Only me to blame?

[Zelandakh]

This thread has degenerated into silliness. Is there anyone here who would open 1♠ as North with ♠65432, ♥QJ2, ♦QJ2, ♣KJ?

 

As for blame, I am not sure I would have reproduced any of the non-passes. West is certainly responsible for the bad score since they had the last chance to rescue it; but 100% responsible? Surely not.

[Trinidad]

Sorry, but I have to say that I find some of rhm's comments offensive - 'If a sane West...' etc.

 

I understand that rhm feels very strongly about this. However, there is no need to be rude. I have never been aggressive or defensive about my bid. All players make misjudgments at times.

 

Incidentally, I gave the problem to several very strong players at my bridge club. The most popular bid on my hand was 4NT. Presumably, this would lead to a similar doubled result, albeit in 5D. Is rhn saying that these strong players, with proven experience in Gold Cup events and so on, are 'insane' too?

Well, according to rhm, yes.

 

I would not have bid 5♣ with your hand. But I understood why you bid it. If you would have had one more club and one less heart, it would have been a no-brainer for me to bid 5♣.

 

The key point to the blame on this hand is that both players made an error, but they are different kind of errors. West made a judgement error: The decision that West has to make is not defined by 'rules' ("5♣ promises x HCP" or something similar). It is defined by probabilities and risk/reward.

• 
   
  
• What is the probability that they will make 4♠?
  
• What is the probability that we will make 5♣?
  
• What is the probability that we will make 5♣ AND they will make 4♠?
  
• How many IMPs do I stand to gain/lose if I bid 5♣ and both games make/neither game makes/one of the games makes?
  

 

There is a large variation in the possible layouts and they all lead to different results. Judging these situations correctly is difficult and it takes a lot of experience to get these decisions somewhat consistently correct. It is already hard to make this judgement when you know your partner and opponents well, but if you don't know the style of your opponents or your partner it gets even more difficult.

 

In other words, it is not a surprise that you get such a decision wrong. Learn from it and your judgement will improve, slowly but steadily.

 

Contrast this to the decision East had to make. He had a subminimum hand in HCP, not a perfect distribution for a takeout double and just about the worst possible honor structure for a takeout double. The form of scoring (teams), the vulnerability (red vs white) and the position (a passed partner: game is unlikely) were all screaming that there is little to gain and a lot to lose by acting.

 

That is not a decision based on guestimating the layout of the hands or probabilities. It is basic bridge to be aware of the form of scoring and the vulnerability. It is basic bridge to know that a takeout double shows that you want your side to play in one of the three remaining suits and that, therefore, you should have some values in those suits. The East decision was easy and he got it wrong.

 

So, west made a "difficult mistake" and East made a "simple mistake". It takes a lot more bridge talent to recognize when one has made a difficult mistake than to recognize when one has made a simple mistake.

 

Rik

[Codo]

Sorry, but I have to say that I find some of rhm's comments offensive - 'If a sane West...' etc.

 

I understand that rhm feels very strongly about this. However, there is no need to be rude. I have never been aggressive or defensive about my bid. All players make misjudgments at times.

 

Incidentally, I gave the problem to several very strong players at my bridge club. The most popular bid on my hand was 4NT. Presumably, this would lead to a similar doubled result, albeit in 5D. Is rhn saying that these strong players, with proven experience in Gold Cup events and so on, are 'insane' too?

 

Please do yourself a big favour and don't take the wording on a fora or mailing list too serious.

Many people here have very strong opinions and sometimes we use strong words to describe how we feel about a choosen bid, play or convention. Usually this is not meant to insult the "defenders" of this bid but more to show how far of this bid is in "our" opinion. Do never take this personal. If I had said that 5 club was the bid of a newbie or beyond insanity, (f.e.) this is not meant to insult you but to show how much I dislike this bid.

I bet that Rainers intentions had been the same...

 

I usually think carefully about the message beyond the wording of most players here, but would not care much about their choosen language.

[rhm]

Please do yourself a big favour and don't take the wording on a fora or mailing list too serious.

Many people here have very strong opinions and sometimes we use strong words to describe how we feel about a choosen bid, play or convention. Usually this is not meant to insult the "defenders" of this bid but more to show how far of this bid is in "our" opinion. Do never take this personal. If I had said that 5 club was the bid of a newbie or beyond insanity, (f.e.) this is not meant to insult you but to show how much I dislike this bid.

I bet that Rainers intentions had been the same...

 

I usually think carefully about the message beyond the wording of most players here, but would not care much about their choosen language.

Thanks, and yes I did not want to personally insult bsm20.

And yes, I still consider 5♣ a big error in judgement red versus white.

The takeout double is not in the same category and should not be made responsible for the actual result.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Well, according to rhm, yes.

 

I would not have bid 5♣ with your hand. But I understood why you bid it. If you would have had one more club and one less heart, it would have been a no-brainer for me to bid 5♣.

 

The key point to the blame on this hand is that both players made an error, but they are different kind of errors. West made a judgement error: The decision that West has to make is not defined by 'rules' ("5♣ promises x HCP" or something similar). It is defined by probabilities and risk/reward.

• 
   
  
• What is the probability that they will make 4♠?
  
• What is the probability that we will make 5♣?
  
• What is the probability that we will make 5♣ AND they will make 4♠?
  
• How many IMPs do I stand to gain/lose if I bid 5♣ and both games make/neither game makes/one of the games makes?
  

 

There is a large variation in the possible layouts and they all lead to different results. Judging these situations correctly is difficult and it takes a lot of experience to get these decisions somewhat consistently correct. It is already hard to make this judgement when you know your partner and opponents well, but if you don't know the style of your opponents or your partner it gets even more difficult.

 

In other words, it is not a surprise that you get such a decision wrong. Learn from it and your judgement will improve, slowly but steadily.

 

Contrast this to the decision East had to make. He had a subminimum hand in HCP, not a perfect distribution for a takeout double and just about the worst possible honor structure for a takeout double. The form of scoring (teams), the vulnerability (red vs white) and the position (a passed partner: game is unlikely) were all screaming that there is little to gain and a lot to lose by acting.

 

That is not a decision based on guestimating the layout of the hands or probabilities. It is basic bridge to be aware of the form of scoring and the vulnerability. It is basic bridge to know that a takeout double shows that you want your side to play in one of the three remaining suits and that, therefore, you should have some values in those suits. The East decision was easy and he got it wrong.

 

So, west made a "difficult mistake" and East made a "simple mistake". It takes a lot more bridge talent to recognize when one has made a difficult mistake than to recognize when one has made a simple mistake.

 

Rik

Your theoretical assumptions are well and good.

What seems to me plays little role in your assessment and that of many others here are the colors, except of course for East initial takeout double. A sort of one sided blindness.

Your considerations work reasonably well at all white and when either contract will make or goes down one.

However, we are red and they are white and there is no such insurance.

We might well go for a telephone number, in which case you will not be saved by the consideration "they will make 4♠"

In fact if 4♠ makes this is a likely outcome from my simulation and as the actual deal shows you can go for a telephone number and 4♠ is down.

5♣ is particularly dangerous, because you could easily end up in the wrong strain.

 

It is well known that people make tactical overbids when white against red as South did here.

I do not consider it a "no-brainer" to bid 5♣ with a club more and a heart less and suspect that DBL has still a higher IMP expectation.

If you deem it difficult to look at the vulnerabilities before bidding 5♣, yes then I can understand why you consider bidding 5♣ to be a "difficult mistake".

I can tell you how you can improve your game: play Rubber Bridge for high stakes.

When you have to pay up you learn to take colors seriously. They are not for children.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

Your theoretical assumptions are well and good.

What seems to me plays little role in your assessment and that of many others here are the colors, except of course for East initial takeout double. A sort of one sided blindness.

Your considerations work reasonably well at all white and when either contract will make or goes down one.

However, we are red and they are white and there is no such insurance.

Maybe I assume that my partner also sees the vulnerability before he decided to double? Maybe I assume that he has seen that I passed originally?

 

If my partner makes a takeout double of 1♠ at this form of scoring, vulnerability and position (SVP) it means that he sees it possible that we have a game, presumably in hearts, diamonds or clubs. If at this SVP, you think game is impossible, the double is futile, risking lots of IMPs with no significant way to gain. My partner doesn't make futile doubles.

 

I do not consider it a "no-brainer" to bid 5♣ with a club more and a heart less and suspect that DBL has still a higher IMP expectation.

 

The corollary of the above is that if advancer has a maximum passed hand and a nice distribution with a good fit for one of the doubler's three suits, he should have play for game, otherwise partner wouldn't have doubled. I consider the West hand -with a heart changed for a club-, i.e. ♠J ♥JT ♦AQ43 ♣QT9642, such a hand. (Not entirely surprisingly, with this hand, 5♣ is a good contract opposite normal minimum doubles like ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦Kxxx ♣AJx and you are unlikely to get rich defending 4♠-which is what will happen if you double.)

 

The vulnerability tells the advancer that he should be aggressive.

 

Hey, where did I hear that before? Something like: "At IMPs, when vul, be conservative on marginal initial actions and aggressive when bidding game." I don't remember, I must be getting old.

 

I can tell you how you can improve your game: play Rubber Bridge for high stakes.

When you have to pay up you learn to take colors seriously. They are not for children.

May I offer you a towel? You seem to be not entirely dry behind the ears.

 

Rik

[mikeh]

Your theoretical assumptions are well and good.

What seems to me plays little role in your assessment and that of many others here are the colors, except of course for East initial takeout double. A sort of one sided blindness.

Your considerations work reasonably well at all white and when either contract will make or goes down one.

However, we are red and they are white and there is no such insurance.

We might well go for a telephone number, in which case you will not be saved by the consideration "they will make 4♠"

In fact if 4♠ makes this is a likely outcome from my simulation and as the actual deal shows you can go for a telephone number and 4♠ is down.

5♣ is particularly dangerous, because you could easily end up in the wrong strain.

 

It is well known that people make tactical overbids when white against red as South did here.

I do not consider it a "no-brainer" to bid 5♣ with a club more and a heart less and suspect that DBL has still a higher IMP expectation.

If you deem it difficult to look at the vulnerabilities before bidding 5♣, yes then I can understand why you consider bidding 5♣ to be a "difficult mistake".

I can tell you how you can improve your game: play Rubber Bridge for high stakes.

When you have to pay up you learn to take colors seriously. They are not for children.

 

Rainer Herrmann

When the overwhelming consensus of posters, some of whom are pretty good, experienced players, is that the takeout double was a very bad call, and you are the only person still defending it as a reasonable action, you might just want to take a step back and actually think about the merits of the call again rather than stubbornly restating your singularly non-persuasive points, accompanied by criticisms of those who disagree with you.

 

I (really, from personal experience) know it is hard to admit to error, and even harder to change one's mind about something, and the more one invests in defending the indefensible, the more difficult it is. But the reality is that a reasonable cross-section of bridge players feel that both 5♣ and double were poor choices.

 

Sometimes being the only one advancing a point of view is the sign of a brave, perceptive thinker. Most of the time it is the sign of a stubborn person who, despite being clearly wrong, won't admit it. Guess which description best fits you :P

[bsm20]

Thanks everyone.

 

I have found the discussion very informative, in terms of competitive bidding and bridge analysis.

 

There is a happy ending. The other night, much to my astonishment, I received an invitation to play in the doubler’s team. I accepted and enjoyed the game, which passed without incident. However, there weren’t any takeout doubles…

[Free]

- North did fine.

- East made a poor takeout Dbl. It's a part score battle at best (which he'll lose because he doesn't hold ♠s) and his values aren't in his own suits.

- South made a giant overbid. Balanced hand, scathered slow values,...

- West should Dbl instead of bidding 5♣ V vs NV. This leaves most options open. In an uncontested auction you wouldn't GF this hand, and opps may be overbidding (3rd seat opening may be light, they have favorable vulnerability,...), so you should leave the option for penalty open.

[Charlie Yu]

Rubber bridge comparison are entirely silly, the scoring is so different that partscore fights are not relevant at all. For my partnership the x is entirely reasonable, how otherwise can we balance after 1S-P-2S?