why you lose at bridge

[bftboy]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj987hkj987dat4c&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1s2hd3h]133|200[/hv]

 

I read Simon's famous book years ago and was reminded of the title when a couple of poorly judged actions cost us first place in the local duplicate. What action did I take that was wrong, but more importantly, why was it wrong? go ahead, beat me up.

[mike777]

I will try pass.

 

 

great book, after this hand I better reread it.

[Quartic]

I pass too - hopefully partner will double again and I can pass for penalties. If he passes I think we probably haven't missed game, so I'll content myself with defeating their partscore. Otherwise, we will probably play 4♠ or 3NT.

[wank]

i'm guessing you were unable to restrain yourself and doubled (showing extra values) so partner who was about to make a reopening double took it out, unsurprisingly.

[BunnyGo]

I'd pass, but I'm guessing you bid 3NT.

[awm]

My guess is that you doubled (because you were sure 3♥ was going down) but your agreement was "responsive" and partner removed it for a poor result.

[HighLow21]

Everything depends on system here. If you play responsive doubles you cannot double here. If you don't, you will miss a lot of fits. Either way, I'm hoping you stuck to your agreements and am guessing by the tone of the OP that you didn't.

 

Anyway, I like Mike Lawrence's treatments of competitive auctions, which are generally more natural than most modern bidding systems. I want to be able to double for blood in this spot. In particular, even both non-vul, 3♥X is going to be worth more than anything our side can make (unless 3NT happens to make in spite of rounded-suit voids facing each other, which I find highly improbable).

 

In specific reference to Simon's classic, I'm guessing you did bid 3NT and went down. I can even think of the example hand from that book that is similar to this one. The hand in question involves a void in partner's opening suit (spades) and the auction goes 1♠-3NT. He makes the argument that, essentially, "There is no reason why 3NT should make and there is equally no reason why 6♣ shouldn't. For you need more than just stoppers in each suit to make 3NT; you also need a source of tricks."

[mike777]

Everything depends on system here.

 

 

 

NO you miss the entire message of the book...

 

 

You dont lose based on your system.

[Codo]

To answer the question: You passed, knowing that your double would have been responsive. You waited for partner to double again and to earn sticks and drums. You are still waiting and your partner yelled at you that you passed with the most obvious penalty double ever.

[the hog]

You doubled and it made. You are sitting under the AQT of H and the opp made another trick in hand by an elopement.

[ahydra]

I would pass, since X would show something like 15+ HCP with a takeout-ish shape of hearts (perhaps a strong NT with no stop in hearts, since I play a weak NT). I think it'll be fine, because I only have 11 points. This leaves partner with something so he might well reopen.

 

But... since he must be void in hearts and have at most 2 spades (assuming 5cM), it sounds like partner has 6-5 in the minors :/ so I doubt a penalty X of hearts is the first thing on his mind? If this is the case with your partner, you might double anyway, hoping partner leaves it in holding a couple of aces or something - no other way are we getting to 3HX.

 

ahydra

[ArtK78]

I know the popular trend is that all doubles in competitive situations are for takeout.

 

Horse hockey.

 

Double here is for penalty. Partner already doubled for takeout over 2♥. You are not guaranteed a fit, so double here is not invitational in spades. Double here is for blood. Make them pay.

[billw55]

Double here is for blood. Make them pay.

A quote after my own heart :)

 

I love wielding the axe and am often frustrated by partners who insist on every conventional double in the book and/or who stubbornly pull all my doubles.

[P_Marlowe]

X.

 

I have a penalty X, I can make the penalty X, I make the penalty X.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Wackojack]

Holding the South hand:

 

Mr Smug would double loudly but his partner the Unlucky Expert "knowing" that this is a responsive double would take out into 4♣. Mr Smug going purple would bid 4NT to play. Where they end up I am not sure.

 

Mrs Guggenheim would stare at her hand not knowing what to do and eventually pass. If her partner was the Unlucky Expert he would want to make a take-out double but feel obliged to pass.

 

Futile Willy would bid 3NT and if his partner was Mr Smug, he would bid 5♣. If his partner was Mrs Guggenheim she would pass and Willy would misplay and go off 3.

 

Going to another book: Hideous Hog partnering Rueful Rabbit would bid 3NT and make with an end play after the Greek and Armenian misdefend not believing Hog would make such a bad bid.

[mycroft]

Rueful Rabbit, having played a bunch of duplicate recently on holiday, remembers somewhere that double here would be takeout, and passes waiting for partner's reopening double. He's still waiting, but he is "sitting under the ♥AQT and declarer made another trick in hand by an elopement." HH then proceeds to make two "routine" game contracts, and not only kills the partscore, but takes 700 rather than 500 from the rubber.

[Phil]

You doubled and it made. You are sitting under the AQT of H and the opp made another trick in hand by an elopement.

 

Even the real Hog cannot get to dummy enough to pull this off.

[Free]

I would pass and hope for partner to make another Dbl.

[nigel_k]

Playing double as penalty so that you can easily handle this hand, on this auction, seems closer to Futile Willy than any of the other characters.

[bftboy]

As many supposed, we were playing penalty doubles here and that is the action I took. It was "right" in the sense that P finally sat for it, and we beat 3♥ one trick, +100. The action was wrong, however, because I could not be certain that 3 ♥ would fail, or that we did not have a higher scoring contract. P must be 6-5 in the minors on this bidding. He`was and we make 4♦ and a couple made 5 with defensive help. We made one mp out of 12. While it's very unlikely P will reopen with a dbl, I should have allowed him to bid his hand.

[HighLow21]

Everything depends on system here.

 

 

 

NO you miss the entire message of the book...

 

 

You dont lose based on your system.

Mike, WYLAB had no discussion whatsoever about responsive doubles, which is what the first and second paragraphs of my response are about. In fact those paragraphs are kind of a polemic against them, which I am sure SJ Simon would enjoy, because he was very much a believer in natural bidding and bidding what one can make, and about the use of doubles in this spot as at least a suggestion, if not a mandate, to partner.

 

And with respect to system, SJ Simon's quote about it is effectively that he doesn't much care what system you play, only that you prefer a bad system you play well over a good system you play poorly. WYLAB is about judgment on a number of different fronts. System and judgment are nearly independent of one another.

 

I never said that one wins or loses based on system. I said you cannot double here if your system includes responsive doubles. Big difference.

[HighLow21]

As many supposed, we were playing penalty doubles here and that is the action I took. It was "right" in the sense that P finally sat for it, and we beat 3♥ one trick, +100. The action was wrong, however, because I could not be certain that 3 ♥ would fail, or that we did not have a higher scoring contract. P must be 6-5 in the minors on this bidding. He`was and we make 4♦ and a couple made 5 with defensive help. We made one mp out of 12. While it's very unlikely P will reopen with a dbl, I should have allowed him to bid his hand.

I would have to see the full hand, but I cannot imagine how your partner can make 4♦ while your side cannot defeat 3♥ by at least two tricks. It is obvious on the auction that every single suit for the opponents is going to break badly if they declare it. EVEN IF AQT♥ is to your left.

[JLOGIC]

As many supposed, we were playing penalty doubles here and that is the action I took. It was "right" in the sense that P finally sat for it, and we beat 3♥ one trick, +100. The action was wrong, however, because I could not be certain that 3 ♥ would fail, or that we did not have a higher scoring contract. P must be 6-5 in the minors on this bidding. He`was and we make 4♦ and a couple made 5 with defensive help. We made one mp out of 12. While it's very unlikely P will reopen with a dbl, I should have allowed him to bid his hand.

 

You are definitely resulting yourself. If you play penalty doubles, then you should double.

[P_Marlowe]

As many supposed, we were playing penalty doubles here and that is the action I took. It was "right" in the sense that P finally sat for it, and we beat 3♥ one trick, +100. The action was wrong, however, because I could not be certain that 3 ♥ would fail, or that we did not have a higher scoring contract. P must be 6-5 in the minors on this bidding. He`was and we make 4♦ and a couple made 5 with defensive help. We made one mp out of 12. While it's very unlikely P will reopen with a dbl, I should have allowed him to bid his hand.

If he is 6-5 he is allowed to show it, and in fact he should.

And of course, it may have even be better, if he had started to bid his suits.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mycroft]

I actually *like* Simon's "proposal to partner" doubles. I just like the modern, conventional meanings of doubles more.

 

I've played "proposal to partner" doubles, in real partnerships (well, some, anyway), and when they work, boy do they work. Also, if it happens to be a long match, boy do we get a lot more free rein in our bidding after we catch them for 5 or 800 in 2 of "our" suit. But in Negative, Responsive, and other cases (but, in my opinion, not "extended Responsive", i.e. 1m-X-1M-X) the other meaning comes up so much more often that it's not worth it. But when I don't need conventional double X, and Simon would have played it as "proposal to partner", so do I.