apportion the blame

[dboxley]

red vs white matchpoints

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj752hj86d4ck98&n=s3hkdkj972caj6532&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d1h1s3h4cp4sp5cppp]266|200[/hv]

[mike777]

north 100%

[mike777]

north 100%

 

this is in another thread also...

[mikeh]

This is easy: North is an idiot.

 

The 'correct' opening call is debatable: there are good arguments for each or 1♣, 1♦ and a call far too few players seem to consider....pass...intending to bid some number of unusual notrump later. Light minor suit openings on difficult to describe hands are far different from similar major suit holdings.

 

But the problem lies not in the opening but the truly idiotic 4♣ call.

 

What on earth made N feel he had to bid over 3H? Didn't he have a partner who, if the hand belonged to NS for 10+ tricks was going to reopen? Hadn't he shown an opening bid already, and denied good spade support? Had his hand improved?!?!?!

 

N 100%...I'd like to award more, but that isn't logically possible.

[655321]

North is on drugs.

 

this is in another thread also...

 

No it isn't

[mikestar13]

This is just one of those things... North shouldn't bid 4♣, his values are insufficient, however South will bid 4♠ if you pass because he has game values and you end up in 5♣ anyway. In short, North misbid but it makes no difference. High level preempts sometimes work--that's why they do it. Passing initially is ludicrous unless paying Roth-Stone or Fantunes.

[bucky]

This is just one of those things... North shouldn't bid 4♣, his values are insufficient, however South will bid 4♠ if you pass because he has game values and you end up in 5♣ anyway. In short, North misbid but it makes no difference. High level preempts sometimes work--that's why they do it. Passing initially is ludicrous unless paying Roth-Stone or Fantunes.

No, South doesn't have game value, especially when holding shortness in partner's opening suit. I think South should balance with 3♠. And regardless of South bidding 3♠ or 4♠, I don't see any reason North should "correct" to 5♣.

[Hairy_Scot]

This is easy: North is an idiot.

 

The 'correct' opening call is debatable: there are good arguments for each or 1♣, 1♦ and a call far too few players seem to consider....pass...intending to bid some number of unusual notrump later. Light minor suit openings on difficult to describe hands are far different from similar major suit holdings.

 

But the problem lies not in the opening but the truly idiotic 4♣ call.

 

What on earth made N feel he had to bid over 3H? Didn't he have a partner who, if the hand belonged to NS for 10+ tricks was going to reopen? Hadn't he shown an opening bid already, and denied good spade support? Had his hand improved?!?!?!

 

N 100%...I'd like to award more, but that isn't logically possible.

 

Agree 100%

Ideal hand if you play a multi 2♦ with 2♥/♠/NT showing 2 suiters (2NT for the minors)

[rhm]

This is easy: North is an idiot.

 

The 'correct' opening call is debatable: there are good arguments for each or 1♣, 1♦ and a call far too few players seem to consider....pass...intending to bid some number of unusual notrump later. Light minor suit openings on difficult to describe hands are far different from similar major suit holdings.

 

But the problem lies not in the opening but the truly idiotic 4♣ call.

 

What on earth made N feel he had to bid over 3H? Didn't he have a partner who, if the hand belonged to NS for 10+ tricks was going to reopen? Hadn't he shown an opening bid already, and denied good spade support? Had his hand improved?!?!?!

 

N 100%...I'd like to award more, but that isn't logically possible.

 

I happen to agree with the 1♦ opening bid.

Passing and then coming in with 2NT shows in my view a different hand.

I am a simple soul. When you have the strength for an opening bid you open and when you later bid after pass you deny strength for an opening bid, not a hand you did not know what to do with first time or where you overlooked an ace.

 

It is easy to say that opener should have passed over 3♥, but in this hyperactive world I am not so sure how many would have done so.

Of course North is too weak for bidding at the 4 level vulnerable. The major reason arguing for caution is the singleton ♥king.

However, he does have an unbid 6 card suit and from the opponents bidding he knows that he has a fit somewhere.

Assume South, being vulnerable, passes out 3♥ not with his actual hand but with

 

♠Axxxx

♥Jx

♦Qx

♣Kxxx

 

Now assign the blame for missing a very good 5♣ contract.

I can almost hear some claiming: "This is easy. North is an idiot. 6-5 come alive. The one, who is short in the opponents suit must act etc. "

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cloa513]

I happen to agree with the 1♦ opening bid.

Passing and then coming in with 2NT shows in my view a different hand.

I am a simple soul. When you have the strength for an opening bid you open and when you later bid after pass you deny strength for an opening bid, not a hand you did not know what to do with first time or where you overlooked an ace.

 

It is easy to say that opener should have passed over 3♥, but in this hyperactive world I am not so sure how many would have done so.

Of course North is too weak for bidding at the 4 level vulnerable. The major reason arguing for caution is the singleton ♥king.

However, he does have an unbid 6 card suit and from the opponents bidding he knows that he has a fit somewhere.

Assume South, being vulnerable, passes out 3♥ not with his actual hand but with

 

♠Axxxx

♥Jx

♦Qx

♣Kxxx

 

 

Now assign the blame for missing a very good 5♣ contract.

I can almost hear some claiming: "This is easy. North is an idiot. 6-5 come alive. The one, who is short in the opponents suit must act etc. "

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

The original given hand was weak because the diamonds weren't headed with the A instead of KJ. Bidding 4C is reasonable- just don't bid the 5 trust partner to choose the best place- which isn't 4S- heart losers (partner has to pass which his hand heart losers should be expected). With your hand partner should cue hearts or bid a non-blackwood 4NT forcing (a spade cue).

 

[rhm]

Agreed, I would pass 4♠.

But fact is 5♣ has a poor but still a much better chance to go down only once than 4♠.

You need ♣ to be 2-2, then your chances holding it to down 1 are reasonable.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[655321]

It is easy to say that opener should have passed over 3♥, but in this hyperactive world I am not so sure how many would have done so.

Of course North is too weak for bidding at the 4 level vulnerable. The major reason arguing for caution is the singleton ♥king.

However, he does have an unbid 6 card suit and from the opponents bidding he knows that he has a fit somewhere.

Assume South, being vulnerable, passes out 3♥ not with his actual hand but with

 

♠Axxxx

♥Jx

♦Qx

♣Kxxx

 

Now assign the blame for missing a very good 5♣ contract.

I can almost hear some claiming: "This is easy. North is an idiot. 6-5 come alive. The one, who is short in the opponents suit must act etc. "

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

 

Truly extraordinary.

 

Still, I didn't quite understand your post.

 

Are you saying something like "Even though North doesn't really have the strength to bid at the 4 level, other factors override that and make the bid acceptable. Only I have the ability to see that, everyone else is only resulting."

Or, are you saying something like "North doesn't have the strength to bid at the 4 level, 4♣ was a bad bid. Only I have the ability to see that, everyone else is only resulting."

[rhm]

Truly extraordinary.

 

Still, I didn't quite understand your post.

 

Are you saying something like "Even though North doesn't really have the strength to bid at the 4 level, other factors override that and make the bid acceptable. Only I have the ability to see that, everyone else is only resulting."

Or, are you saying something like "North doesn't have the strength to bid at the 4 level, 4♣ was a bad bid. Only I have the ability to see that, everyone else is only resulting."

 

What I am saying:

North is not an idiot because he bid 4♣. He is severely understrength in the HCP department but his distribution compensates that to some extent. Assume you, North, would have passed 3♥ and next East bids 4♥ passed back to you. How do you feel now? I would then regret not having bid 4♣ last time. This could easily be a double game swing.

I still have a preference for Pass over 3♥, mainly because of the singleton ♥ King, which argues against such a scenario. But I think it is close and the critic for bidding 4♣ is too harsh for my liking. Calling it "truly idiotic" and wanting to assign more than 100% blame is out of place in my view. If I should tone down as Gwnn suggested in a different threat, other should do likewise.

I am not saying everyone else is resulting. I guess when you overbid you have to take the blame if it backfires and South can hardly be blamed for the disaster.

But when assigning blame always be aware that during the bidding nobody can see his partner's hand.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[phil_20686]

What I am saying:

North is not an idiot because he bid 4♣. He is severely understrength in the HCP department but his distribution compensates that to some extent. Assume you, North, would have passed 3♥ and next East bids 4♥ passed back to you. How do you feel now? I would then regret not having bid 4♣ last time. This could easily be a double game swing.

I still have a preference for Pass over 3♥, mainly because of the singleton ♥ King, which argues against such a scenario. But I think it is close and the critic for bidding 4♣ is too harsh for my liking. Calling it "truly idiotic" and wanting to assign more than 100% blame is out of place in my view. If I should tone down as Gwnn suggested in a different threat, other should do likewise.

I am not saying everyone else is resulting. I guess when you overbid you have to take the blame if it backfires and South can hardly be blamed for the disaster.

But when assigning blame always be aware that during the bidding nobody can see his partner's hand.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

I actually agree with this. I held x xx Axxxx AKxxx Vuil vs not in first

 

1d (1h) x (3h)

 

If you pass is partner meant to guess that Axxx xxx Kxxx xx gives you decent play for 5d? purish distributional hands area alwyas difficult auction as they will make many tricks opposite very few HCP when partner has the right card. I used to try being conservative but that didnt work out well. Now I just bid confidently and take my lumps when its wrong. Not only do you get to quite a few good games, often even when its "wrong" it is not a disaster, and sometimes opposition will save, assuming you have more than you have. On the above hand on the above hand I bid 4c and oppos took the save in 5h for 500 even though 5m is off.

[phil_20686]

Forgot to say what i think aboud the given hand. I would have opened 1c being a traditionalist at heart. Over 3H i would have passed I think, despite the extra length, the impurity of the hand argues against bidding. with no Kh and instead the Q of diamonds I would probably feel differently.

[bucky]

I actually agree with this. I held x xx Axxxx AKxxx Vuil vs not in first

 

1d (1h) x (3h)

 

If you pass is partner meant to guess that Axxx xxx Kxxx xx gives you decent play for 5d? purish distributional hands area alwyas difficult auction as they will make many tricks opposite very few HCP when partner has the right card. I used to try being conservative but that didnt work out well. Now I just bid confidently and take my lumps when its wrong. Not only do you get to quite a few good games, often even when its "wrong" it is not a disaster, and sometimes opposition will save, assuming you have more than you have. On the above hand on the above hand I bid 4c and oppos took the save in 5h for 500 even though 5m is off.

This is a totally different auction. Partner's negative double shows EXACTLY 4 spades, and from opps bidding you can infer partner probably has 2 hearts. Therefore we can expect to have 9+ card fit in a minor suit. That still doesn't make 4♣ a good call, but it is saner than when partner bids 1♠ showing 5+, in which case you no longer have a safety net.

[rhm]

This is a totally different auction. Partner's negative double shows EXACTLY 4 spades, and from opps bidding you can infer partner probably has 2 hearts. Therefore we can expect to have 9+ card fit in a minor suit. That still doesn't make 4♣ a good call, but it is saner than when partner bids 1♠ showing 5+, in which case you no longer have a safety net.

 

I think your safety net comes in both cases mostly from the simple and well known fact that if opponents have a fit so you do likewise. Unfortunately in both cases you do not know whether partner has his secondary honors (K, Q,J) in your long suits or opposite your short suit. This distinction is crucial.

 

The auction here is different, yes, but when contemplating a move with x xx Axxxx AKxxx there are also arguments, which make a move on this hand more doubtful than on the original one.

 

1) You are going to bid 4C with an unbid 5 card suit. An unbid 6 card suit tends to give you better protection and makes it at least unlikely that you do not have a nine card fit in your long suits.

2) Even though you can count on a nine card fit here, you are vulnerable and you hold a doubleton here in opponents suit, which is the worst holding you can have, when opponents show a nine card fit.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cascade]

4♣ is the worst call.

[olegru]

Completely agree with Rainer. 1♦ and 4 ♣ both are OK bids. Not unquestionable but not even close to be idiotic.

But I really dislike 5 ♣ bid. As happened, North did show his hand by his biding. Partner aware about at least 10 minor cards in North’s hand and he decided to play 4 ♠.

As North I would see no reasons to correct his decision.