the blame game

[jillybean]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sqhq9874daq96cqt7&s=sk8hkj653dk4cj852]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     1♥    1♠    2♠

 Pass  3♦    3♠    4♥

 4♠    Pass  Pass  5♥

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

[CSGibson]

does 4 spades go down? Seems like there's some distribution, if there are doubleton minors out there, this makes.

 

I say no blame, neither North or South can reasonably double, and this rates to be a reasonable save half the time. I think North was a bit aggressive in the help suit game try, but so be it. It happens.

[P_Marlowe]

South.

 

Bidding upto 4H was fine, assuming 2S by

South was inv.+ with fit and 3D by North

was some kind of game try with diamond

values.

South may or may not accept the game try,

you are min, but you have the king of

diamonds, and the king of spades should also

be ok.

 

But over 4S, if Souths wants to bid, he should

double, he is bal. does have a likely trump trick.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[inquiry]

To judge fairly, we need to know more about NS bidding agreements. Primarily, we need to know if 2♠ cue-bid was game forcing or an unassuming cue-bid. We need to know if 2♠ promised heart support, and what other heart raises (besides 2♠) would have shown. If it was game forcing, we may have to return to North's role in this given his then "forcing pass" over 4♠, and the significance of opener's 3♦ rebid given his minimum values. I assume, however, that 1) 2♠ was not game force, 2) that 2♠ promised heart support, and 3) pass over 4♠ was not forcing.

 

Therefore, we can only place any of the blame on North if we think that either his choice to open 1♥ on such a poor hand was a "clear error", or if we believe that with such a truely terrible opening bid, he should return immediately to 3♥ instead of bidding 3♦ over 2♠ was a clear error. As for the opening bid, sorry, I can't call this a clear error. I would not open North's hand in first/second seat, but I can not fault 1♥ if light openings are allowed. As light an opening bid as 1♥ was, once partner supports hearts, the hand got better, and the spade singleton is a "useful" at this point in the auction. So the choice to bid an aggressive 3♦ over a conservative 3♥ while questionable, is not a clear error either. Thus, for me, north currently stands either blameless, or mildly at fault for the combination of opening so light with 1♥ and then following it up with an aggressive 3♦ bid. While both of south's bids were very aggressive, neither bid is horrible imo, however together they paved the road to destruction. (I would not have opened, and if I had opened, i would have rebid 3♥ if 2♠ promised hearts and was limit +, or 4♥ if 2♠ promised hearts and was GF).

 

So that leaves us with South, and his various choices. His first choice was cue-bid. I think reaching 4♥ after 1♥ is going to be automatic (despite it loses 2♣, 1♥ and 1♠). So we can also not fault the decision to force to game as south. I would have preferred a different way to raise hearts other than 2♠ or an immediate jump to 4♥, but I will assume 2♠/then 4♥ was their way to show such a hand. But over 4♠ what does south have to make him want to bid on? Nothing. There is no clear reason to assume with this minimum hand that 5♥ has any play, and with partner bidding diamonds and south holding a spade trick and four clubs, defense seems clear. Rather he should double or not is a different manner, but ♦K at trick one seems clear on this auction.

 

So i think most of the blame goes on South, 5♥ was just too much. I would say 75 to 80% south, 20 to 25% north. I voted "both" but the majority is on south.

[hrothgar]

Don't like the 1♥ opening - you're too weak

Would probably bid an immediate 4♥ over 1♠

Would definitely bid 3♥ over 2♠

[gwnn]

100% agree with Richard.

[jtfanclub]

Don't like the 1♥ opening - you're too weak

Would probably bid an immediate 4♥ over 1♠

Would definitely bid 3♥ over 2♠

Disagree, agree, agree.

 

I've got a 12 count with a 5 card major. I open those 1st, 2nd, and 3rd seat.

 

Even with an unassuming cue bid, I think 3♥ is mandatory. If partner just wanted to know about my minors regardless of strength, he would have X'd.

[mikeh]

Interesting problem, because while I don't like the auction, it may be that the end result not horrific.

 

4♠ may have been cold... catch east with 7=2=2=2 and west with 3=1=5=4 for example...

 

And you seem to have escaped a double B)

 

But the auction was a mess.. .and I'd guess that the partnership had no idea that they might be saving over a game.

 

The problem is with North.

 

I understand the desire to open, and I think most players would do so...including me. Passing makes this hand very difficult after many possible developments, including anyone bidding spades.

 

2♠ is, I assume, a limit raise or better and is a good description.

 

3♦ is horrible, truly mind-numbingly horrible.

 

Consider: we have opened a rock-bottom minimum with only 1 Ace and zero Kings, a bad suit, and the ♠ Q, the value of which, scant as it was, has diminished on the bidding. We have a hand that has NO interest in game opposite a limit raise, and we are going out of our way to show some extras via 3♦!

 

Now, 3♦ is not a gf... it is, at this stage, a game try.

 

So responder has a good limit raise with extra trump (consider opener having the same hand with Axxxx in hearts.. now game is a reasonable proposition). Responder's spade K seems upgradable, and his diamond holding is wonderful... so he has to bid game.

 

Then we have North's pass over 4♠!

 

N's game try combined with S's bid of game established a forcing pass. We have voluntarily bid game to make and they 'save'.

 

I fully understand why N didn't want to double... N didn't have the values to have created this situation. But refusing to accept reality rarely makes it better. S was being invited to double 4♠ or bid 5♥... depending on his offence and defence.

 

I think it is possible to criticize S's choice... it is difficult to construct hands on which N only had a game try where 5♥ is a good contract... but it is not impossible.. indeed opposite x AQxxx AJxxx xx, as an example, it is not impossible to imagine a double game swing.

 

On balance, I surely wouldn't ever describe 5♥ as an error.... at most it was a difficult choice.. and it is N's fault that the situation ever arose... for 2 reasons.... the horrendous 3♦ call and the panicked pass of 4♠... which was the result of the 3♦ misbid.

[jillybean]

2♠ was a limit+ ♥ raise, a direct ♥ raise would have been competitive

 

3♥ min, we open aggressively.

4♥ signoff

 

The 3♦ we do not agree on, North plays as game try, south thinks this should be a game forcing cue bid.

[han]

North is right, it's a game try, but north was wrong to bid it, the hand is too poor.

[jillybean]

North is right, it's a game try, but north was wrong to bid it, the hand is too poor.

Ok, so must North bid again, above game to make a slam try?

[han]

No, you can also bid 3D when you have slam interest.

 

So maybe I should have said "3D is ostensibly a game try", although I am not 100% sure that ostensibly is the word I'm looking for.

[vuroth]

North is right, it's a game try, but north was wrong to bid it, the hand is too poor.

Ok, so must North bid again, above game to make a slam try?

Woudln't 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ show that you were going game regardless of what partner had, and thus that your 3♦ bid was slammish?

[jillybean]

North is right, it's a game try, but north was wrong to bid it, the hand is too poor.

Ok, so must North bid again, above game to make a slam try?

Woudln't 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ show that you were going game regardless of what partner had, and thus that your 3♦ bid was slammish?

 

Yes of course, if partner signs off below game.

 

 

3♦ : 4♥

 

4♠/5m slam try above game.

[jtfanclub]

No, you can also bid 3D when you have slam interest.

 

So maybe I should have said "3D is ostensibly a game try", although I am not 100% sure that ostensibly is the word I'm looking for.

I think ostensibly is ostensibly the word you're looking for. :)

[kenrexford]

I don't agree with very much of what is posted so far, but some.

 

1♥. I like it. 12 HCP's; just because a queen is stiff does not make its value 0. 5-4 shape, yielding a 6-loser hand (about). Great body in high pips. Easy rebid. What's the problem?

 

2♠. What is wrong with this? Trump fit. Invitational+. Seems about right.

 

3♦. What's wrong with this call? Well-placed stiff, six-loser hand, body has not decreased in value, good lead-director. All makes sense so far.

 

4♥. Non-slammish, so no cooperation. 10 damned trumps is ten damned trumps, dammit. Spade appears well-placed. Works for me.

 

Pass. I might have doubled this, because I like the Q10x in clubs for defense, as well as the juicy stiff Queen. But, pass seems OK.

 

5♥. I would double.

 

4♠ doubled would make against me some times. Some times we will take five tricks.

[jdonn]

I totally agree with you here Ken. I think everything was totally normal until south's final decision, which I think is close so I wouldn't fault him either way. Then again it's close as to whether 4♠ actually makes or not too, so seems about right :)

[jillybean]

South must act over 4♠ yes?

 

My next thread will be; When to double, when to bid on ? :)

[cherdano]

3♦. What's wrong with this call? Well-placed stiff, six-loser hand, body has not decreased in value, good lead-director. All makes sense so far.

This post is another argument against loser count. Calling this a 6-loser hand is just ridiculous.

[jdonn]

3♦.  What's wrong with this call?  Well-placed stiff, six-loser hand, body has not decreased in value, good lead-director.  All makes sense so far.

This post is another argument against loser count. Calling this a 6-loser hand is just ridiculous.

Why? I'm no big fan of loser count myself but there is a big difference between x Qxxxx AQxx Qxx and adding Q, 987, 9, T, those cards would seem to make up the difference to some extent.

[kenrexford]

3♦.  What's wrong with this call?  Well-placed stiff, six-loser hand, body has not decreased in value, good lead-director.  All makes sense so far.

This post is another argument against loser count. Calling this a 6-loser hand is just ridiculous.

Why? I'm no big fan of loser count myself but there is a big difference between x Qxxxx AQxx Qxx and adding Q, 987, 9, T, those cards would seem to make up the difference to some extent.

Not to mention, context.

 

If I were to have this hand and decide in a vacuum whether it was a minimum or a maximum, I'd agree minimum.

 

However, assessing this hand in the context of competition in my short suit plus a cuebid (not even a mere constructive raise) in my long suit, this looks like "better than average" to me. Keep in mind that many opening strength hands seem to reduce to sub-minimum after LHO overcalls or after partner bids the wrong suit. Here, I like the overcall, and I like the inv+ raise.

 

As a bonus, furthermore, if you assess this holding and decide that it is borderline, you get to decide in a way that helps the defense against a possible spade contract, as actually occurs. When Opener's LHO's overcall is raised, and when their suit outranks out suit, aggressive game tries that happen to work as lead-directors seem to stand out as a good idea. Robson-Segal comes to mind.

[mikeh]

Calling this a 6 loser hand is, at best, a stretch and, imo, more accurately, a misuse of the loser count.

 

On the simplistic losing trick count that generates a LTC of 6, we are valuing Q32 the same way we value AJ10.

 

LTC not only allows but, for best use, requires that we recognize that a suit of Qxx is not the same as AJ10, and not even the same as A32. So I have no issue with the diamond suit being a 1 LTC suit (AQxx) but to refer to the rounded suits as 2 loser suits is misleading/mistaken.

 

Furthermore, LTC is only one measure, and a relatively crude one at that, of a hand's playability.

 

Look at the actual hand: N has a LTC of 6, according to Ken and Josh, while S has a LTC of 7 (or less, given that KJxxx in partner's known 5 card suit is upgradable). Thus the 2 hands combine, on LTC analysis, to be worth 11 tricks (24 minus the total LTC of the two hands). This is out by either 2 or 3 tricks, depending on whether they have and find a club ruff. Something ain't right if you think LTC has been correctly applied.

 

But, of course, it hasn't been. I would value the N hand at no more than 7 LTC and the S at 7, and now we have an expectation of 10... but even that is wrong... because, even this adjusted LTC undervalues Aces!!

 

And understanding this concept will go a long way to understanding why Ken is, in my view, wrong in his analysis.

 

Simply put: North has 12 hcp, including a dubious spade queen, only 1 Ace and zero Kings. This is a WEAK hand, folks. This is NOT a hand that would look for game opposite a limit raise.

 

Compare to x Axxxx AQxxx Qx... same hcp, different hand. Note that this IS a 6 LTC holding. Any metric that values x Axxxx AQxxx Qx the same as Q Qxxxx AQxx Q10x is wonky.

 

I love and use LTC. It is not the method that is wonky in Ken's analysis :)

[jdonn]

LTC not only allows but, for best use, requires that we recognize that a suit of Qxx is not the same as AJ10, and not even the same as A32. So I have no issue with the diamond suit being a 1 LTC suit (AQxx) but to refer to the rounded suits as 2 loser suits is misleading/mistaken.

Yeah, kind of like calling Q32 the same as QT7. Or Qxxxx the same as Q98xx that has been supported.

 

Look at the actual hand: N has a LTC of 6, according to Ken and Josh, while S has a LTC of 7 (or less, given that KJxxx in partner's known 5 card suit is upgradable). Thus the 2 hands combine, on LTC analysis, to be worth 11 tricks (24 minus the total LTC of the two hands). This is out by either 2 or 3 tricks, depending on whether they have and find a club ruff. Something ain't right if you think LTC has been correctly applied.

Well you are the one using silly formulas, not me. I never attempted to analyze using losing trick count, or apply it in any way. I simply argued against someone who said calling it 6 losers is ridiculous, on the basis that there are extra honors and spot cards helping to make up the difference. In fact I never even said it is a 6 loser hand! I just said calling it so is certainly not ridiculous.

 

Compare to x Axxxx AQxxx Qx... same hcp, different hand. Note that this IS a 6 LTC holding. Any metric that values x Axxxx AQxxx Qx the same as Q Qxxxx AQxx Q10x is wonky.

I have no idea what wonky means, but are you implying we throw high card points out the window then? After all, it shows the two hands as being the same, that crazy metric :)

 

Seriously, those hands have the same LTC, same HCP, but yours has better distribution, and better controls. So combining the four measures your example is better on two of them, and is thus a better hand. The only flaw in LTC that I can see here is your attempting to argue in a way that paints it as a stand-alone measure. 'how can you call both these hands 6 losers when mine is clearly better! ltc sux'. It would be like me saying 'age is a bad measure of desirability, since judging only by age I am more desirable than george clooney'. That doesn't make age a bad measure, it just means you can't consider only one factor and expect to be accurate. Of course I know you are fully aware of that, but the way you are arguing makes it seem like you aren't...

 

My cardboard box on the street is 1 mile from the highway, whereas your mansion is 2 miles away from the highway, but the mansion is a more desirable place to live. Thus considering highway access as a measure of desirability of a home is wonky! :P

[mikeh]

Josh.... I think you misread my post... look again at the passage that said that LTC is only one measure, and a relatively crude one, of a hand's playability.

 

I could, as readily, accuse you of turning into Walter the Walrus, with your support of the point count, but neither of us use any single method in valuing a hand.. and I'd guess that we are very close in our views on 99% or more of hands.

 

My point was that any metric that describes this hand as worthy of trying for game after a limit raise is either poor or, as I think was the case in Ken's use of it on this hand, in his 6-loser' post, misused.

[jdonn]

Random update: I looked up wonky, cool word. That's the second word I learned today after discommoding.

 

Anyway, I don't think I misread your post. You say

 

LTC is only one measure, and a relatively crude one, of a hand's playability.

 

But then contradict that (by implication, not explicitely) when you say

 

any metric that describes this hand as worthy of trying for game after a limit raise is either poor or [...] misused.

 

What I mean by that is, if every metric that isn't poor measures hands approximately the same (as the second part of what you said implies) then we wouldn't need more than one measure.

 

But of course using many in conjunction is correct (like you said in the first part), precisely because they don't all measure the same way. If one measurement calls two hands equal, and all other measurements say hand B is better, it doesn't make the one measurement either poor or misused. It just means the poor thing would be considering that one measurement on its own instead of considering them all together. LTC does a good job of measuring, as one example, that the hand in question is better than Qx Q98xx AQ9 QTx (well on the full hand it probably wasn't better, but overall it is). It does not do a good job of measuring whether the hand in question is better than x A98xx AQ9xx Qx. That doesn't make it a bad measurement.