Time for a Lead Director?

[louisg]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sxxhqxxdxxxxcajtx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

1NT-Pass-2C-?

 

You are playing in the Spingold Round of 64. Your heavily favored opponents were up only 11 IMPs at the half, but will be playing their front four (i.e., no sponsor) the rest of the way. It is now late in the 3rd quarter, and while you've had a couple of decent results so far, on balance you don't figure to have made any headway and have probably lost a few more IMPs. Is this a good time for what you might otherwise consider to be an unsound lead directing double?

[uday]

IMO, no --- you don't sound like you are down a lot. A double might prevent P from leading from a heart suit or a long diamond suit.

 

Maybe the next hand prove to be a vul slam on a hook :)

[jdonn]

No, yipe!! Against good opponents you must be very scared of them redoubling (or not) and playing it there. Very very expensive. Sure at the club you can get away with this kind of double, but not against good opponents at all.

 

As for the state of the match, I highly recommend ignorring it, at least until late in the final quarter.

[sathyab]

No, yipe!! Against good opponents you must be very scared of them redoubling (or not) and playing it there. Very very expensive. Sure at the club you can get away with this kind of double, but not against good opponents at all.

 

As for the state of the match, I highly recommend ignorring it, at least until late in the final quarter.

1) The favored team's pros are playing the rest of the match.

 

2) They're leading, although by a small margin.

 

3) You have a feeling you haven't made up any of the earlier losses.

 

4) You might also suspect that the pros are going to get a few more good results or may have already gotten them at the other table.

 

These conditions are a perfect setting to start swinging. If you must start swinging, why not now when you still have some time left rather than in the fourth quarter ?

 

I'm not saying this is the hand for it, but hopefully the ones yet to be played in the set.

[jdonn]

Sorry but if I'm at the other table and have managed a really good set, the feelings and suspicions of my teammates causing them to have some disasters would NOT please me. You say you aren't down much, and anything else is just hunches which for all you know are completely wrong. Swinging this early in a match that you aren't even down much in is a monstrous mistake.

[OleBerg]

 

Your heavily favored opponents

I'd double. It may make you look silly if it backfires, but as you are a (heavy) favourite to loose anyway, I'd go for it.

 

Even if the double only breaks even, your opponents will be a little less sure of whats going on, next time you take an action.

 

You didn't pay the entry-fee to admire your opponents flawless bid and play. Rock the boat. (And be sure to have an understanding partner.)

 

I suspect those advocating a no, is not accustomed to being outgunned.

[uday]

I think this entire area ("how to play when outgunned") is something that warrants another thread (or book!).

 

I'm accustomed to being outgunned. But I wouldn't want to take (say) a 1% action unless I was a 99% underdog. I hope that made sense.

 

Here, the double will gain if:

 

-A club lead is needed, and P needs the X in order to find a C lead

-They redouble for penalties and go down. ( lets ignore this for now)

 

If a club lead is needed, P may very well find it, assuming he is also aware that he is an underdog and that the match hasn't been going too well. So against 4H, he might find the CK from Kx anyway, since he is also going to be "doing stuff."

 

It just seems that the partnership should decide whether it "does stuff" like this during the auction, the play, or the defence. In general, the later in the game you can commit to the weirdness, the better, i think, and this is awfully early in the hand.

[Guest Jlall]

Doubling is really bad/ -EV in the long term in my opinion. It also doesn't seem particularly high variance. It is not a great spot. Add to that that you're only down 11. MAYBE you are now down 20, maybe not. That is not very much at all. You can beat these guys just by having a few lucky boards, you don't need to do ridiculous things and lose a ton of imps defending 2C XX.

[cherdano]

Heavily favored opponents might even, gasp, make mistakes.

[Guest Jlall]

Re Uday:

 

I am always surprised that people do not think that one of the ways to beat the heavily favored teams is to play better than them for the last 16 boards! Just because they're heavily favored does not mean this is impossible. These guys mess up! Just play the set of your life. You are probably more motivated than them. Or maybe even if you don't play better than them, you will get luck in the form of your mistakes not costing, or even gaining, while theirs hurt them.

 

I am also surprised that getting lucky and winning all of the natural inevitable swings is not a way to win. What do I mean by natural swings? Well I mean differences in system and more importantly style will often cause swings. Maybe you will be lucky enough to win all of those. Maybe you will be playing against Meckwell and they will go down in 4 straight 40 % games. Maybe they will bid one of their really aggressive games and you will hold 5 trumps and get 800. Maybe you will be playing against aggressive preemptors and they will go for a digit because of an unlucky layout. Etc Etc. There are a million of those swings to be won.

 

This would be a different conversation if you were down 50. But being down 10 with 16 boards to go? Come on, even heavily favored teams lose 16 board matches, even with a 10 imp spot. Luck plays a crucial roll in all 16 board matches, and there are so many possible ways to be lucky in bridge. Lets not lose the match by doing ridiculous things in the name of swinging. Just play the best that you can, with your normal style, and hope for the best. I really think these threads always give the heavily favored team too much credit.

[OleBerg]

Re Uday:

 

I am always surprised that people do not think that one of the ways to beat the heavily favored teams is to play better than them for the last 16 boards! Just because they're heavily favored does not mean this is impossible. These guys mess up! Just play the set of your life. You are probably more motivated than them. Or maybe even if you don't play better than them, you will get luck in the form of your mistakes not costing, or even gaining, while theirs hurt them.

 

I am also surprised that getting lucky and winning all of the natural inevitable swings is not a way to win. What do I mean by natural swings? Well I mean differences in system and more importantly style will often cause swings. Maybe you will be lucky enough to win all of those. Maybe you will be playing against Meckwell and they will go down in 4 straight 40 % games. Maybe they will bid one of their really aggressive games and you will hold 5 trumps and get 800. Maybe you will be playing against aggressive preemptors and they will go for a digit because of an unlucky layout. Etc Etc. There are a million of those swings to be won.

 

This would be a different conversation if you were down 50. But being down 10 with 16 boards to go? Come on, even heavily favored teams lose 16 board matches, even with a 10 imp spot. Luck plays a crucial roll in all 16 board matches, and there are so many possible ways to be lucky in bridge. Lets not lose the match by doing ridiculous things in the name of swinging. Just play the best that you can, with your normal style, and hope for the best. I really think these threads always give the heavily favored team too much credit.

I generally agree. Very well formulated post.

 

The reason I still believe in the double (in these circumstances) is, that I dont think it it as likely to backfire, as many other people do.

 

A double on this hand, and hands like it, has gotten a worse reputation than it deserves, mainly because it looks so rediculous on the seldom occasion when they backfire. And even if it works, the better team may still redicule your winning action, calling it silly.

[NickRW]

Well, I think this is a poor hand to try a lead directing double against competent opps. Put it this way. I have had enough success at local club level to have to describe myself as "advanced" in my profile as I understand the BBO definitions - but I'm certainly no better than that - nothing remotely close to world class or anything like that. I currently play with my teenage/early 20s kids who have about 1 year of experience now - mainly with one in particular who is quite free in his use of the X and XX cards. And in our parnerships the specific sequence 1N-P-stayman-lead directing dble is undiscussed. However, I'm redoubling with xxxx or better in clubs and I expect my partner to figure it out based on general agreements/style. I also expect him to sit for it with xxx or better in clubs with "a few cards" and lacking a slam investigating hand. If we were sitting the other way round, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him XX with the same sort of thing.

 

Running a short sim shows 2C making around 90-95%, often with overs (small sample so subject to a fair bit of variance). A much better bet for a good score than struggling into one's own game. It seems that the 1N opener and partner have 4-3 or better clubs about one hand in 7 or so. So this scenario is not unlikely.

 

True there are plenty of hands where they won't want to play in 2C and in some of those the double may have been a help. But it seems quite a gamble in the 3rd quarter of a match that you're not down that badly in.

 

Nick

[jtfanclub]

In My Very Humble Opinion, as a most certianly non-expert....

 

The one thing I think is the least likely to succeed against really good opps is low-level lead directing (or similar) Doubles. An Intermediate, even an Advanced player may just ignore the X and bid on, but you effectively gave real experts two extra spaces to play with (pass which won't pass out the hand, and XX). And they can use the extra space to, say, show minor suit length or stops, or to show a 5 card major. It's really not to your advantage to give real experts extra space to explore their hands!

[benlessard]

Making a lead directing at the 2 level with 4 is probably less dangerous than we think but it still dangerous and here its a really bad bid. Also a part of the value of the X is when partner can raise you wich you simply throw away if you make lead directing double with no shapes.