A monster, but is game possible?

[Cyberyeti]

They who choose to ignore the danger signs cannot then complain about the disaster when it happens(!) :)

 

No, we accept the bad results as long as we get good results more often, that's what playing bridge is about, you're not going to be right every time, but if you're not making bids because they might go wrong, although most of the time are right, you won't win very often.

[PhilG007]

Yes, but xxx, xxxxx, xx, xxx is plenty good enough to make 5♣ and will only defeat 2♠ on perfect defence, and xxx, xxxx, xxxx, xx both 3♣ and 2♠ may well make. Pass is ludicrous, the decision is 3/4/5♣.

What is wrong with passing and defending? On opening lead I would lead A then JS to cut down the enemy's ruffing power.

My high cards in the side suits will then pull their weight in defeating the contract.

What IS ludicrous is declaring on this hand. It's a lost cause. A quixotic attempt on the impossible.

 

 

"Enterprise is a fine thing for a man to have in his upper storey provided he has common sense on the ground floor."

[PhilG007]

An interesting hand came up yesterday in the Philadelphia Sectional Swiss Teams. We were using duplicated boards so everyone was playing the same hands. It is not 100% analogous to the hand in this thread, but there are some similarities.

 

At no one vul, I held:

 

----

AKQJxx

Axxx

KJx

 

My RHO opened 1♠ in first seat. This is not the type of hand that I would want to defend 1♠x, but I could not conceive of overcalling 2♥ on these cards, and the thought of overcalling 4♥ did not appeal to me, since there were several possible places to play and slam chances were significant. So I doubled. It went ALL PASS.

 

When the smoke had cleared, we had +500. Partner held

 

AQJxxxx

xx

x

xxx

 

4♥ has a lot of play, but it is not cold, especially on a heart lead. In fact, I heard of some declarers in 4♥ that failed. I don't think our declarer did as well as he could in 1♠x, so perhaps we should get only +300. Still, it is a significant plus score. My teammate, playing in 1♠x on the same auction, managed to MAKE 7 tricks on particularly brutal defense (I will spare you from the details).

 

I don't know if there is any lesson to be learned from this, but I found it to be interesting.

 

I have never,ever,been happy defending a 1 level contract,it smacks of cowardice and a lack of enterprise and I always complain to my

partner if a one level suit bid is passed out when he could have taken some action. The great 60s English player,Maurice Harrison-Gray had a dictum "Contest those part scores" He was echoed by another great modern day master Ron Klinger.

"Never allow the opponents to play in a low level suit contract. The penalty needed to make it worthwhile may not justify the missed

game or slam that could be your way."

[blackshoe]

There is a psychological advantage to defending low level doubled contracts. If you become known as a penalty doubler, your opponents will become more conservative in their bidding. Assuming they're paying attention. Thus you will win more part score battles.

 

That's the theory, anway. :D

[Cyberyeti]

What is wrong with passing and defending? On opening lead I would lead A then JS to cut down the enemy's ruffing power.

My high cards in the side suits will then pull their weight in defeating the contract.

What IS ludicrous is declaring on this hand. It's a lost cause. A quixotic attempt on the impossible.

 

 

"Enterprise is a fine thing for a man to have in his upper storey provided he has common sense on the ground floor."

 

What's wrong with passing and defending is that it will get you a poor score a very large majority of the time. I'm happy defending 4♠X with this hand, but not 2♠, I have no reason to expect more than 4 tricks in defence, and every reason to expect 9 if not 10 playing the hand opposite a flattish bust.

[ArtK78]

I have never,ever,been happy defending a 1 level contract,it smacks of cowardice and a lack of enterprise and I always complain to my

partner if a one level suit bid is passed out when he could have taken some action. The great 60s English player,Maurice Harrison-Gray had a dictum "Contest those part scores" He was echoed by another great modern day master Ron Klinger.

"Never allow the opponents to play in a low level suit contract. The penalty needed to make it worthwhile may not justify the missed

game or slam that could be your way."

Unless I am mistaken, +500 at equal nonvul is better than bidding and making 4♥. The fact that some declarers went down in 4♥ tilts the scale further towards defending.

 

I will admit that I was not happy when my partner passed 1♠x. However, I was a lot happier at the end of the hand.

 

And, with all due respect to Ron Klinger, I believe it has been said many times that one should never say never.