ATB

[ArtK78]

It is the nature of bridge players to dwell on what went wrong rather than what went right. This past Sunday, my team won the Lancaster PA Regional Swiss Teams. This was in spite of several very silly results, such as this one. I ask you to assign the blame:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk4ha2daq7532caj3&n=sjt962ht98643d6c5&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c1n2c2sp3dp3hp3np4hp4sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

2♠ was to play. Everything was natural.

[manudude03]

100% South for me. 1NT is an underbid, but once south decides to bid it, he should just pass 2S. 3D may well be a better spot, but he's made his bed.

[TylerE]

1NT from another planet. Maybe another solar system. 100% south.

[wyman]

Not a fan of 1N, 2S. or 3D, so some blame to both. More to south though imo.

[ggwhiz]

1nt created this mess and every other bid by South made it worse. As for the last voting option, now THAT is from another planet.

[kenrexford]

1NT was an underbid, but you cannot get any fault for a result where the end contract is too high if your "mistake" was an underbid.

 

2♠ was weird. It is dumb as a drop-dead call to bid the shorter suit, and it is the wrong bid if you intend two bids in some strange sequence where you anticipate two bids.

 

3♦ was a panic attack with no just cause. 3♦ should be a super-accept of spades (presumably a trick source without discussion) and thus completely absurd.

 

3♥ only makes sense if North thinks that South is an idiot for making a super-accept of spades with that hand. 3♥ should be game last train, though, perhaps suggesting a need for a heart feature. If South had held something like ♠Axxx ♥Kx ♦AQxx ♣Axx, then maybe 3♥ gets us to a good contract?

 

3NT? I have no comment.

 

4♥? Obviously.

 

4♠? Obviously.

[billw55]

1NT isn't beautiful, but I can live with it. Having done so, south should definitely respect partner's signoff. That said, if north is signing off, I cannot fathom why he would not do so in hearts. Although I suppose there is no reason to think south would respect that either.

[TylerE]

1NT was an underbid, but you cannot get any fault for a result where the end contract is too high if your "mistake" was an underbid.

 

You can when you bid 1N with 2-2 in the majors. N bid totally reasonably for someone expecting an 8 card suit in one his two suits, quite possibly in both.

[mikeh]

As a one-time student of Kokish, and as a Canadian, my requirements for doubling a 1-level opening and then bidding my suit are as high as anyone's and higher than most, but the south hand cries out for double then either diamonds or (less commonly) notrump, depending on how the auction progresses.

 

1N isn't 'horrible' merely because of being 2-2 majors: it is horrible because this hand has so much playing strength opposite as little as Kxx in diamonds, a holding that would get N bidding aggressively if we showed our hand. 1N misses far too many game contracts.

 

2♠ 'to play' is a clear misbid, altho I suspect that N was contemplating one or both of two possibilities.

 

One would be that partner, with 4 spades and a good hand in context, would push to 3 and now N can accept. The other is that EW might push to 3♣ and now N can get both suits in, losing out usually only if partner is 2=2, which is unlikely and even less likely if the opps have 9 clubs, as would be logical should they go to 3♣. The former is not a strong argument for spades rather than hearts, other than that if partner holds a 4 card major, it is slightly more likely to be spades.

 

So I think Ken's criticism of 2♠ is misplaced. It might not be my choice, but there is logic behind it.

 

S's 3♦ is incredible. Maybe S thought he was 'catching up' and that somehow N would see that he had misbid the first time. Unfortunately, N can hardly pass. Note that N cannot be blamed for not anticipating this issue when he chose 2♠...S was completely off the rails on this hand.

 

S plunged ever deeper into the sh*t when he made the braindead 3N call rather than 3♠. Did he think that partner was misbidding as badly as he had himself? Did he think that somehow N must hold good diamonds to run to 3♥????

 

 

S made a poor decision, reflecting little understanding of the power of his hand, at his first bid and then spent the rest of the auction digging that hole ever deeper and deeper.

[Fluffy]

100% to south is too little, not only did he screw this hand, he even tried to asses blame to partner which created even more problems on later boards, so deserves even more.

[Lord Molyb]

300% south, he probably screwed up the other boards too

[neilkaz]

80% south at least. Too strong for 1NT even playing 15+ to 18 as I play for overcalls. 3♦ is awful. 3NT an act of utter stupidity.

 

But north gets some bit of blame for being too clever and not just bidding his 6 card suit ASAP.

[HighLow21]

Ya my vote is 80% South and 20% North. (North only has one bid in my view, and he knows there is a heart fit, so 2♠ is a bad choice in my view, though I can see his reasoning. Weak freaks are difficult and scary to bid, but when you do, bid the long one first.)

 

But if what Fluffy says is true and South later blamed North for a bad result on this board, I would switch my opinion to 150% South and -50% to North. (The -50% blame is a tip of the hat to him for being able to play with this person.) North might not have bid perfectly but he had a tough hand and all of his bids at least semi-correctly described his shape and possible playing strength. South, on the other hand, made 3 progressively worse calls: bad, worse, and completely awful.

 

That's some nerve.

[rhm]

1NT was an underbid, but you cannot get any fault for a result where the end contract is too high if your "mistake" was an underbid.

That is superficial and a fallacy.

People underbid, keeping something in reserve, and then try to catch up later (I am maximum for my bidding).

It is a very common theme.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[eagles123]

I think "The Bidding Was Perfect - No Blame" was quite an ambitious poll option :lol: :lol:

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I hate 2S the most.

1 NT is not my cup of coffee, but at least you have the strength, and the honors

distributed, and a semi balanced shape, so ok.

 

But starting with the 5 carder, lead to ending up in the 52 instead of the 62 fit

was due to the 2S bid.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ArtK78]

Thanks for the posts.

 

I was North, and I certainly regretted my plan to show both suits when I could not get partner to stop bidding. At least no one doubled.

 

However, the discussion went off the rails above when there was an assumption that my partner blamed me for the debacle. Yes, he bid too much, but afterwards he did not blame me for anything. So the discussion above about partner being responsible for the other bad boards and the like was out of line.

 

By the way, I included the last option in the poll for comic relief, and the possibility that someone out there might like this auction.

[RSClyde]

That is superficial and a fallacy.

People underbid, keeping something in reserve, and then try to catch up later (I am maximum for my bidding).

It is a very common theme.

 

Rainer Herrmann

But if we end up too high it's the trying to catch up that's the problem: not the underbid.

[RSClyde]

I like playing systems on over 2♣: never really seen the down side. Seems perfect for drop dead stayman.

[mcphee]

I for one can appreciate why N may have bid 2S. If the pair played methods on he faced some risk to dble as stayman, as partner might pass. I hate double and following up with bidding D as the hand for me is not good enough. So you can mark me down for a simple over call of 1D and perhaps something good will happen.

 

ATB to S when he stepped up with 3D, what was he thinking?

[aguahombre]

Attributing the blame, to me, is not about scoring various elements of a gymnastic performance. The 1NT overcall would garner no style points, but on this deal it might have been the only away to achieve a decent result.

 

If South had stuck to his choice, and North had signed off in his longer suit; there would be no blame (perhaps even gaining IMPs via "fix" because of the "inspired" but theoretically very wrong 1NT overcall).

 

So, North to blame for the strain and South to blame for the level. 2S made it impossible to play in the known 8+ fit, so the board was doomed at that point. South's continuations might have been more egregious, and compounded the doom; but doom was already there.

[Vampyr]

Hi,

 

I hate 2S the most.

1 NT is not my cup of coffee, but at least you have the strength, and the honors

distributed, and a semi balanced shape, so ok.

 

But starting with the 5 carder, led to ending up in the 52 instead of the 62 fit

was due to the 2S bid.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

 

Quite. Sometimes blame accrues not to the bid(s) that directly led to the insane final contract, but the one that made it very unlikely that a reasonable spot would be reached (regardless of what happens afterwards), and that bid was 2♠. For example, if the auction had continued (as expected) all pass, 2♠would have been a break-even or worse contract. So I give 100% of the blame to North; a truly awful bid with no upside cannot be partially let off the hook because the bidder or other people made worse bids afterwards. Of course South gets 100% too.