Cayne #7

[han]

This was the last hand from the Cayne match.

 

White against red in first seat I held AKQ98xx 98 xxx x. What would you open?

[broze]

4♠. It looks obvious so I imagine it wasn't a winning action?

[paulg]

4♠. At this vulnerability I would even show a good four spades opener if I had the option, as it's pretty much a solid suit and not the rubbish we sometimes have.

[gszes]

This was the last hand from the Cayne match.

 

White against red in first seat I held AKQ98xx 98 xxx x. What would you open?

 

I use namyats (not the classical use which takes up too much

room with a bid hand) just to help show the difference btn

this hand and say KQTxxxxx xx x xx

 

my 4d bid is with the AKxxxxxx or AKQxxxx type hands

and my 4s bid is with the weaker more distributional

type (figuring the distribution is more important to

hide). w/o namyats I would open 4s at this vul and not

be shocked if we missed slam because p was unable to

see 6 with a lot of controls but short spades.

[han]

I opened 1S, the state of the match played a role (we were a lot of boards ahead and the score was close at that time but we had a few minus positions. Unfortunately those minus positions all turned out to be big losses). I would have opened 4S with a singelton heart instead of a doubleton.

 

After my 1S opening the bidding went

 

1S - Dbl - 2D (hearts) - 3NT

p - p - 4H - Double

all pass

 

It didn't seem right to convert to spades, especially since RHO had told me I had a trump loser. 4H went for 300, partner had x AJ10xxxx Qx xxx.

 

At the other table the Serbian player in my seat opened 3S, a bizarre choice from my point of view. A lot of their bidding seemed strange, but like this 3S opening bid all of their choices worked out very well so what can I say...

 

3S was doubled at the other table and escaped for -1.

[gnasher]

3S was doubled at the other table and escaped for -1.

That didn't have to happen: I might have bid 3NT and made that, and we should have taken 3♠ two down to flatten the board.

[mgoetze]

we should have taken 3♠ two down to flatten the board.

Yes, I should have done some more counting at the end - sorry about that.

[han]

That didn't have to happen: I might have bid 3NT and made that, and we should have taken 3♠ two down to flatten the board.

 

I hope you are not blaming yourself for what, to me, looks like a good decision. Of course in 28 hands there are always some opportunities to say "if I had done this or that it would have been better". That doesn't strike me as very productive.

 

The defensive error was painful though, as cardplay mistakes often are. For this reason I am a little hesitant to discuss it publically, but on the other hand, these are the kind of mistakes that in my opinion are the most important to discuss. How can such a mistake happen, what is the thinking process? Is it lack of focus or laziness? If so, that may be hard to change, but I don't think that that's all there is to it. Is it because you haven't seen the theme often enough before? If so, then this presents a possibility for improvement

 

You (Michael) say that you weren't counting at the end, but already in the middle (in the beginning?) of the hand you could have realized that declarer was shortening himself in order to execute a trump coup. In fact, the bidding makes it likely that such a position may well occur. If you start thinking about the hand with this possibility in the back of your mind, the counting becomes a lot easier. Thinking about any problem hand becomes much easier if you can name the theme, and you know the issues that you should be trying to prevent. I don't think that counting at the end was the main problem.

[JLOGIC]

Most obvious 4S bid ever?