the hog Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 You hold as WestAQJxxxxKQxvoidQJx Pd holdsxxxxxAKxxxxxx The bidding1S (x) P (2C)3S (p) 4S (P) Lead is a C to the A, T of H to K and Ace, J of H. You have to lose another C another H and a S. 2 off! Who is to blame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 West is to blame for having a diamond void. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 The answer, of course is nobody. This is just to show that those who unequivocally assign 100% of the blame to East in the other problem are resulters. Yes, I would also have bid 4 on the other hand, however you can EASILY go down with slightly different distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted November 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 LOL. Thanks for the vote of confidence, I agree with you and also LOL at those who assign 100% to East on the co related problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles123 Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Hog ur getting so boring Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Indeed Ron. Assigning the blame % 100 to someone has nothing to do with the outcome. You hold AQx KJx JTxx JTx, pd opens 1 NT and you bid 3 NT. If you pass with this or just invite, blame is % 100 on you. That does not guarantee that 3 NT will make % 100 of the time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinksy Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 West is to blame for having lost his original 9♣. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 I would be tempted to bid a non-forcing 1♠ (dbl) 2♦ mainly for lead-directing reasons. Would have to pass if 2♦ were forcing, but where I live most play it as NF. With this start I doubt West would bid 3♠. But maybe Ron's example wasn't the best. One can certainly construct hands where his idea of "no blame" holds without subtleties like the above. Bidding isn't an exact science, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Thanks for the vote of confidence, I agree with you and also LOL at those who assign 100% to East on the co related problem.You forgot the most important option in the poll: "East, for misdescribing his hand and masterminding at his first turn to bid." Once East passes, the EW goal shifts from having an accurate auction towards making life hard for the opponents. So, if the EW auction lacks accuracy then East's initial pass is to blame. Changing the South bid from 2♦ to 2♣ is not a fair move either. After all, if South would just bid 2♦, East might foresee that West wouldn't have an entry to his hand. So, LOL at your suggestion that these two problems are related. The only relation between the two is that East forgot to respond with a three control hand in both cases. Rik 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Blame or Credit for the outcome is resulting by definition. Even with the actual E/W hand in the original thread, if we exchange just two cards between North and South the Spade game can be defeated. There was a result. It was favorable or not favorable. There was blame or credit. ATB attributes blame. You cannot attribute blame or credit if there is no result. Don't confuse assessing my bad bids in theory with ATB; one might lead to the other, or might lead to AT"C". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Regardless of other hands, West is more at fault here for rebidding 3S despite soft holding in clubs and a passing partner - a freely bid 2S is adequate to describe this hand. East might have bid a nonforcing 2D, but such bids are better when holding xx of spades so a run-out is not such a potential disaster. I agree with the Hog that there is rarely a total blame - but going down 2 in four spades on this hand is due more to the jump rebid of spades than partner's raise to 4, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 you can EASILY go down with slightly different distribution. And a master of the safety play is NEVER seen without an umbrella. I choose to play the (imp) odds and don't always make my contracts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted November 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Indeed Ron. Assigning the blame % 100 to someone has nothing to do with the outcome. You hold AQx KJx JTxx JTx, pd opens 1 NT and you bid 3 NT. If you pass with this or just invite, blame is % 100 on you. That does not guarantee that 3 NT will make % 100 of the time. You are missing the point, Timo. The point is that those who assign 100% of the blame to East on the first board are result merchants. It is not a wonderful game. Similarly everybody would bid 4S on this and it does not make. No one is to blame 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles123 Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 You are missing the point, Timo. The point is that those who assign 100% of the blame to East on the first board are result merchants. It is not a wonderful game. Similarly everybody would bid 4S on this and it does not make. No one is to blame 100%. Hog you are being ridiculous [hv=pc=n&s=skj7h865daq54cj95&w=st42hq732d3ck8642&n=saq98haj9dkt87cqt&e=s653hkt4dj962ca73&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1nppp]399|300[/hv] ATB for missing 3nt: of course South however i guess we're all result merchants because this could've been the layout [hv=pc=n&s=skj7h865daq54cj95&w=st42hq72d93c76432&n=saq98hj9dkt87caqt&e=s653hakt43dj62ck8&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1nppp]399|300[/hv] just because there is one freak layout where a contract makes or goes down doesn't proove anything at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 but you can prove stuff with SIMS!! (prove, in the statistical sense http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts