critique my bidding

[rwbarton]

I'm not sure how I feel about the way I handled this one, opinions?

 

MPs, NV vs. V, opponents are one of the better pairs in a club game of respectable standard

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s653hq942dj986ct5&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1sp2c(GF)2s(undiscussed%2C%20presumably%20red%20suits)3cp3sp4np5c(I didn't ask)p6s7cd7hdppp]133|200[/hv]

[Quartic]

I don't understand the 7♣ bid. What is wrong with pass?

 

If I decided to get into the auction, I think I would bid 3♥ or 4♥ over 3♣. Once I've passed here, I think I have nothing to say unless partner bids again.

[ArtK78]

Quartic is correct, except that if I were to act over 3♣, it would have been 4♥. 3♥ is a nothing bid.

 

7♣ (or 7 of anything) is sheer lunacy. This is true whether or not it leads to a good result.

 

By the way, I would interpret 2♠ as showing spades. If partner has the red suits, he can either double or bid 2NT.

[ggwhiz]

I agree with all the above but think 4♥ at first chance is too close to a nothing bid too. Bid 5♥, fold your cards and put them in your pocket.

[Phil]

I would bid 4♥ over 3♣. 3 is too little and 5 is too much. Passing makes no sense. Passing and then acting at the 7 level? Might as well keep some of those completed 3 x 5 cards in your convention card holder for the partnership desk.

 

Having passed initially, I pass now. There is simply no practical way that a three count should be making a save decision over a small slam.

[rwbarton]

Given that you passed on the first three rounds, do you not like 7♣ because

 

• you don't think we can take 7 tricks on offense,
  
• you think 6♠ may well not make, or
  
• you think not enough other pairs will reach 6♠ to counter the risk that it might not make?
  

[Quartic]

Given that you passed on the first three rounds, do you not like 7♣ because

 

• you don't think we can take 7 tricks on offense,
  
• you think 6♠ may well not make, or
  
• you think not enough other pairs will reach 6♠ to counter the risk that it might not make?
  

 

Any and all of these could be true - I don't have enough information to make this decision now.

[rwbarton]

Any and all of these could be true - I don't have enough information to make this decision now.

 

Passing is a decision too, you have to decide whether you want to or not :)

[neilkaz]

I'm going to a new club tonight and if my pickup partner passes 3 times against the same auction and then bids 7 I will walk out the door and head home. Oh wait..I'm supposed to be a gentleman..OK I'll toss a 20 on the table for his cab fare.

 

How do you know that the opps are getting a good score for 6♠? Perhaps it is set, perhaps other tables play and make 6NT, perhaps a grand makes and is bid at other tables. Perhaps you go for 1700 in 7X.

[billw55]

I agree with all the above but think 4♥ at first chance is too close to a nothing bid too. Bid 5♥, fold your cards and put them in your pocket.

Assuming that 2♠ indeed shows 5-5 reds or better, I like this idea. I think this will be more effective at fending off a bad result defending 6♠.

[neilkaz]

Assuming that 2♠ indeed shows 5-5 reds or better, I like this idea. I think this will be more effective at fending off a bad result defending 6♠.

Yes, bridge is a partnership game and while the actual 7♥X may have scored better than 6♠making, I agree at some point to bid 5♥ (even after opp's Blackwood) and bring partner into the save decision.

[rwbarton]

By the way, I would interpret 2♠ as showing spades. If partner has the red suits, he can either double or bid 2NT.

 

I wondered about this too, particularly we had the auction 1♦ - P - 1♥ - 2♥ - all pass on the previous board, but do you really want to make an overcall in opener's 5-card suit when they are in a GF? Some doubt about what 2♠ showed was why I didn't bid to the 5 level immediately which in retrospect was what I thought I should have done.

 

What about 1♥ - P - 2♣ - 2♥? Then I'd think you definitely want this to show ♠+♦ since 2NT would bypass the contract of 2♠.

[Phil]

Passing is a decision too, you have to decide whether you want to or not :)

 

It might be right for me to cash in my savings, buy a one way ticket to Mumbai and start building racetracks there. Surely I am making a decision by not going.

 

I mean, its quite right that saving is 100% right here. We have a double fit and no defense. But to make a decision at the 7 level is so anti-partnership.

[mikeh]

Quartic is correct, except that if I were to act over 3♣, it would have been 4♥. 3♥ is a nothing bid.

 

7♣ (or 7 of anything) is sheer lunacy. This is true whether or not it leads to a good result.

 

By the way, I would interpret 2♠ as showing spades. If partner has the red suits, he can either double or bid 2NT.

I think Art is in a minority here.

 

There are differing schools of thought, and it is quite common, tho not perhaps 'standard', to play (1m) P (1M) 2m as natural, and very common, to the point of being standard, to play 2M in that situation as natural.

 

However, 1m, in NA, usually promises only 3+ although more and more are playing 1♦ as 4+, with 1♣ maybe 4=4=3=2, and so on.

 

In either event, there is a huge difference between those auctions and the posted auction: on a frequency basis, I think one would have to play a lot of hands before one found a hand on which 2♠ could usefully be natural, and far fewer for hands on which 2♠ michaels made sense....even allowing for the fact that to some degree one can show 2 suiters via double and 2N.

 

I think double would be less distributional and more hcp, plus it allows playing at the 2-level. 2N would be more shapely and not strong, and 2♠ would be, in context, a good shapely hand....but I'm not saying that would be the universal treatment.

 

As for the actual bidding......I think we all learn early on that if we are going to think of a save, we should, unless we are playing mind games, get in as early and as high as one can reasonably afford. Here, with an apparent double fit for both sides, I think we need to elevate the game asap.

 

I'd probably have bid 4♥. 3♥, as others have observed, is a nothing bid, plus the last thing I want to do is give them a 4-level red cue bid.

 

5♥ sounds too desperate plus may be wrong and/or unnecessary. 4♥ leaves keycard for them, but maybe both opps lack the requisite red suit controls to take charge, and now they may be stuck in never-never land. In the meantime, partner can, if need be, either make a save decision or suggest one by making some kind of move.

 

7♣ is the sort of bid that ends partnerships even if it works.

[rwbarton]

I mean, its quite right that saving is 100% right here. We have a double fit and no defense. But to make a decision at the 7 level is so anti-partnership.

 

I guess I don't understand this position, isn't it even more anti-partnership to decide an action is +EV and then not take it?

 

Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?

[Zelandakh]

4♥ over 3♣ seems pretty obvious. RHO might make a heavy 4♠ bid now and it come back with 2 passes. If it continues 4♠ - P - 4NT then we can consider 5 of either red suit or just leave them to it. If it is right to sac in 7 over their 6♠, partner should probably have already said something over 4♠.

 

On the status of 2♠, a common agreement is to play a bid of RHO's suit as natural but a bid of LHO's suit as artificial (if it showed a real suit). There are plenty of different schemes around for this situation though. One example: X = red, equal; 2♣ = natural; 2♠ = reds, better hearts; 2NT = reds, better diamonds. Another: X = reds + values; 2♣ = 6♦4♥; 2♠ = 6♥4♦; 2NT = 5♥5♦. I do not think there is an international standard here (possibly local standards apply though).

[han]

I think Art is in a minority here.

 

There are differing schools of thought, and it is quite common, tho not perhaps 'standard', to play (1m) P (1M) 2m as natural, and very common, to the point of being standard, to play 2M in that situation as natural.

 

However, 1m, in NA, usually promises only 3+ although more and more are playing 1♦ as 4+, with 1♣ maybe 4=4=3=2, and so on.

 

In either event, there is a huge difference between those auctions and the posted auction: on a frequency basis, I think one would have to play a lot of hands before one found a hand on which 2♠ could usefully be natural, and far fewer for hands on which 2♠ michaels made sense....even allowing for the fact that to some degree one can show 2 suiters via double and 2N.

 

I think double would be less distributional and more hcp, plus it allows playing at the 2-level. 2N would be more shapely and not strong, and 2♠ would be, in context, a good shapely hand....but I'm not saying that would be the universal treatment.

 

I don't know the best way to distinguish the 2S and 2NT calls here, but I agree that both should show 2-suiters, and not natural. The natural call is too infrequent and even when it comes up it won't be useful: partner will never raise, and it will only help the opponents. Perhaps 2NT should still show the minors if you are playing against a partnership that bids 2C on all balanced GF hands. Or perhaps one should be more distributional than the other, promising 6-5.

 

Of course if the opponents had bid 1H - 2C then 2H would show spades and diamonds, no reason to have to go past 2S.

[JLOGIC]

I guess I don't understand this position, isn't it even more anti-partnership to decide an action is +EV and then not take it?

 

Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?

 

lol, bridge players are hopeless compared to other games players in this regard. We have phil who is a good player saying what I think you and I interpreted correctly, then we got mikeh who is a great player saying 7C is the kind of bid that ends partnerships...

 

If your partner cannot handle you making a bid that is +EV on the set of information you have then you should find a new partner imo, it is just another way of saying your partner is too emotional to handle a bad result. Your partner is not rational if he is upset with you for bidding when it is right, but he is not upset with you if you pass and miss a good save even when you thought bidding would be right.

 

But han/me have been on this side of the debate on this forum many times, usually against mikeh, it will not change.

 

I would definitely save with your hand at the point you were at. The error you made was to never bid before. If you jumped to 4H over 3C you could comfortably let partner save, he would know about the only feature of your hand (4 card heart support) and would be better placed to make a decision than you. You never know when your partner can randomly show up with 2 tricks. Preempting earlier might also make it harder for them to reach slam.

 

This whole thing about passing foricng bids being wrong because it "ruins partnerships" even if it is obviously +EV (for instance, QJxx xxx --- xxxxxx, 1D p 1S p 2H, obviously you should pass in my opinion it is not even close), or saving when your partner has come in over their 2/1 GF auction (lol at this being unilateral, it is the main reason for partners bid!) being wrong even if you know it's the right bid is just so silly to me but it is a common thought process. I would recommend trying to find a partner who likes to win and is supportive of you making what you think are winning bids and not worrying about him being emotionally fragile.

[JLOGIC]

"Why didn't you bid over 3C partner?"

"Well, I was not sure what 2S meant, it was undiscussed in our partnership. I posted it on BBF later and at least 1 person took it as natural! Since I wasn't sure, I passed. Once they had raised spades I was sure you had the reds, so I saved."

"Oh, nice decision, we got a great board for it."

"Thanks, nice 2S bid."

 

/PARTNERSHIP

[mikeh]

lol, bridge players are hopeless compared to other games players in this regard. We have phil who is a good player saying what I think you and I interpreted correctly, then we got mikeh who is a great player saying 7C is the kind of bid that ends partnerships...

 

 

But han/me have been on this side of the debate on this forum many times, usually against mikeh, it will not change.

 

I would definitely save with your hand at the point you were at. The error you made was to never bid before. If you jumped to 4H over 3C you could comfortably let partner save, he would know about the only feature of your hand (4 card heart support) and would be better placed to make a decision than you. You never know when your partner can randomly show up with 2 tricks. Preempting earlier might also make it harder for them to reach slam.

 

This whole thing about passing foricng bids being wrong because it "ruins partnerships" even if it is obviously +EV (for instance, QJxx xxx --- xxxxxx, 1D p 1S p 2H, obviously you should pass in my opinion it is not even close), or saving when your partner has come in over their 2/1 GF auction (lol at this being unilateral, it is the main reason for partners bid!) being wrong even if you know it's the right bid is just so silly to me but it is a common thought process. I would recommend trying to find a partner who likes to win and is supportive of you making what you think are winning bids and not worrying about him being emotionally fragile.

 

 

Ok, so I was guilty of a little hyperbole :D I would still pass, tho with the expectation that it will work out badly a lot of the time...however, I'd feel worse about saving and seeing we'd beat slam than I'd feel about passing and finding that we had a good save....because I've already made the big mistake by not bidding earlier....I generally try to assume that my earlier error was 'right' rather than make a desperate guess to make up for it.

 

I do think, as does virtually everyone, that we shouldn't be in this situation.

 

I don't see this as equivalent to passing a forcing bid when it seems right to do so. Respond 1♠ to 1♣ on Q10xxx Qxx xxx xx and see partner reverse? I'd pass in a heartbeat even tho the reverse is a forcing bid. If it turns out that partner was fabricating a forcing 2♥ on some 3=3=1=6 or such, too bad. I don't think, on the whole, that I am as 'always' on the opposite side as I used to be...even old farts like me can learn sometimes.

[1eyedjack]

A problem that I have with 4H, or 5H, or any number of H earlier in the auction is that it does not express the double fit, which could be germaine to partner's decision what to do over 6S. I would still have left the 7 level decision to partner, but would have found a bid earlier which would have expressed a fit for both reds. Perhaps 4S. Hey, that even fields partner's natural 2S bid.

[Phil]

J - if you give me another situation where its not right to come in the round before and then have to take a later action based on new information, then I have no problem with taking a call. My partners do not get rattled when I do things that I believe are EV+ like: passing forcing bids, pulling penalties doubles even when its not clear to, etc..

 

But - it still seems pretty LOL bizarre for such a weak hand to be able to make a save / pass decision, even if someone could convince me that its EV+ (can they?).

 

I've been out this morning, and I want to contribute more, but I have to bail.

[JLOGIC]

Why would it not be a weak hand that saves w/r over a slam? Do you usually save w/r over a slam with a strong hand? Or do you just never save? I do not understand the objection to a weak hand saving over a slam. The hand has no defense and a double fit and a partner who has bid over 1S p 2C. To not save would be completely awful, sorry.

 

Wait, weren't you the one that said it was 100 % right to save here? What are you saying now?

[JLOGIC]

Selected quotes from you in this thread Phil:

 

"There is simply no practical way that a three count should be making a save decision over a small slam."

"I mean, its quite right that saving is 100% right here. We have a double fit and no defense."

"My partners do not get rattled when I do things that I believe are EV+"

"But - it still seems pretty LOL bizarre for such a weak hand to be able to make a save / pass decision, even if someone could convince me that its EV+ "

 

You seem to think that it is right to save (in fact that it is 100%). Your only bridge related argument is that we have a double fit and no defense, quite right...that's a good argument for saving.

 

Your reasons for not saving are that we have a THREE COUNT, and that it is bizarre for a weak hand to make a pass or save decision. What does this mean? These are not bridge arguments. Either you think it is the right decision to save or you don't. If not, why not? Do you think we are beating them too often? These THREE POINT and WEAK HANDS CAN'T SAVE arguments are just emotional and weird/random sayings, and are failing to look at the bridge problem. They are not rational. Personally I do not even understand the notion that only strong hands should save over slam, usually with a strong hand I do not want to save over slams. But that is also irrelevant, either it is a +EV decision to save or it is not. I think peoples games would improve if they stopped thinking in terms of sayings, whatever they might be, and just try to make good bridge decisions.

 

If your partners don't get rattled when you make good bridge decisions that's great. In that case, that would not be a reason to avoid saving. Since you said saving is 100 % here, and your partner will not get rattled, why not save?

[JLOGIC]

BTW I am not trying to nag you but I think it is a serious hole in your game if your thought process on this hand is "how can a three point hand save, I have to pass, even though I think saving is 100 % the right bridge action." These kind of emotional thoughts are not helpful when you're playing. Just do what you think is right. I do not see how upon analysis one could view it as a losing bridge action to save over 6S with this hand, it is basically impossible for me to fathom. Partner didn't even X 2C, he bid 2 spades.