Judgement

[rduran1216]

Mikeh's hand is not only extremely contrived, it is also pointless. Does responder know that the KQ of clubs are wasted? If not, how can he pass this superstrong-3S bid? Couldn't south also hold an equally strong hand with more than 1 club, for example KQxx Ax Axxx AJxx? Hey, you probably make 5S on a non-diamond lead! Now, I wouldn't want to bid 3S with that hand but it is not stronger than the hand Cascade gave.

 

Somehow, we don't see too many ATB-threads where both players used good judgement to arrive at a game that had no chance because the hands fit terribly. Why not? Because it is normal and good bridge.

 

Besides the poor arguments, it also makes no sense to blame south because in the style that Kokish and mikeh play, 3S shows a very strong hand. Cascade stated right from the beginning that 3S can be a balanced 17- or 16-count. The fact that Kokish prefers to play this differently is completely irrelevant, a judgement question only makes sense in the context of a given style.

 

I don't understand overcomplicating this. North decided to downgrade his hand to 3S because of his poor major suit holdings, with a dbl from his LHO. What do your T/o dbls over 1D show? Thats all there is to this problem, south should read the situation and bid 4.

[gwnn]

what is poor about Axxx Axx??

 

Are you saying that AQxx Qxx would be better?

[mikeh]

 

Somehow, we don't see too many ATB-threads where both players used good judgement to arrive at a game that had no chance because the hands fit terribly. Why not? Because it is normal and good bridge.

 

Besides the poor arguments, it also makes no sense to blame south because in the style that Kokish and mikeh play, 3S shows a very strong hand. Cascade stated right from the beginning that 3S can be a balanced 17- or 16-count. The fact that Kokish prefers to play this differently is completely irrelevant, a judgement question only makes sense in the context of a given style.

Wayne did not state 'right from the beginning that 3♠ can be a balanced 17- or 16- count'. He added it late in the thread, after a number of responses predicated on a strong 1N style.

 

When considering style and judgment, one should, I think, recognize that whatever style one chooses, it will lead to some bad results. My personal style is probably conservative, on some hand types, compared to most who post here.

 

As an example, if I held the J10xxx xxx xx KQx hand I posited, and passed 3♠, I would know that opposite your KQxx Ax AJxx Axxx, I have got a very bad result. I would accept that as part of my style, altho I wouldn't be happy with the result. Equally, in a strong 1N context I could happily splinter with the OP hand, and opposite my responder hand acknowledge that my choice had got us a bad board.

 

On the auction as posted, I would pass 3♠ with J10xxx xxx xx KQx not because I have second sight but because the takeout double has warned me that there is a greater than a priori chance of losers in our 9 card fit. Absent the double, Axxx in dummy would give me excellent play for one loser, even with a 3-1 split. With the double, the odds of 2 losers appear greatly increased. AQxx absent the double affords an excellent chance of no losers: with the double, a loser is close to certain. To me, this goes to the heart of judgement. You and others may disagree about the extent to which such concerns should impact our choices, but I expect unaminous agreement amongst all good players that such concerns are legitimate...that listening to the bidding should be part of our thinking process.

 

In short, if I held J10xxx xxx xx KQx, and rho had passed, I'd probably bid game, but after a takeout double, I'd probably pass. That would be me exercising judgement. On some hands, I'd regret my choice, on others I'd be happy.

 

I wasn't posting my hand to argue that S HAD to pass or inevitably get a bad result. I was addressing what I, perhaps mistakenly, see as a tendency on the part of some posters to allow the actual hands to influence their stated analysis. I am not the only, nor the first poster to comment that a lot of posters seem to be influenced by knowing the hands.

 

I was not suggesting that every poster is like that, and I don't think you, for one, have ever demonstrated that tendency.

 

han, as someone who rarely pulls his punches when posting here, I don't want to suddenly become hyper-sensitive (too late, many will no doubt cry ;) ) but could I please ask you to accept the apology I posted on an earlier thread and/or try to refrain from being as insulting as you seem determined to be?

[phil_20686]

surely you have to splinter with this hand. Its beautifully pure. Sure, it doesnt mean that game will always make or anything, but partner producing as little as KQxxxx spades and a doubleton diamond will give you decent play for slam. Is partner really meant to raise on KQxxS and out for example, when you would probably want to be in game. I could probably go all day constructing hands with less than 10 HCP where slam has pretty good play. It hard values and good diamond suit just seem to give it much too much trick taking potential compared to other softer hands with which you would bid 3S.

 

KJxx

KQJ

KQxxx

x

 

is also clear to bid 3S I think (probably the absolute lower limit IMO) and its worth a lot less. An ace worse on the K&R hand evaluator. Not that I think that is very good. Still, agree with mtvesuvius that it seems clear to splinter on the hand in the OP.

[MrAce]

Am i reading wrong or are there people here who suggests that 3♠ is super strong ???

 

In any style or method, 3♠ is NOT super strong, it is intermediate hand, opening with 12-21 scale it stands for showing hands that are not max and that are not minimum. Some may stretch it down to 14 hcp with a stiff, some others may play it sounder than that, in any case it doesn't show a SUPER STRONG hand.

 

North not only downgraded his hand in terms of BEANS, but also in terms of quality of his BEANS B) A typical 4321 hcp scale error, undervalued Aces. I would have more sympathy for North, had he held 4441 instead of 4351. 4441 hands are very vulnerable to trump defense and bad splits.

[mtvesuvius]

I actually would redouble first as South with both majors well-held.

LOL

[nigel_k]

I'm agree with mikeh. Playing weak NT, a 4432 shape with 16 HCP is normally a single raise. I wouldn't have used the phrase 'super-strong' but the jump raise is a bit stronger than it would be playing strong NT.

 

However I still think 3♠ is not enough on the actual North hand. Kaplan/Rubens rates it at 19.3 plus you have a fit and ruffing values. I think South should also bid game. I'll give North 60% and South 40%.

[MrAce]

Okay, then lets make SOUTH hand [hv=pc=n&s=skj92hq632d73c732]133|100[/hv]

 

Are u guys now happy with North's 3♠ ? I am not, since we still not bidding a good game. In fact this hand has more chance to make, than if East had not double. And please don't ask me to bid game with this :)

 

Or are we bidding 4♠ contracts that offers us first 10 quick tricks ? :)

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj952hq983d7c975&n=sa763ha54dakj54c2&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1dd1sp3sppp]266|200|MPs (Edit: Scoring added)

 

Eleven tricks were made - finessing spade, ♥K onside and establishing the diamonds.

 

How do you assign the blame?

[/hv]

IMO Both are too blame.

1. North is just worth 4♣ rather than 3♠. He has 5 losers but aces are undervalued, his honours are in his long suits, and the ♦ honours reinforce each other.
2. South should raise 3♠ to 4♠. He has 8 losers counting a singleton in his partner's first suit but East's double has improved his hand .
3. System night help. For example if a 3♣ minisplinter were available to North, even underbidders would romp into game.

[TimG]

Okay, then lets make SOUTH hand [hv=pc=n&s=skj92hq632d73c732]133|100[/hv]

 

I suspect most would respond 1♥, bidding four card majors up the line.

[MrAce]

I suspect most would respond 1♥, bidding four card majors up the line.

 

Thats not the point, but if you want you can make the 4th ♥ a ♣ ;) or a ♦ if you will, making South 4333 6 hcp ! Still a great game B)

 

Basically Axxx vs KJ9x trumps and AKJxx vs xxx, if you do not give more than 2 combined tricks in these 2 suits, especially with a lot of clue how to play those suits due to DBL, compared to a silent bidding.

[mikestar13]

Both of them are underbidders, South get the majority of the blame as he had the last clear chance.

[Cascade]

Both of them are underbidders, South get the majority of the blame as he had the last clear chance.

 

My subsequent simulations suggest this too.

 

Opener was about 70% double dummy (which can't be too far wrong when east has shown the majority of the outstanding strength) to make ten or more tricks. The parameters I used were that responder was 5-7 hcp with four or five spades. Even when I restricted responder to four spades game was better than 50% double dummy.

 

Similarly responder was over 70% for 10 or more tricks in the simulations.

 

Responder must be even better if 3♠ is based on the sort of values that mikeh suggests.

 

I am not convinced that the ♥ Qxxx was a good holding though as some seem to have suggested. Actually I might do some more simulations on that.

[Phil]

Mainly North whose 3♠ wasn't 'manly'.

 

Reading the system footnote, I'd says its maybe 50-50 or 75-75 in a weak NT context.

[Cascade]

Mainly North whose 3♠ wasn't 'manly'.

 

I will let her know :)

[mike777]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj952hq983d7c975&n=sa763ha54dakj54c2&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1dd1sp3sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

MPs (Edit: Scoring added)

 

Eleven tricks were made - finessing spade, ♥K onside and establishing the diamonds.

 

How do you assign the blame?

 

non expert here ....

 

 

 

40% north...60% south

 

 

north has an adjusted 5 loser hand could bid 4c....first error

 

as is very very common in bridge the second error was the killer.....south has easy 4s bid over 3s

[hotShot]

If 3♠ is "very strong", then South should have raised to 4.

If 3♠ can be much weaker, then North needs to do more e.g. 4♣ or 4♠.