is this a trap?

[rhm]

Come on, the answers here were pretty unanimous: Double is obvious. When the full deal is shown, you come and say that Gwnn had it coming. A typical case of ROTI (Resulting on the Internet).

 

The description of the opponent's bidding:

RHO used an anti-percentage tactic passing initially. LHO made a horrible overcall. RHO made a second anti-percentage bid. His final 3♠ bid could be construed as smart (but I guess it was simply lucky). I would not expect "reasonable" opponents to be this... er ... let's call it ... "imaginative".

 

So, yes, Gwnn was unfortunate. In fact, he was very unfortunate because after his misfortune on this hand, his partner compounded the crime by blaming Gwnn for it. Apart from the misery this created it also means that the next time when a similar auction comes up and his partner holds Gwnn's hand, his partner has committed himself to passing instead of doubling. This means that this next time Gwnn can count on a bottom for 3♠-1 (+100) when the field plays 3♦ making, where Gwnn sh/c/would get a top for 3♠X-1 (+200) if his partner would be a little more flexible and simply accept that $-!t happens at the bridge table.

 

Gwnn's partner should have smiled at Gwnn and give him a meaningful wink of an eye: "The next 7 boards against these guys are going to be ours!".

 

Rik

Sorry I wanted to give my answer (3NT) when I saw the deal was already given. I have no need to argue with hindsight.

If you think DBL is the obvious answer this tactic (walking the dog) should be employed much more often.

I doubt that many true experts would double.

A reasonable vulnerable opponent does not bid 3♠ in such a manner without expecting to make it.

The previous bidding was if anything not conducive to compete further.

In fact I expected an eight card spade suit or similar.

What surprise do you have for declarer?

 

One of the big mistakes made by many is that they double for penalties when they do not know what to do.

Penalty doubles as a default bid when nothing fits is in my experience a very expensive tactic.

 

I am not saying I could not fall into this trap.

In fact I recently did so.

 

I held in an individual (unknown partner and opponents on BBO)

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saj2hq75d8732caj4&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp1dp1h2d2hp4h5ddppp]133|200[/hv]

 

My DBL was not as stupid as here because I did not want to encourage a passed partner to bid on and I had reasonable defense.

Nevertheless East bidding was strange.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saj2hq75d8732caj4&w=skq875hj84d9c9762&n=s93hkt9632dcqt853&e=st64hadakqjt654ck&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp1dp1h2d2hp4h5ddppp]399|300[/hv]

 

East bought a very suitable dummy. There was no defense and I felt embarrassed because 5♥ would have made.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I dunno if I had a fifth diamond maybe I would not want to double, it hurts our defensive prospects and helps our offensive prospects. In general I want to have 13 cards before I decide what to do :P

 

I doubt that many true experts would double.

Obviously.

[cherdano]

I don't think RHO was walking the dog. I bet he didn't want to preempt with a side four-card major, and he didn't want to overcall 1♠ because that would show 8hcp.

[rhm]

I don't think RHO was walking the dog. I bet he didn't want to preempt with a side four-card major, and he didn't want to overcall 1♠ because that would show 8hcp.

These arguments apply to a reasonable opponent with 7420 distribution?

Give me a break!

If you believe that you might also believe his 3♠ bid was intended as a sacrifice against a 3♦ partial red on white.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

"Dog-walking", i.e. deliberate underbids in competitive situations (pass included), is a considered a lesser art but can be effective. A friend of mine once held, all vuln,

 

Txx

A

AKQJTxxx

x

 

RHO friend LHO friend's pd

1♥ pass(!) 1♠ pass

3♥ 3NT(!!) dbl (all pass)

 

Heart came out, as expected, and a split-second later opps were left arguing with each other.

 

I also held his hand, but overcalled 3NT straight away. Now opps bid 4♥ and I saved for the obvious -2. A difference of 1150 points :)

[the hog]

Nah.

 

Yes, not "nah". The hand is trash.

[gwnn]

Nope.

[gwnn]

rhm could you read the threads before you make these ridiculous accusations? In this case you are saying that Justin is not a true expert (and that you do make mistakes but not quite so stupid as he did here), some other times you called Frances Hinden a result merchant and God knows how many more fiascos. You could save a bit of face if you just took a few seconds before sending our your daily insults.

[Trinidad]

Sorry I wanted to give my answer (3NT) when I saw the deal was already given. I have no need to argue with hindsight.

If you think DBL is the obvious answer this tactic (walking the dog) should be employed much more often.

RHO wasn't walking the dog. He was just bidding silly. (And LHO was bidding even sillier.)

I doubt that many true experts would double.

Perhaps that says more about you than about the double...

 

So, your choice was to bid 3NT.

 

Suppose that you can make 3NT with two balanced hands facing each other, what do you expect will happen to 3♠X?

Suppose that you think 3♠X will make (that's what you seem to claim you were thinking), what chance do you think you have in 3NT?

 

The tricky part of the actual layout is that with 24 HCPs and an eight card fit (4-4), we may not have enough offensive tricks to make 3♦ (or 2NT), whereas the opponents, with a mere 16 HCPs and an eight card fit (7-1) can easily make 3♠ (and you need to defend well to hold them to 9 tricks).

 

Rik

[cherdano]

These arguments apply to a reasonable opponent with 7420 distribution?

Give me a break!

If you believe that you might also believe his 3♠ bid was intended as a sacrifice against a 3♦ partial red on white.

I see bad bidding (and in particular not preempting for strange reasons) more often than I see someone walking the dog.

But I defer to your immensely superior skills at reading these opponents based on Csaba's post.

[rhm]

RHO wasn't walking the dog. He was just bidding silly. (And LHO was bidding even sillier.)

When an opponent, defined as reasonable, red versus white initially passes with ♠ Q J T 8 5 3 2 ♥ A T 7 6 ♦ - ♣T 5 and then bids 2♠ followed by 3♠, when his partner only overcalled in clubs he is walking the dog.

 

So, your choice was to bid 3NT.

 

Suppose that you can make 3NT with two balanced hands facing each other, what do you expect will happen to 3♠X?

Suppose that you think 3♠X will make (that's what you seem to claim you were thinking), what chance do you think you have in 3NT?

 

The tricky part of the actual layout is that with 24 HCPs and an eight card fit (4-4), we may not have enough offensive tricks to make 3♦ (or 2NT), whereas the opponents, with a mere 16 HCPs and an eight card fit (7-1) can easily make 3♠ (and you need to defend well to hold them to 9 tricks).

 

Rik

If you would only analyze the bidding you might realize that RHO is begging for a double. Once you accept this premise DBL and Pass are out.

I rarely like to do voluntarily what opponents want me to do

It does not follow if they can make 3♠ that we can not make 3NT. In 3NT it is likely that RHO might not be able to establish his spades. He seems to be distributional but not strong in HCP. Anyway there are only 40 HCP in a deal and not so many left for him.

 

Bidding 3NT in this scenario is a suggestion to partner and the cheapest available bid over 3♠ once you reject DBL or Pass.

 

It tells partner

 

a) you don't want to defend 3♠

b) We might make 3NT.

 

Since you bid a non forcing 3♦ before partner is not obliged to stay in 3NT.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

rhm could you read the threads before you make these ridiculous accusations?

I accused nobody of anything. Unfortunately it is you, who can not read.

 

In this case you are saying that Justin is not a true expert (and that you do make mistakes but not quite so stupid as he did here)

rubbish.

I said nothing like that.

What I said was:

 

I doubt that many true experts would double.

 

Rainer Herrmann

You need not agree with that.

But I never claimed that all experts would reject the double, Neither did I even mention Justin in any way. Whether Justin would double or not is not relevant in this context.

 

You are the one, who makes false accusations and you do not know how to quote someone correctly.

You prefer to slander instead of arguing your case.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

"I doubt that there are many" is a synonym for "there are probably very few." You should learn a bit of English if you are going to tell me I cannot read. You should also look up the use of commas, how to spell "loser," or what the word "unfortunately" means. All that said and done, regardless of where you draw the line between real and imaginary experts, your claim is just false, based on this thread. And yes calling the decision of everyone except you and whereagles stupid makes you look like a buffoon. Your reason is basically that you trust my judgement about my RHO 100% but you consider my bridge judgement in this case to be stupid. I have no qualms with telling me that I'm wrong or that I'm not an expert but you should consider who you are labelling (directly or indirectly or collectively) a fake expert. Come to think of it, last time we had this conversation you said that calling a bid stupid directly implied that the person making it is himself stupid -- I disagree with that but according to your logic (and yes skipping a little red tape of your little wording tricks) we are all stupid and you are a true expert. That's fine but do you see how incredibly obnoxious it can get when you make these posts day in day out and how you appear from our p.o.v.?

[gwnn]

And just to be clear, my case is not that double is clear or obvious. I asked the forums to learn what is best and I was happy to see a consensus. My case is that calling BB participants' decisions stupid and comparing it (unfavourably) to yours in some BBO indy makes you look like a troll or worse. Well of course this is getting severely off-topic but I know for a fact that the opening poster does not mind this time.

[jogs]

 

 

and easily wrapped up 730. My partner thought my x was insane and I whined diplomatically remarked "RHO bid like a joke, what can I do?" RHO disagreed with this assessment but was happy with his score so didn't mind too much.

 

Actually RHO played you like a fiddle.

[the hog]

Actually RHO played you like a fiddle.

 

I doubt it. I am more inclined to agree with Cherdano that the player did not want to open the hand because of of the 4H. Still the original opening bid got what it deserved. If Gwnn cannot and will not see that this 9 loser 4333 hand is trash, then he will get many more such results. I would not have opened and I would not have doubled.

[whereagles]

actually, I think gonzalo summed it up perfectly :)

[cherdano]

Of course, for almost any halfway decent player 3NT in this position would be artificial, offering a choice between the two red suits at the 4-level.

[rhm]

I doubt it. I am more inclined to agree with Cherdano that the player did not want to open the hand because of of the 4H. Still the original opening bid got what it deserved. If Gwnn cannot and will not see that this 9 loser 4333 hand is trash, then he will get many more such results. I would not have opened and I would not have doubled.

Let's assume RHO passed because he held a four card heart suit.

I could understand this if RHO held ATxxxxx QJTx - Tx, but with the actul honor dispersion this looks to me a poor argument.

Weak hands tend to play poorly in anything but their seven card suit.

 

But for the sake of the argument assume RHO passed for this reason.

Then he bid 2♠ over partner's club overcall followed by 3♠ red versus white.

Did an experienced RHO not see that he was putting his neck on the chopping block?

If RHO would have been non vulnerable I can see a case for doubling at matchpoints and the trap would be harder to see.

RHO was obviously prepared to get doubled and I asked already what surprise do you hold for him he is not aware of.

What does that change what you call this tactic?

 

Let's get back to Gwnn partner opening.

As much as I dislike to defend Gwnn, the 4333 distribution is a poor holding for offense but less so for defense.

If Gwnn partner had had 5332 distribution with 5 diamonds would that have improved your defensive prospects?

It would have helped making 3NT but not the defense against 3♠ doubled.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Of course, for almost any halfway decent player 3NT in this position would be artificial, offering a choice between the two red suits at the 4-level.

Some players never play 3NT as anything but as a suggestion as a final contract.

But it has to be said this is an accident prone attitude only used by indecent players, who do not know how to bid.

 

And by the way, what 4♣ in this context would mean for so called decent players escapes me, probably an invitation to 6♦

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

Of course, for almost any halfway decent player 3NT in this position would be artificial, offering a choice between the two red suits at the 4-level.

Indeed, but for true experts it shows a penalty double of spades...

 

Rik

[rhm]

Indeed, but for true experts it shows a penalty double of spades...

 

Rik

When you run out of arguments you get very funny

What a great humour you have

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

What a great humour you have

 

Rainer Herrmann

Good that we agree on something.

 

Rik

[MrAce]

Some players never play 3NT as anything but as a suggestion as a final contract.

But it has to be said this is an accident prone attitude only used by indecent players, who do not know how to bid.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Rainer, there had been times that i strongly disagreed with your views especially in bidding, but in general to me you are a very decent player and even when i disagreed you had some points to think about. Other than those I found myself in the same camp with you more frequently than not. I know you may not care less what I think, however on this particular topic you are a bit (actually much more than just a bit) resulting IMHO. Also as pointed before in this topic you seem to have made odd claims(to put it politely) regarding "true experts", I don't know what that means but obviously it excludes players like Justin from being one of them. That did not slow you down, you started shooting even longer range bullets such as the quote above. First name comes to my mind is Bob Hamman but I can probably make a long list of "established players" who fits into your claim.

 

And I always thought only "whereagles" in these forums makes such (cheesy) generalisations.

[whereagles]

There's much to be said for systematizing stuff, you know..