Spank that bot! (#5)

[1eyedjack]

[hv=pc=n&sn=1eyedjack&wn=Robot&nn=Robot&en=Robot&s=saj86hk974dat98ck&w=sk5hj863d43caq742&n=sqt2hat5d76ct9865&e=s9743hq2dkqj52cj3&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1dp1npp2c(Balancing%20overcall%20--%205+%20C%3B%209+%20HCP%3B%2010-16%20total%20points)ppdppp]399|300|IMP, robot tourney, best hand South[/hv]

 

I don't think that West has been paying much attention to the table.

 

IMPs, vul v non-v, sacrificing v partscore with mediocre shape, mediocre suit, mediocre values after a revealing auction indicating a misfit in which LHO rates quite likely to have a trump stack and the axe is quite likely to be found it sound.

[AyunuS]

I don't really see this as all that bad. The hands aren't all that likely to be in the shape that they are. 1NT could easily be with 3 or even 4 diamonds, and just not enough points to bid 2♦. Also I don't think it thought of this as a sacrifice.

[1eyedjack]

I am unconvinced but open to persuasion. Certainly if that is the general view then I withdraw. Speaking personally I would never bid 2♣ in the West seat. Or if I would, then doing so immediately would attract fewer risks (not that I advocate bidding it immediately either). The coincidence that I would not have bid 2♣ and its being a spectacular failure on this hand reinforced my view, but you are right, it could just be unlucky, and my preference not to bid 2♣ could be a long term loser.

 

The way I see it, there are four possible scenarios:

 

1) Both 1N and 2♣ succeed. This is the occasion when bidding gains. Although if North has responded 1N with 4 card ♦ support he is likely to bid 2♦ over 2♣ now. Very exceptionally, 2♦ (with a fit) may be failing when both 1N and 2♣ succeed. But then sometimes the tossed coin will land on its edge.

2) 2♣ succeeds but 1N fails. This is broadly neutral. Had it been Matchpoints this may have been less neutral.

3) 1N succeeds but 2♣ fails. This would be broadly neutral but for the possibility that you could be walking into a double

4) Both contracts fail. When this happens you are onto a loser, whether doubled or not, but obviously even more so when doubled.

 

I think that to focus on the reasonable prospect of 2♣ making (if it is a reasonable prospect) is incomplete if we do not recognise that on a significant proportion of such hands either scenario 2 applies or N/S compete in ♦ with a fit (in scenario 1). You may make the contract but gain little or nothing in IMPs.

 

The 4 scenarios are equal neither in frequency nor effect, the product of those factors dictating optimum policy, which in my view all reinforce the same indicated action and I still maintain heavily falls in favour of passing. But perhaps on a scale of Walt Disney to Dennis Wheatley this does not rank up there with the normal horror stories aired here.

 

A general observation of mine is that GIB is loath to defend 1N, however arrived at. Much more so than am I in real life. But maybe GIB has the right of it. On this hand, for example, West is not on lead, and a lot of 1N contracts make when they should not only because opening leader is leading blind.