Sanity check

[Hanoi5]

[hv=pc=n&e=sqtha9daj54cak643&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=2d(Multi)2s4h4spp?]133|200[/hv]

 

This was the usual sequence at the Club. Your partner evidently holds a weak in hearts. Would you double, pass or bid one more for the road?

[akwoo]

Assuming MPs, I think double is clear. I don't think it is too likely that you can make 5 in hearts AND opps can make 3 in spades, which is what it would take for a 5H bid to work out.

 

I might pass if this was barometer pairs and we were almost exactly a board ahead in the last round. At IMPs in a team match, I might pass if I thought we were around a game swing ahead with not too many boards to go. That's about it.

 

This would be a more interesting question at different vulnerabilities.

[mycroft]

I would need to know what 2M opening is. I agree with the above - I'm doubling because I think that opponents having the shape to make it would be unfortunate, but highly unlikely, and the chance we can make 5 is slim-to-none; but if 2M shows a "good weak 2" and 2♦ shows a "point-of-sale weak 2", then for sure I'm not bidding 5; I'm quite certain that 5 is going down and I'm still not certain that 4♠ is making.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&e=sqtha9daj54cak643&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=2d(Multi)2s4h4spp?]133|200|

 

This was the usual sequence at the Club. Your partner evidently holds a weak in hearts. Would you double, pass or bid one more for the road? [/hv]

IMO Double = 10 (Girly), Pass = 7 (Eunuch), 5♥ = 4 (Macho) :)

[gszes]

Not sure what gender has to do with this decision---------------------------

 

MP if the opps are making 4s we are due for a poor board anyway so x

here (along with what appears to be high odds of a vul set) seems to be the

way to go. No sense in letting opps bash us to what is probably a non making

5h. If p has free rein to bid weak twos that look like void KQJxxx xxx QJxx well

that makes such a a huge range for weak twos as to make competitive decisions

impossible (good luck with that).

[Hanoi5]

I forgot to mention it's mixed teams. Partner's weak hand is nothing out of the ordinary 6-10, 6 cards, etc.

[Cyberyeti]

Not sure what gender has to do with this decision---------------------------

 

MP if the opps are making 4s we are due for a poor board anyway so x

here (along with what appears to be high odds of a vul set) seems to be the

way to go. No sense in letting opps bash us to what is probably a non making

5h. If p has free rein to bid weak twos that look like void KQJxxx xxx QJxx well

that makes such a a huge range for weak twos as to make competitive decisions

impossible (good luck with that).

 

Even if partner has that hand, there's no guarantee you're not taking 500 or even 800, you're not going to reach 6♣/♥ or 7♣ now and that would beat 5♥.

[rhm]

So vulnerable opponents have bid game with 12-16 HCP between them.

While the LAW clearly says you should double I would have second thoughts against strong players whose judgment I respect, admittedly unlikely in a mixed teams club tournament.

With few points RHO should have at least six spades and a distributional hand for a vulnerable 2♠ overcall.

Likewise LHO, being very weak, should hold at least four spades and a shortage somewhere when red versus white.

If they have a ten card fit, one holding a singleton or void in heart and the other a singleton or void in clubs, double does not look so hot any more.

I would bid 5♥.

 

Average players will never let 4♥ play when they have a ten card fit in spades and DBL is automatic. I lead a trump.

 

Rainer herrmann

[the_clown]

I would double and not consider any other bid. I expect to collect 500 far more often than it will make.

[fromageGB]

I forgot to mention it's mixed teams.

 

Not sure what gender has to do with this decision---------------------------

This :

 

I would have second thoughts against strong players whose judgment I respect, admittedly unlikely in a mixed teams

[benlessard]

Both at MP and Imps and at whatever level its a WTP X.

[Finch]

Yes, so obviously in a random club teams which isn't a mixed tournament, the opponents will all be very strong players?

[mikeh]

Gender is utterly irrelevant.

 

I know several partnerships in which the female player is stronger than the male, even tho I ascribe to the widely-held belief that there are more strong male players than female (and I don't want to restart the debate about why that is so, if it is indeed so. IMO, the reasons are complex, definitely not well-studied, and virtually every discussion I have ever seen consists primarily of restatements of biases and beliefs).

 

I don't care if my opps are the strongest pair in the world, mixed or unmixed.

 

We applied pressure. We have little likelihood of making 11 tricks even opposite a stiff spade. They have at best a tiny chance of 10 tricks. They guessed, and maybe they guessed right, in that maybe they have a good save. So what?

 

Maybe, on a day ending in some letter other than 'y', they can make. Again, so what?

 

When I can't make 11 tricks why am I not taking the (almost certain) plus. I am, however, not leading trump. With my entries, I can almost certainly lead two rounds of trump later. Meanwhile, S may have miscalculated his partner's heart length, holding 3 cards. I lead the A, and if dummy has 3 of them, I will consider which, if any, minors to cash before leading to partner for the promotion of my trump holding.

[Vampyr]

Gender is utterly irrelevant.

 

Hold on. Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that the OP is implying that women are not strong bridge players. He might instead be suggesting that male players in mixed pairs can become horrendous hand-hogs, so the male players who sat East bid on (incorrectly), while the female ones did not. And perhaps it is the hand-hogs whose judgment Rainer does not trust.

[Hanoi5]

All the Easts in the room doubled. All were women. But I was just resulting, as mikeh said only tomorrow or the day before can they make it. This was one of those days.

[jdeegan]

:P Hit it and lead the ♣king. Not enuf hearts to bid on. On a very good day the spade queen will make. Wtp?

[Vampyr]

All the Easts in the room doubled. All were women. But I was just resulting, as mikeh said only tomorrow or the day before can they make it. This was one of those days.

 

Oh, I see. So the action did not work, and the conclusion is that since it was taken by women, women are poor bridge players. Charming.

 

It is interesting that since all the players sitting in that position were women, the first explanation that occurred to you was that "gender was an issue". Naturally it wasn't your crap analysis of the position, since you (say you) are male!

[mikeh]

It's been a while since I played mixed teams, and that was BAM. Anyway, I recall that it is typical, for reasons likely due to sexism, that the men sit N and W and the women, not to be trusted with scoring or table captaincy, sit S and E.

 

Accordingly all we really know from the results is that every E doubled.

 

If we wanted to infer a role for gender, one would need to have at least some males sitting E and then see whether the males bid differently. Of course, even if they did, we'd have to account for other variables such as skill, and even age, and partnership style and so on. IOW, this thread has nothing to do with gender.

[Vampyr]

IOW, this thread has nothing to do with gender.

 

But it's all about the OP's sexism. That has to do with gender.

[the hog]

But it's all about the OP's sexism. That has to do with gender.

 

I cannot see how you can possibly draw this conclusion. In fact, I would argue that YOUR conclusion is sexist!

[Vampyr]

I cannot see how you can possibly draw this conclusion. In fact, I would argue that YOUR conclusion is sexist!

 

Well, the OP is discussing an action that didn't work. All of the people who took this action were women. So...if gender is a factor, then if a mistake has been made, it has been made because the players were women. What other conclusion can be drawn? How can the OP's line of thought be more obvious?

[fromageGB]

Maybe we should draw a line at this point, as it seems Vampyr writes for Spare Rib. :D

[gordontd]

Maybe we should draw a line at this point, as it seems Vampyr writes for Spare Rib. :D

Or maybe we could engage with the points she makes, instead of writing dismissive comments like that.

[Cyberyeti]

I seem to remember in one of her books Rixi Markus saying that all bridge players make mistakes, but men and women often make different mistakes. I don't consider this particularly controversial.

[mycroft]

obXKCD: https://xkcd.com/385/

 

I think everybody's going to hit this, knowing that if they have duelling singletons it'll be -790. +100 is going to be a really embarrassing score if everyone's either +200 or +420; even more so if there are any +140s or +170s out there.

 

As I said first, making 5 is unlikely unless partner's weak 2s are still Schenken-solid. So, do you think the chance partner's outside card is the ♣Q instead of a diamond, and there are duelling round-suit singletons, is enough given they bid game, at unfavourable, when we pressured them, to take our chances of going -620 for "all" the matchpoints?