an uggly situation

[maxentius]

I was watching yesterday to the BBO vugraph Norway Pairs final and one bords was something awfully:

 

your are in 4-th position vulnerable vs nonvulnerable (of course) and you have:

♠AK

♥AJ10xxx

♦Jxx

♣AQ

 

and the bidding goes:

(3♥)-p-(p)-?

 

would you balance?...how?...it depends on vulnerability?...it depends on the tourney format?

[han]

I pass, I expect to beat this.

[Guest Jlall]

Always pass.

[dicklont]

You can only pass, partner must be weak, having no hearts and unable to bid.

When 3♥ is psyched they might win.

[maxentius]

ok, let's come back to the board...partner hand was:

 

♠xxx

♥-

♦AKx

♣Kxxxxxx

 

result= +250 instead of +1440

as you can see 12 tricks in no trump...was a big "fight" between the commentators...a part of them agreed with this pas and doesn't like the partner's PASS, with the♣ suit...they argued the balanced pass with no a good suit for 3NT...maybe pd is 5440 with a very wak hand ...the others agreed no overcalling with a bad suit (K in 7 in a minor, only) and were unsatisfied about no balance with this strong hand

 

my idea (also I like was the same with my pd's ideea): if they are vulnerable is easy to PASS...if not we'll bid 3NT...it is life, sometimes we hould pay the preempts...but I like to fall from Niagara...:)

[cherdano]

The 3037 hand has to bid.

[mike777]

?

 

insane

short hearts...long suit........very long suit...pass?

[hrothgar]

Aren't preempts a pain

 

I consider the passout in balancing seat clear cut

 

I don't consider the pass in direct seat unreasonable (You'd really like a better suit for a vulnerable 4 level overcall)

[ArtK78]

I also do not consider the pass in direct seat to be unreasonable.

[vang]

I also do not consider the pass in direct seat to be unreasonable.

especially if you play non-leaping michaels ;-)

[jdonn]

I would pass with both hands (even if playing 4♣ natural on the first). Oops?

[kenrexford]

I pass, I expect to beat this.

Yeah, but what if LHO holds ♠--- ♥KQxxxxx ♦AQxxxx ♣---?

 

I guess you do. Barely. Partner leads a black card, ruffed, you ruff the fourth diamond and lead another black card, ruffed, you ruff the fifth diamond to lead another black card, ruffed, you ruff the sixth diamonds and lead your last black card, ruffed. Now, the end position is KQx into your AJ10, and you nick this a trick.

 

:blink: :)

[ArtK78]

I pass, I expect to beat this.

Yeah, but what if LHO holds ♠--- ♥KQxxxxx ♦AQxxxx ♣---?

 

I guess you do. Barely. Partner leads a black card, ruffed, you ruff the fourth diamond and lead another black card, ruffed, you ruff the fifth diamond to lead another black card, ruffed, you ruff the sixth diamonds and lead your last black card, ruffed. Now, the end position is KQx into your AJ10, and you nick this a trick.

 

:blink: :rolleyes:

Right. A 3♥ opening.

 

I suspect that you could live to be 100 and never hear about anyone opening 3♥ on those cards.

[mikeh]

I think the commentators were giving in to the pressures that come from seeing all the hands: they could see that defending was leading to a 'silly' result: a result they'd never come back with themselves, so they had to find someone to blame.

 

I blame the player who opened 3♥.

 

I am not saying that North can NEVER bid 4♣ or that South can NEVER balance 3N, but I am saying that I think both actions are, in a vacuum, poor choices.

 

I'd not be happy with +250, but live goes on, and I wouldn't (I hope) ever criticize either N or S if I were in the opposite seat.

[han]

No you really cannot bid 3NT with the hand given in the initial post.

[ASkolnick]

Not quite sure with what is wrong with 3N. 19 HCP, semi-balanced, heart stopper. Partner has an "expected" 7 count. Sure, you may struggle for tricks, but it is at least close.

 

If your hand was Axxx, AQx,Axx,KJx, you would bid 3N.

 

As for the one time a 0-7-6-0 hand chooses to make a 3H bid, I would not care.

[Edmunte1]

First time when i saw the hand, i tghought it's an easy pass. Though we hold 19 hcp, we lack suits and we'll make tricks only based on hcp's, the suits definitely breaking pretty badly. I also tghought that ♠ and ♣ suits are blocked, so will have a hard time bringing 9 tricks home.

On a second look, seing all those spots in hearts, i realise that it increseas the probability that LHO is holding 7 hearts. Considering that partner has void in hearts, his probable shapes are:

-0♥(544) -31%

-0♥(643) -33.5%

-0♥(652)- 17%

-0♥(742) -9%

-0♥(733)- 7%, etc

The expected hcp for partner's hand is (40-19-5)/2=8.

So the partner will provide some suits for us! In fact when part holds a 6+ card suit and 8+ hcp's we have good chances to make 9 tricks, and some of the 0(544) will see us home too, especially if we have comunication on diamonds or partner has 5♦ and some quality in suit.

Another important consideration, is the win-loss raport:

a) considering bidding 3nt as a winning bid we will score 600-250=350 +8IMP's or 630-250=380 +9 IMP

B) considering bidding 3NT and going down -100-250=-350 -8IMp's, -200-250=-450=-10 IMP

So it's a 50-50% raport. Adding to that some small slam chances, i think that 3NT is the long term winner

[jdonn]

Sigh.

 

You seem to have forgotten PARTNER ALREADY PASSED!

 

Not to mention, you calculate his points by automatically giving the 3♥ opener the KQ of hearts and nothing else.

 

Not to mention, when your long suit has no hope of being set up you will need more than usual to make 3NT.

[jtfanclub]

Sigh.

 

You seem to have forgotten PARTNER ALREADY PASSED!

 

Not to mention, you calculate his points by automatically giving the 3♥ opener the KQ of hearts and nothing else.

 

Not to mention, when your long suit has no hope of being set up you will need more than usual to make 3NT.

Would you change your mind if your hearts were AJT987?

[benlessard]

+250 is normal result. Id just really hope that the same thing will happen at the other table.

[cherdano]

Sigh.

 

You seem to have forgotten PARTNER ALREADY PASSED!

 

Not to mention, you calculate his points by automatically giving the 3♥ opener the KQ of hearts and nothing else.

 

Not to mention, when your long suit has no hope of being set up you will need more than usual to make 3NT.

Would you change your mind if your hearts were AJT987?

It would change mine. Having 4 heart tricks in 3N rather than 1 heart trick seems quite a difference.

[Edmunte1]

Sigh.

 

You seem to have forgotten PARTNER ALREADY PASSED!

 

Not to mention, you calculate his points by automatically giving the 3♥ opener the KQ of hearts and nothing else.

 

Not to mention, when your long suit has no hope of being set up you will need more than usual to make 3NT.

Sigh

 

No, i didn't forgot that partner passed, nor that the preemptor can have another Quenn or King or so, not the fact that USUALLY we need more than usual to make 3NT (we lack suits). It was an analysys based on an average scenario.

 

BUT

- I also didn't take into account a lot of scenarios where we make game 3NT/4♠ with much less. For example:

 

7 carders:

♠Qxxxxxx -- xxx xxx - 2hcp

xxx -- xxx KJxxxxx - 4hcp

xxx -- KQxxxxx xxx -5 hcp

 

6 carders:

♠QJxxxx -- Qxxx xx -5hcp

♠QJxxxx -- xxxx Kxx -6hcp

xxxx -- AQxxxx xxx - 6 hcp

Qxxx -- Axxxxx xxx -6hcp

etc.

 

So many times partner will provide a long suit for us. I'll look carefully at the full part of the glass before "sigh''-ing.

[jdonn]

You missed my point entirely. Reread my last post, and instead of applying it to your conclusions, apply it to your mathematical results, specifically the strength you are allocating to partner and his probable shapes.

[jvage]

I remember this board, I had the 3037 hand (we were not at the BBO table this round). I tried to pass in tempo, not to put restrictions on partner. When he went into a short tank before passing in the passout seat I knew it would have been correct to bid. Neither player was unhappy with partner, but we both knew it would be a bad board.

 

Since several have commented that they were hoping for a duplicated result from the other table, I can repeat that this was from the pairs final. +250 scored as expected around 20-25% in a relatively strong field (which means that almost half the tables duplicated our result, while the majority scored better).

 

John