability.

Thanks JB, that helps.

 

O.K. Played properly, the help-suit game try states: Partner, if you can help me fill in the holes in this one suit we probably have a game. It is not a general strength asking bid, such as 3 of the suit would be.

 

You cannot hold better-fitting cards for the 3D try - partner doesn't care about your heart or club holdings so presumably those are controlled - where he wants help is in diamonds and you hold that to the max. Bid 4S. If it is wrong, then partner did not have a 3D bid.

 

However, North should never have placed you in this spot - clear cut 4S the first time out.

 

Second - I still don't know what you are asking. 4S was nuts and double was double nuts. Bad bridge is not a preferred style, IMO.

[mikeh]

Thanks JB, that helps.

 

O.K.  Played properly, the help-suit game try states: Partner, if you can help me fill in the holes in this one suit we probably have a game.  It is not a general strength asking bid, such as 3 of the suit would be. 

 

You cannot hold better-fitting cards for the 3D try - partner doesn't care about your heart or club holdings so presumably those are controlled - where he wants help is in diamonds and you hold that to the max.  Bid 4S.  If it is wrong, then partner did not have a 3D bid.

 

While I know players who use hsgt's this way, I am not one of them.

 

For me, a help suit game try asks more than one question.

 

For example, there will be hands on which opener has two suits of concern... now, make the hsgt in the cheaper of the two suits.

 

If responder has an average or better hand and some help, he commits to game.

 

If he has an average or better hand with no help but with help in a suit between the help suit and 3Major, he bids the cheaper suit in which he holds help: if it meshes with opener, and opener can afford game with help in either of his two suits of concern, then opener commits to game.

 

If responder has a horrible hand then, even if he helps the hsgt suit, he should sign off.

 

That is why I attributed very little blame to South for rejecting the game try. While the ♦ suit was great, the rest of the hand was kaka, and the trump holding the absolute worst it could be. Personally, I would have accepted the try because AK9x

is such a perfect holding, but I would not have been surprised to see game fail, especially if trump were foul.

 

So, for me, I accept hsgts only with help and a non-horrible hand. If partner can make game opposite help in a horrible hand, he should just bid game without giving away information. The mere fact that one makes a hsgt gives aid and comfort to the enemy, both on opening lead and during the play.

[Winstonm]

Thanks JB, that helps.

 

O.K.  Played properly, the help-suit game try states: Partner, if you can help me fill in the holes in this one suit we probably have a game.  It is not a general strength asking bid, such as 3 of the suit would be. 

 

You cannot hold better-fitting cards for the 3D try - partner doesn't care about your heart or club holdings so presumably those are controlled - where he wants help is in diamonds and you hold that to the max.  Bid 4S.  If it is wrong, then partner did not have a 3D bid.

 

While I know players who use hsgt's this way, I am not one of them.

 

For me, a help suit game try asks more than one question.

 

For example, there will be hands on which opener has two suits of concern... now, make the hsgt in the cheaper of the two suits.

 

If responder has an average or better hand and some help, he commits to game.

 

If he has an average or better hand with no help but with help in a suit between the help suit and 3Major, he bids the cheaper suit in which he holds help: if it meshes with opener, and opener can afford game with help in either of his two suits of concern, then opener commits to game.

 

If responder has a horrible hand then, even if he helps the hsgt suit, he should sign off.

 

That is why I attributed very little blame to South for rejecting the game try. While the ♦ suit was great, the rest of the hand was kaka, and the trump holding the absolute worst it could be. Personally, I would have accepted the try because AK9x

is such a perfect holding, but I would not have been surprised to see game fail, especially if trump were foul.

 

So, for me, I accept hsgts only with help and a non-horrible hand. If partner can make game opposite help in a horrible hand, he should just bid game without giving away information. The mere fact that one makes a hsgt gives aid and comfort to the enemy, both on opening lead and during the play.

This is the debate among the major types of game tries, i.e., help suit, long suit, weak suit, general strength, and short suit. IMO, there is confusion as to what is what and what the goals are for each. Some are designed to reach game while one is designed to avoid game.

 

My take is this:

 

Weak suit is the worst, as it is designed more to avoid game than bid game.

AQ10, AK10xx, xxx, Ax . Over 1H-2H-3D asks for coverage in diamonds, avoiding game even if partner holds Qxx, Kx, xxxx, QJx.

 

Help suit is designed to reach game, so is better but still not perfectly accurate:

AQ10xxx, Qxx, AK, xx You could blast to game but it might be best to avoid if partner's cards are in clubs, such as xxx, xxx, Qx, KQxxx; however, if he has heart cards, game fares better: xxx, KJxx, xxx, Qxx even gives some kind of play.

 

General Strength, i.e., 1S-2S-3S may miss good fitting games, so is still less than accurate.

 

Short suit - this is by far the most accurate, as a short suit is an exclusion bid so can ask about the other 3 suits in one bid.

 

It is when you start combining these methods that things can get tricky - Mike is right that depending on adopted method, responder may be asked to judge hand strength as well as fit. IMO, this is a blending of methods that gets the best results from neither if used with too good of hands.

 

In any of the methods, occassionally you should be able to make "i'm not sure" bids, such as 1S-2S-3C-3D* *No club help but help in diamonds and a reasonable raise.

 

A lot of the determination comes from opener's maximum strength - the higher the strength that still makes an ask, the more precise becomes the question; however, if you maintain a lid on top strength, it is reasonable to ask two questions, i.e., do you have help in X and do you like your hand.

 

It is a method of style, but attempting to mix styles results in guessing.