Lost

[Jlall]

I am consistently lost on hands like these so maybe the forums can help me. I always do the same thing but it never seems to work.

 

Ax Kxx QTxxx xxx

 

w/w imps.

 

2S X 3S ?

[ArtK78]

Isn't that the definition of insanity? Constantly doing the same thing and hoping for a different outcome?

 

The "book" bid is pass (where is the "book" anyway?) since you don't have enough strength for game opposite a minimum takeout double, but you are certainly close.

 

Arguments can be made for many calls:

 

- Pass, since you "only" have 9 HCP.

- 3NT, since you have the partnership's spade stop.

- 4♦, since it is your long suit

- 4♥, since it is very likely that partner has 4 good hearts and the inverted Moysian should play well.

- Double, since you don't have any clear call, but you have power. Who knows? Partner may even convert it to penalties, and that should not be too bad for our side.

 

Obviously, no call is clear. I have to admit that the 4♥ call appeals to me. I saw one instance where a teammate of mine bid 4♥ on a similar hand over a double of a 3♠ opening bid, and wound up in a 3-3 fit (a sub-Moysian fit). The opponents could not figure out what was going on, and when the smoke had cleared, my teammate made 10 tricks.

[jdonn]

I try 3NT. If it makes I don't see how else to get there. If it doesn't make at least we aren't vul, maybe 3♠ was making as well in that case.

[Jlall]

Isn't that the definition of insanity? Constantly doing the same thing and hoping for a different outcome?

Not in a probabilistic game where you can routinely make an action that is 55 % to work and have it not work 5 times in a row, especially when even if you play a lot your sample size is quite limited.

 

Would you recommend a poker player to stop making +EV bluffs because he has ran into the top of his opponents range 10 times in a row? Would you stop finessing the queen through the long hand if you lost to Qx 4 times in a row?

 

That being said, it is irrational to not question whether you are doing the right thing if it keeps failing and you cannot prove to yourself that one action is better than another, hence my post. Calling it insane to continue to do what you think is right in a game like bridge is...insane though.

 

But it's a fun quote to misuse at least!

[Fluffy]

I have doubts between double and 4♦, I like double wich will improve our cotntract when partner has 5431 or 5422, it won't be great if partner has a 4432 or 4441 but 4♥ in a 4-3 fit doesn't scare me.

[jdonn]

Art it's not "the" definition of insanity, it's "Einstein's" definition. I doubt he was a bridge player.

 

Frankly I don't see what double gets you on this hand unless partner passes and they are down, which is one possibility but not that likely. Otherwise what is the gain? This hand looks bad for a 4-3 heart fit. We have a doubleton spade, a minimum, and any heart length will be over the 4 card holding.

[Little Kid]

I like double.

[Jlall]

Art it's not "the" definition of insanity, it's "Einstein's" definition. I doubt he was a bridge player.

 

Frankly I don't see what double gets you on this hand unless partner passes and they are down, which is one possibility but not that likely. Otherwise what is the gain? This hand looks bad for a 4-3 heart fit. We have a doubleton spade, a minimum, and any heart length will be over the 4 card holding.

I don't think it was actually Einstein who first said it, but he is commonly attributed with it. They love to say it in AA though :P

[gwnn]

I will try 4♦, I don't like x for jdonn's reasons and I don't like 3NT because I have Ax and that sucks. pass could work out but 5♦ is nuts.

[gnasher]

One way to drive yourself mad would be to keep changing what you do in this situation, and each time find that what you did last time would have worked this time. So, there's something to be said for consistency.

 

I wouldn't consider pass, which gives up all hope of game and may also lose a partscore swing.

 

I don't see the point of double. I can't see how I'd ever know it was right to play in clubs or a 4-3 heart fit.

 

Unless partner has a second spade stop, 3NT needs ♦AK and either ♥AQ or ♥A+♣A. That's quite a lot to ask for.

 

4♦ needs less to be right, but when it is right it will usually only be worth a partscore swing. On the other hand, it also gets us to 5♦ when that's right, so I'd do that.

[Apollo81]

One way to drive yourself mad would be to keep changing what you do in this situation, and each time find that what you did last time would have worked this time. So, there's something to be said for consistency.

 

I wouldn't consider pass, which gives up all hope of game and may also lose a partscore swing.

 

I don't see the point of double. I can't see how I'd ever know it was right to play in clubs or a 4-3 heart fit.

 

Unless partner has a second spade stop, 3NT needs ♦AK and either ♥AQ or ♥A+♣A. That's quite a lot to ask for.

 

4♦ needs less to be right, but when it is right it will usually only be worth a partscore swing. On the other hand, it also gets us to 5♦ when that's right, so I'd do that.

agree

[jdonn]

Unless partner has a second spade stop, 3NT needs ♦AK and either ♥AQ or ♥A+♣A.  That's quite a lot to ask for.

Or a second spade stopper. Or RHO with a doubleton spade perhaps. Or to be a good save over 3♠. Or if I'm lucky a diamond finesse. Maybe some heart finesse. Or xx AQx xxx AKQxx.

 

I also don't expect 5♦ to be right that often when we have a doubleton spade.

 

I don't really disagree with your overall point though. I do think this comes down to 3NT vs 4♦.

[nigel_k]

I'd bid 4♦. I don't have reasons other than the obvious ones for preferring this to 3NT. It just feels right.

 

If you have the agreement that partner will not bid 4♥ over the double unless he has five of them then maybe you can double and convert 4♣ to 4♦. But I wouldn't do it without that specific agreement.

[pooltuna]

I am consistently lost on hands like these so maybe the forums can help me. I always do the same thing but it never seems to work.

 

Ax Kxx QTxxx xxx

 

w/w imps.

 

2S X 3S ?

Maybe your partner needs to bulk up his TOX of 2♥/2♠ preempts?

[Hanoi5]

I think I'd double. 3NT is my second choice. 4♦ I don't really like. Pass is dangerous...

 

I don't think 4♥ with the moysian is that bad.

[Mbodell]

One way to drive yourself mad would be to keep changing what you do in this situation, and each time find that what you did last time would have worked this time. So, there's something to be said for consistency.

Sure, but there is another school of thought that says if you aren't sure what is best, then doing what worked best last time will have you do the best overall. I.e., if you have 3 actions and A will be best 40% of the time, B best 35% of the time and C best 25% of the time then you'll end up doing A 40% of the time, B 35% of the time, and C 25% of the time and thus you'll do the better thing more often.

[nigel_k]

I don't remember the hands where my choice worked, only the ones where it failed. So I expect to feel like I always get it wrong. It becomes a normal state of mind after a while. And somehow the current problem is always a little different from those earlier ones anyway.

[Jlall]

One way to drive yourself mad would be to keep changing what you do in this situation, and each time find that what you did last time would have worked this time.  So, there's something to be said for consistency.

Sure, but there is another school of thought that says if you aren't sure what is best, then doing what worked best last time will have you do the best overall. I.e., if you have 3 actions and A will be best 40% of the time, B best 35% of the time and C best 25% of the time then you'll end up doing A 40% of the time, B 35% of the time, and C 25% of the time and thus you'll do the better thing more often.

I would rather do the one that works 40 % 100 % of the time.

[wank]

double...if game's making and partner passes this will probably be going for a carpet or a monkey

 

if game's not making and partner passes this is probably our easiest way to go plus.

 

over 4C i'll bid 4D.

[quiddity]

I wouldn't consider pass, which gives up all hope of game and may also lose a partscore swing.

No idea what's right on this hand, but one good thing about pass is that it keeps 3nt in the picture if partner can reopen with a second double.

[Winstonm]

IMO the choice here should be made before the session begins - as in understandings with partner. My personal thinking is that the higher the bidding goes the more "card showing" a negative double becomes and the less "negative" shape it shows.

 

I would treat double here as saying, "Partner, I have too much to pass. Do what your hand suggests knowing that I have some values."

[Echognome]

One way to drive yourself mad would be to keep changing what you do in this situation, and each time find that what you did last time would have worked this time.  So, there's something to be said for consistency.

Sure, but there is another school of thought that says if you aren't sure what is best, then doing what worked best last time will have you do the best overall. I.e., if you have 3 actions and A will be best 40% of the time, B best 35% of the time and C best 25% of the time then you'll end up doing A 40% of the time, B 35% of the time, and C 25% of the time and thus you'll do the better thing more often.

I would rather do the one that works 40 % 100 % of the time.

What if you didn't know which was A, which was B, and which was C? Obviously then you won't know if you are "mixing correctly", but should we mix our strategy since we have uncertainty, so we can at least do better than if we happen to be picking C 100% of the time? Cue Hrothgar. :)

[Jlall]

What if you didn't know which was A, which was B, and which was C?

Then I would try to use my superior bridge skill/knowledge/intellect combined with my friend's (aka the forums) collective knowledge and wisdom to initiate a debate after which I would have a better idea of which A, B, and C were. Isn't this the case for every bridge situation?

[dake50]

As an aside, I advise going gut feeling on these types of decision. Specifically, always be aggressive in bidding (or conservative in passing) then at least you get a sense of whether you need to tame down or ratchet up. Or like where your results get you. Even noting too small a sample to have reliable evidence, this at least tunes to your decisions. A know thyself attempt.

[MarkDean]

I guess I am old-school this way, but I would bid my long suit.