Missed game, anyone to blame?

[cnszsun]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sakxxhk10xdxcaj10xx&s=sj98xxhj9dxxxckq9]133|200|Scoring: IMP

3♦-dbl-ps-3♠

AP[/hv]

[P_Marlowe]

No.

 

South may bid it, but it is not matadory.

Again, you need to know partners style,

how weak can a direct t/o be.

Does the t/o promise at least +15, which

used to be standard, or could it be a king

weaker.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mcphee]

I may well have bid 4S as responder, however if this t/o dble can be anything like the hand that held a 3-1-5-4 and made a t/o dble of 1S how comfortable does that make the 4S bidder feel?

[helene_t]

E could easily have ♠Qxx and ♥ AQ and the defense might find the heart switch after W cashed a diamond.

 

I would bid the same although S is close to bidding 4♠.

[jtfanclub]

I'd bid it, as South. It's IMPs (even if we're not vul) and I'll take my chances.

 

MPs, I'd bid 3♠.

[gwnn]

No.

 

South may bid it, but it is not matadory.

Again, you need to know partners style,

how weak can a direct t/o be.

Does the t/o promise at least +15, which

used to be standard, or could it be a king

weaker.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Agree.

 

did a t/o x really use to promise 15 hcp? :) i'm glad to be in the 21st century

[han]

Definitely agree with 3♠.

[P_Marlowe]

No.

 

South may bid it, but it is not matadory.

Again, you need to know partners style,

how weak can a direct t/o be.

Does the t/o promise at least +15, which

used to be standard, or could it be a king

weaker.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Agree.

 

did a t/o x really use to promise 15 hcp? :) i'm glad to be in the 21st century

I wont argue about +15, but a direct t/o showed a

sound t/o, what ever that may mean.

If I remember it correctly, this did translate to

at least 15-17 points, points for distribution

included.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

In my view, 3♠ is fine. As often happens in these 'who's to blame for missing game', one or both players will hold a maximum... here, S has a maximum for 3♠.

 

One might argue that so does North, and that this is just one of thaose hands that falls between the cracks, but I think that North has a minimum 4♠ call rather than a maximum pass. It is close, but the 3♠ bid was great news for North.

 

I don't (consciously) count points in hand evaluation of distributional hands, but if I did, surely I'd place the North hand at about 18 or so, and we should, when in this kind of situation, assume partner has a hand worth 7 or 8, so that gets us to the game range.

 

As it is, I'd simply look at the AKxx of trump, the potentially enormous AJ10xx in clubs, the ♥10 backing up the K, and the stiff diamond and bid 4♠.

 

Will I always catch a hand that makes 4♠ good? Of course not.

 

And it is close enough that it is tough to get upset if someone chose to be pessimistic.

[ArtK78]

Takeout doubles of preemptive openings should be sound, even in the 21st century.

 

I would still bid only 3♠ with the South hand. The fit turns out to be very good. Even with as good a fit as there is on this hand, 4♠ still is not cold. And it doesn't take Qxx of spades and AQ of hearts in the East hand to beat it. There are a number of other possibilities:

 

Qxx of spades and Axxxxxx of hearts in the East hand (West, with a singleton spade and a singleton HQ, gets a heart ruff).

AQxxxx of hearts in the East hand and the SQ in the West hand (two heart losers and a heart overruff).

AQxxxx of hearts in the East hand and the S10 in the West hand (unless South ruffs the third round of hearts with the J and spades are 2-2).

4-0 spades and diamond taps in the dummy.

 

So, 4♠ is not the world's best contract.

[Guest Jlall]

Wow, I would have bid 4S with both of their hands and would have thought that was normal lol. One guy has 5 trumps and xxx diamonds and a 7 count, and the other guy has a totally prime 15 with a stiff diamond and 4 trumps...

[mikeh]

 

So, 4♠ is not the world's best contract.

I agree with this comment. I suspect that Art would also agree that it is a game that is, just, a game you want to be in... at imps or mps. Obviously, if we were red at imps, it would be a game we'd be annoyed at missing (unless it failed) but even white, it is worth bidding.

[Guest Jlall]

Isn't game like...really good??

 

edit: ok I read art's post...... if those are the only times he can think of when game goes down (and he is wrong, for instance he says 4-0 spades + dummy taps will beat you but obviously you can just run winners through RHO after you cash 1 spade and lho shows out. You will end up needing a heart onside, and if one is not it just goes back to AQ of hearts, SQ offside. He also does not mention the chances of making because they are not defending perfectly. For instance what if they have the KJ of diamonds and cant lead the DA to begin with to shift to a heart in his scenarios) then game is like 70+%. I mean all of his examples need the AQ of hearts off plus more (except LHO being 1-1 in the majors with stiff Q, lol).

 

I mean missing a 50 % game is a huge disaster, missing one this good is a catastrophe.

[ArtK78]

I was just trying to point out that missing this game is not the biggest disaster in the world. My analysis of all of the cases in which games fails may not have been comprehensive (I am not going to spend all day on this problem).

 

Would I like to be in game on these cards? Sure. Would I be surprised to learn that I did not lose IMPs by missing this game? No. Assuming that the 3♦ preempt was normal, I don't see South stretching for a nonvul game, and I certainly do not see North bidding game over a 3♠ bid by South.

[skjaeran]

I'd most probably have bid 4♠ with the south hand, but it's very close.

 

Definitely agree with Justin and Mike regarding the north hand - that would be a more or lesss automatic raise to 4♠. There's a bonus for bidding and making game, you know. :P

[Apollo81]

Wow, I would have bid 4S with both of their hands and would have thought that was normal lol. One guy has 5 trumps and xxx diamonds and a 7 count, and the other guy has a totally prime 15 with a stiff diamond and 4 trumps...

I think that one of them should bid game, but not both. If South should bid game on this hand then it seems like North's hand isn't good enough to raise when South fails to bid game. If North should bid game then I don't see why South should stretch since North is going to do it with extras anyway.

 

I am not sure which one "should" be bidding game here because both hands seem borderline to me.

[655321]

Wow, I would have bid 4S with both of their hands and would have thought that was normal lol. One guy has 5 trumps and xxx diamonds and a 7 count, and the other guy has a totally prime 15 with a stiff diamond and 4 trumps...

I think that one of them should bid game, but not both. If South should bid game on this hand then it seems like North's hand isn't good enough to raise when South fails to bid game. If North should bid game then I don't see why South should stretch since North is going to do it with extras anyway.

This seems reasonable to me.

 

I would bid only 3♠ as South, and raise to 4♠ as North.

[kfay]

South's to blame.

 

No diamond wastage, extra trump.

[Cascade]

I am closer to bidding game with the north hand but I would certainly think about it with the south cards.

 

North needs so little for game - ♠Q and ♣K and not much else and you have play. Partner is hardly going to jump to game with this little.

[Guest Jlall]

Wow, I would have bid 4S with both of their hands and would have thought that was normal lol. One guy has 5 trumps and xxx diamonds and a 7 count, and the other guy has a totally prime 15 with a stiff diamond and 4 trumps...

I think that one of them should bid game, but not both. If South should bid game on this hand then it seems like North's hand isn't good enough to raise when South fails to bid game. If North should bid game then I don't see why South should stretch since North is going to do it with extras anyway.

 

I am not sure which one "should" be bidding game here because both hands seem borderline to me.

You still make game with lots of hands that pass 3S as south, and lots of hands that would bid 3S as south when you're north. I wouldn't have even thought of either of these hands to be that close tbh, before I read this post so I don't think it's like "if south is so agressive north doesn't need to be."

 

Also I think people rarely think about the difference in moving for game once you're in 3S as opposed to when you're in 2S. You have a lot of equity bidding game as a hand like north because you're often already down in 3 opposite the "wrong" hand, so bidding on costs 2 imps. North is the type of hand that makes a lot opposite the perfecta and not much opposite the wrong hand. Of course, you could get doubled opposite the really wrong hand and that should be factored in.

 

I remember some hand that Hamman ran some analysis on that showed if you will make game 25 % of the time you should bid it, because you were down in 3 already so much when you couldn't make game. People already know this on moving over 2N to 3N hand types that contain a long suit, I think they should be more aware of it for situations over 3M as well.

[655321]

You still make game with lots of hands that pass 3S as south, and lots of hands that would bid 3S as south when you're north. I wouldn't have even thought of either of these hands to be that close tbh, before I read this post so I don't think it's like "if south is so agressive north doesn't need to be."

 

Also I think people rarely think about the difference in moving for game once you're in 3S as opposed to when you're in 2S. You have a lot of equity bidding game as a hand like north because you're often already down in 3 opposite the "wrong" hand, so bidding on costs 2 imps. North is the type of hand that makes a lot opposite the perfecta and not much opposite the wrong hand. Of course, you could get doubled opposite the really wrong hand and that should be factored in.

 

I remember some hand that Hamman ran some analysis on that showed if you will make game 25 % of the time you should bid it, because you were down in 3 already so much when you couldn't make game. People already know this on moving over 2N to 3N hand types that contain a long suit, I think they should be more aware of it for situations over 3M as well.

I find this to be interesting.

 

My thinking has never been deeper than the 7 point rule, which is why I raise with North, and only bid 3 as South.

 

If the South hand is not close, what is close? Would J98xx J9 xxx KT9 still bid 4♠?

What if you held a similar hand with a four card spade suit only - how much stronger would you need to be to bid 4♠?

[mikeh]

 

Also I think people rarely think about the difference in moving for game once you're in 3S as opposed to when you're in 2S. You have a lot of equity bidding game as a hand like north because you're often already down in 3 opposite the "wrong" hand, so bidding on costs 2 imps. North is the type of hand that makes a lot opposite the perfecta and not much opposite the wrong hand. Of course, you could get doubled opposite the really wrong hand and that should be factored in.

 

I was and remain a 4♠ bidder with the North hand, and I agree that there are hands on which your 'equity' in the below-game contract is such that you may as well bid on.. but I think you significantly underestimate the risks.

 

It takes a trigger-happy opp to double 3♠ on this auction, or similar auctions, especially if he's only beating it 1 for 200, as opposed to 100 undoubled. He risks 12 imps to gain 3. But when you raise to game, you greatly increase the attractiveness of double, such that you may be trading your -100 into -500, for a loss of 9 imps: the double risks only 5 imps to gain 9.

 

Still, as doubler, it pays to assume that partner has 5-8 hcp for his bid, and this is enough for me to raise as North... but a penalty double would neither startle nor unduly concern me.. I'd assume the board was likely a push if we went down :D

 

This auction is quite different from the expert trend of raising invitational 2N bids to 3N on high card minimums with a long suit, because the opps have so little information about each other's hands and because neither partner was under pressure, so each partner will have values... unlike the 3♠ responder to the takeout doubler, who may be dying a death on some hand like xxxx xxx xxx xxx :)

[ArtK78]

Some interesting points have been raised by those advocating a 4♠ bid by the North hand. At least Justin recognizes that by bidding 4♠ you are not just risking 2 IMPs - if you are really wrong you could be risking 10 IMPs.

 

Every so often you will hit partner with a blizzard like xxxx xxx xxx xxx (admittedly an extreme case). You might avoid the double at 3♠ - after all, you did find an 8 card fit. But the four level may be too much to avoid the double.

 

I suspect that the gains obtained by bidding on to a making game over 3♠ are balanced out, or nearly balanced out, by those times when you will get doubled at the four level but not at the three level (in cases where 3 is going down). The double by the North hand is well within normal parameters. South should be able to bid game most of the time when it has good play.

[Guest Jlall]

I agree totally with the 7 point rule. I think the fact that you have a 5th trump + dont have any wastage+ a doubleton not in diamonds makes the south hand well above the 7 point rule

[Guest Jlall]

If the South hand is not close, what is close?  Would J98xx J9 xxx KT9 still bid 4♠?

What if you held a similar hand with a four card spade suit only - how much stronger would you need to be to bid 4♠?

Yes, to me that would be close and I would bid 3S. To me the 5th spade is a very very big card and the xxx diamonds are very good.

 

With only 4 spades I would need much more (probably like a 10 count on average). I guess I am upgrading my 5th trump much more than others.