BAM problem #2

[mtvesuvius]

This one is a LOT deeper... I'll post my partners/my later, but here is the hand, ATB:

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt6hq865dakjt2cq&w=sj752ht73d5ckj972&n=s3hakj94d743ct643&e=sak984h2dq986ca85&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d(4+%21d)p1h1s2h(14-16%20BAL%20%5Bor%20Distributional%20Equivalent%5D)3d4h4sdppp]399|300|ATB for this result. -590 was not a win, sadly :)[/hv]

[l milne]

If 4♥ doesn't set up a forcing pass (my preference, I think), then I don't think South has a double. He has between 1 and 3 tricks on defense and it's hard for him to judge exactly how many, except he knows opponents are likely to have less values then his side and are thus likely bidding on distribution. So there's no reason to be optimistic about the second round of diamonds, and seeing AJ/KJ♠ appear in dummy is hardly unimaginable. In addition, the double could give away the trump position, turning a +50 into a -590. So if pass is NF, then South 100%. North's bids are obviously all normal.

 

If 4♥ sets up a forcing pass, this one is hard to get right. South has a clear double I think - minimum for his bidding, values in opponent's suit. After X, North will have a hard time ripping, as most often both 4♠ and 5♥ will be going off. Sure, North has a high "offense/defense ratio", suggesting 4♠ or 5♥ might make, but its still hard to see 11 tricks and if partner has a bal 16-count then defending seems most likely to be the plus position. Anyway, I don't like forcing pass here, but if that's whats in play, then I'll give North 30% and 70% between them for playing the method.

[l milne]

double post

[rduran1216]

no blame, this is a miracle hand. Anyone would dbl 4S, and most would leave it in with the N hand. If anyone gets blame its North, for making an aggressive 4H bid and not rescuing with 1 def trick at most.

[Cascade]

South or whoever told him to double. If forcing pass was in play on this auction then the blame lies with that agreement.

[Fluffy]

Forcing pass hasn't been set, I find it really obvious for many reasons, but the primary one is that north had a cuebid avaible yet he wanted to just jump to game.

 

South has a good hand, both defensivelly and offensivelly, I can't blame him for not willing to play 4 spades undoubled. Sadly he has no bid that tells partner he wants to do something but he doens't know what. Uner pressure he missguessed, maybe pass was best hoping that partner finds another bid, but I am ignorant towards BAM tactics, so no idea.

[dake50]

South is closer to pass/pull than double.

4-support AND a 4-honor side 5-suit AND a C-single AND expect partner has S-single.

His defense is SQ + DAK -- expectable for an opening bid.

If no force-pass established (my partnership does), I try 5H.

Maybe key-ask then 5H to get slam warned off.

[han]

South should pass.

[Phil]

South should pass.

 

Agree. Maybe you should have posted the North hand as a problem over 4♠ - p - p.

 

Interested in what the other table's result was.

[gwnn]

S

[mikeh]

Tough problem. As others have suggested, the issue may be one of forcing pass agreement.

 

To me, the jump to 4♥ white v white is not a fp...altho I admit that I'm not sure all of my regular partners would agree.

 

The point is (or may be) that it wouldn't surprise N to hear 4♠ over a 4♥ call, so with hand ownership, he needs to announce real strength......a cue bid of 3♠ or a jump to 4minor. 3minor would merely be a gt, and, as such, would not usually establish a fp above 3♥.

 

One could argue that using 3♠ as a mere 'we own the hand' bid, rather than its alternative meaning of I have slam interest, is going to be problematic, but the answer may lie in the dictum: game before slam.

 

having said that, this hand seems like a trap for most partnerships, who will not have discussed this sequence ahead of time and whose meta-agreements on fp may be inadequate.

 

My own inclination would be that this is not a fp (it doesn't meet any of my meta-rule criteria) so I would pass as South, and as North. Not that -420 would be a happy result either, of course.

[mtvesuvius]

Other table played in 5♥ =, so in order to push the board, we need to reach 5♥ as well.

 

There were a number of ways I thought might be able to get us there. One of the easiest would have been for one of us to just bid it. I was South and thought that a forcing pass did apply, since I thought a cuebid or something else would be showing slam interest, not just a full values raise. Perhaps a cuebid should just be a full values raise when you expect this to be the situation on the next round of bidding...

 

This gives up on being able to make a slam try on most hands. Not sure if it's worth it, but perhaps a call like 3N could be used to fix this problem -- Where 3N sets a forcing pass and says "I have a full opening hand for my raise to 4♥, do not have slam interest, and would like to set a forcing pass if they bid over 4♥." This allows you to reserve the cuebid for hands that have real slam interest. The 3N call is similar to "Non-Serious 3N", but has a few additional meanings.

 

My partner's thinking/suggestion IMO makes a lot of sense, however it's fairly deep. Similar to Mike Gill's argument on the other BAM problem thread, where by passing we could find out enough information to make a decision... If we pass over 3♦, we will always get another chance to take a call, and if they bid 3♠, then we can bid 4♥ knowing that if they bid 4♠ they are sacrificing... So we should double them. If they bid 4♠ immediately, then we assume they bid it to make (since we could still have a 4 count with 4 low hearts on this auction...), and can "sacrifice" in 5♥. I don't believe this is perfect, but it makes sense to me, and assuming your opponents are predictable enough for this to work, I think it is best. Obviously having the 3N agreement above would solve the problem as well, but at BAM, we might still want to suggest 3N as a possible game. Basically, I agree that if a forcing pass was NOT in place, then I have a clear pass, and partner's hand has a real problem over 4♠ - P - P to him, not sure what is best there as well. Overall I felt like this was by far the most interesting hand of the session, and had a lot of very cool aspects to it, with the exception of the fact that we lost the board.

[Phil]

Garner / Weinstein play 3N by North as ownership. I think a cue would set up a force, but nothing else would. Why do you think a cue has to be reserved for slam hands? Plus there are other calls available that set up a FP as well.

 

4♥ DOES NOT CREATE A FP. Especially at w/w! Wouldn't you bid 4♥ on a 7 bagger and out or a 6 + little more? Why do you have to choose between -590 and -500 in 4♠ or 5♥?

[gnasher]

My partner's thinking/suggestion IMO makes a lot of sense, however it's fairly deep. Similar to Mike Gill's argument on the other BAM problem thread, where by passing we could find out enough information to make a decision... If we pass over 3♦, we will always get another chance to take a call, and if they bid 3♠, then we can bid 4♥ knowing that if they bid 4♠ they are sacrificing... So we should double them. If they bid 4♠ immediately, then we assume they bid it to make (since we could still have a 4 count with 4 low hearts on this auction...), and can "sacrifice" in 5♥. I don't believe this is perfect, but it makes sense to me, and assuming your opponents are predictable enough for this to work, I think it is best.

You're suggesting this auction?

                  1♦

   pass 1♥   1♠   2♥

   3♦   pass 3♠   pass

   pass 4♥   4♠

How does South know that North was bidding 4♥ to make?

 

Also, it's not clear that East is sacrificing. Often in this sort of sequence nobody knows whose hand it is. Suppose that East thinks that both sides are in the 9-10 tricks zone. If he is allowed to play in 3♠, that will gain against 3♥=, 4♥=, 4♥-1 or 4♠-1, tie with 3♠, and lose only to 4♠=. Defending 4♥, however, is much less attractive - even 4♥x-1 may lose the board, whereas 4♠ has two ways to win. Hence East's actions don't tell us that he's sacrificing - he may just be uncertain as to who can make what.

 

Obviously having the 3N agreement above would solve the problem as well, but at BAM, we might still want to suggest 3N as a possible game.

Can you construct a pair of hands, vaguely consistent with the bidding, where North would want to bid 3NT to play, South would pass it, and that would be the right thing to do?

 

Looking at it another way, in uncontested auctions it's almost normal to play 3NT as artificial once you have found a 4-4 major-suit fit. Nearly everyone plays serious or non-serious 3NT, because it's very rare that you'd want to play in 3NT, and an artificial 3NT is quite useful because of the possibility that we have a slam. In this sequence, it's even less likely that you'll want to play in 3NT, and an artificial 3NT is very useful because of the liklihood that they'll compete further.

Edited November 29, 2010 by gnasher

[andy_h]

Forcing pass is crazy

[nige1]

Forcing pass hasn't been set, I find it really obvious for many reasons, but the primary one is that north had a cuebid avaible yet he wanted to just jump to game. South has a good hand, both defensivelly and offensively, I can't blame him for not willing to play 4 spades undoubled. Sadly he has no bid that tells partner he wants to do something but he doesn't know what. Under pressure he missguessed, maybe pass was best hoping that partner finds another bid, but I am ignorant towards BAM tactics, so no idea.

Agree with Fluffy. IMO Luck = 80% South = 20%, North = 0%. It is hard luck that the law of total tricks is such a poor indicator for this hand.

[WellSpyder]

It is hard luck that the law of total tricks is such a poor indicator for this hand.

 

Hmmm, every time I get a bad result in a high-level pass, double or bid on situation (which happens pretty often!) it seems that the LAW is a poor indicator for the hand. Perhaps this is not so much bad luck as a problem with the law...

[nigel_k]

Hmmm, every time I get a bad result in a high-level pass, double or bid on situation (which happens pretty often!) it seems that the LAW is a poor indicator for the hand. Perhaps this is not so much bad luck as a problem with the law...

Agree with this. Anyone who blames bad luck whenever the law doesn't work is going to be an extremely unlucky bridge player.

[l milne]

Anyone would dbl 4S

 

what?

 

If anyone gets blame its North, for making an aggressive 4H bid

 

WHAT?

 

not rescuing with 1 def trick at most.

 

truly bizzare.

 

Anyone who blames bad luck whenever the law doesn't work is going to be an extremely unlucky bridge player.

 

yes.

[the_dude]

I don't see how it could be a FP. Wouldn't North bid 4H on pretty much any hand with a stiff spade and 6 hearts?

 

South has a difficult decision but hearing the 3D bid by W might be a clue that there are double fits on both sides and bidding 5H is right.

[Fluffy]

I am no expert on the LAW, but I am sure that double fit increases the ammount of total tricks. The problem with this hand is the hidden double fit that only north is partially aware off.

[nige1]

Hmmm, every time I get a bad result in a high-level pass, double or bid on situation (which happens pretty often!) it seems that the LAW is a poor indicator for the hand. Perhaps this is not so much bad luck as a problem with the law...

Agree with this. Anyone who blames bad luck whenever the law doesn't work is going to be an extremely unlucky bridge player.

yes.

Top experts may regard them as beneath contempt, but we ordinary players find rules-of-thumb (like losing-trick count and total-tricks) to be of practical help: both in judging how high to bid and in allocating blame when things go wrong.

[l milne]

Top experts may regard them as beneath contempt, but we ordinary players find rules-of-thumb (like losing-trick count and total-tricks) to be of practical help: both in judging how high to bid and in allocating blame when things go wrong.

 

By all means use "the Law" as a rule of thumb. But it should not be used to allocate blame when a bad result occurs. Sure, you might justify someone's bid on those grounds (as that is how you would judge if you couldn't see all the hands) but bridge "common sense" should play a far larger role.

 

In the hand, the position of both the diamond and club jacks are very important (give them to the right opponent in 4S or 5H respectively and both are one off). Not only that, but South should know not to double. If South doesn't double, North knows 4S is very likely making and might well bid 5H as a "two-way" bid. The logic of these pass/double situations has very little to do with "the Law", I find. In fact, I can't remember the last time I tried to actually estimate total tricks at the table.

[kfay]

People noticed this was BAM, right?

 

If I pass and this is just a normal sacrifice (VERY LIKELY!) I'm just forfeiting the board by not doubling them.

 

If I double them and they make it well maybe I lose the board when I was going to push but this just seems way less likely to me. Maybe I was going to lose it anyway! The 'South should pass'ers are huge resulters, imo.

 

As far as reaching 5♥... probably not going to happen.

 

BTW not a forcing pass, this is obvious.

 

Meh I guess I didn't consider that partner might just be preempting 4♥ some of the time... still, I think that doubling is correct.

[gnasher]

People noticed this was BAM, right?

 

If I pass and this is just a normal sacrifice (VERY LIKELY!) I'm just forfeiting the board by not doubling them.

 

If I double them and they make it well maybe I lose the board when I was going to push but this just seems way less likely to me. Maybe I was going to lose it anyway! The 'South should pass'ers are huge resulters, imo.

 

Did you notice that South had shown "14-16 bal (or distributional equivalent)"? In the context of what South has already shown, this hand's defensive strength is fairly typical. If North wants to defend 4♥x opposite a balanced 14-count, he will double it himself (as he might, in fact, do on this hand - he does have an ace, and he thinks there is a game bonus to protect).

 

I don't think NS's methods were very helpful here, because they don't distinguish between balanced and unbalanced hands. Over 1♠, opener has pass, double, 1NT, 2♠, 2NT and 3♥ available to cover the balanced hands and the heart raises. It ought to be possible to use two of those to distinguish between Q10x Qxxx AKxxx Q and Q10x Qxxx AKxx Kx. If North knew of five diamonds opposite, he'd have more chance of getting this right.