+260 ATB

[Fluffy]

[hv=pc=n&w=sa982hak642djt8cq&e=sktht853daq73c752&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hp2hppp]266|200[/hv]

 

2♥ constructive (7) 8-10 bal

[gszes]

At IMPS I would give 100% to east for not inviting game via whatever

your methods are. At least 9 trumps and a probable ruffing value in spades

along with 9 full value hcp more than enough to invite. This especially

true since it would be a vulnerable game.

If this is MP and you like to open light then 2h is reasonable and it

is a systemic hole that neither can easily fix. Going down (more than most)

too often in 3h loses a lot of mp that bidding a game once in a while will

not make up for.

[wank]

east. extra trump, good honour structure. no points wasted in trumps [aka trump richness]

[awm]

West. They already play constructive raises and game is good even if you change a heart to a club. Better to be conservative on 3-level invites.

[whereagles]

North, for not having balanced.

[ArtK78]

IF there is any blame, it goes to East. East has a hand which is very good even for a constructive raise. I like to judge major suit raises by MLTC. East has 4 potential cover cards - ♠K, doubleton spade, ♦A and ♦Q. 4 cover cards is a game force if all the cover cards are working, which they are in this case. Furthermore, the fourth trump has the potential to cover a loser, which it apparently did - hearts must have broken 2-2. So, essentially, East's hand covered 5 losers for West - the 2 spade losers, the heart loser and 2 of the three diamond losers. The last diamond loser disappeared on the successful finesse. You don't see 9 counts eliminate that many losers very often.

 

West has a clear pass of a constructive raise. Even 3♥ could be too high - give East:

 

xxx

QJxx

KQx

JTx

 

Personally, I would not assess any blame. The hands fit like a glove, and obviously the diamond finesse worked and the hearts were 2-2.

 

To get to game, someone has to take a rosy view of their hand. If either player makes a move towards game, the other will bid it.

[Jinksy]

Looks like no blame to me. As long as we're constructing pessimal hands, give W QJx KQJxx Kx Jxx, and 3♥ is too high. Make that the AQx in ♠s, and you end up in a no-play game.

[ggwhiz]

If that's a constructive raise in your methods with no Bergen or something added (forcing 1nt and a jump?) then I blame the methods or west owes a 3♦ game try and that comes with great risk so I'm back to the methods.

[rhm]

A constructive raise is not the same as a limit raise.

East has a limit raise.

West is blameless

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Looks like no blame to me. As long as we're constructing pessimal hands, give W QJx KQJxx Kx Jxx, and 3♥ is too high. Make that the AQx in ♠s, and you end up in a no-play game.

If you have a limit raise you can almost always construct hands for opener where the three level is too high.

If that is your worry I suggest go back to the old culbertson days where raising immediately to the three level was a slam invite.

Bridge is a game of percentages and calculated risks. Avoiding a negative score in all circumstances is losing Bridge.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[ArtK78]

A constructive raise is not the same as a limit raise.

East has a limit raise.

West is blameless

 

Rainer Herrmann

You must have a very low floor for your limit raises. The East hand doesn't look like a limit raise to me. Playing Bergen, I would consider it to be a mixed raise (admittedly, a good mixed raise).

[aguahombre]

You must have a very low floor for your limit raises. The East hand doesn't look like a limit raise to me. Playing Bergen, I would consider it to be a mixed raise (admittedly, a good mixed raise).

Maybe you are right. But, the blame is still on East. West would have accepted an invite, but doesn't have the goods to invite opposite a typical constructive raise, which is 3-card support and around 8-10, I think. East didn't invite; that might have been the correct long-run evaluation of East's hand, but it wasn't successful this time. Credit to East if game doesn't make; blame to East if game makes.

[rhm]

You must have a very low floor for your limit raises. The East hand doesn't look like a limit raise to me. Playing Bergen, I would consider it to be a mixed raise (admittedly, a good mixed raise).

I am not a result merchant, but if opposite this West hand you get all the tricks and even best defense would have delivered twelve, maybe just maybe evaluating the East hand as a limit raise could be right?

As someone else observed if I had only 3 hearts and say another low minor suit card, game would still be good, but I would agree with a constructive raise and assign no blame for missing game.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[johnu]

3 to 3-1/2 cover cards plus 4 trumps is good enough for a limit raise by my standards. IMPs or MPs? If I had a short suit game try available, I might try that with the West hand.

[mike777]

atb to east.

 

East has an easy mixed raise 8 loser hand.

West with roughly an adjusted 6.5-5.5 loser hand can either then bid 4 or at the very least bid 3d as an unspecified game try.

[WesleyC]

2H feels like the wrong choice, even if it is constructive.

 

West's pass is also slightly conservative. If I thought there was a chance of some helpful defense, i'd make a game-try.

[benlessard]

If you open agressively east hand look like a WTP constructive raise to me, I tend to be on the sound side so I could see myself make a limit with east hand.

 

Qxx

AQJxx

Kx

xxx

 

or any hand with Kxx(x) or Qxx(x) in clubs and you will have a lot of poor 3H and 4H contract.

Making a light limit will often lead you to a sub par 4H. Sound invite light accept is clearly the way to go at imps.

If you cant stand missing these game you should use 2C as any hand with a fit constructive or better.

 

There is a point i want to make about having 4 little trumps is that yes you are less likely to have trump waste however partner will stretch to open light if hes got a good suit so 3H is not totally safe.

[mike777]

agree 100% 3h may not be safe

 

 

Not sure that is the real issue.

 

 

looking at that east hand not sure 4h is 100% safe.

[mcphee]

East 100% for failure to make a limit raise. If he held no control values, more QJ 's for the raise, then I could understand the nervous raise. Good things happen on 9 card fits and we want to be aggressive with good control cards. No brainer limit raise. There may be a few who feel west could have made a game try, but facing 3 trumps this could turn a plus to a minus easily.

[PhilKing]

Some of it is down to bad luck - the hands fit perfectly. I don't think opener has a move - he needs East to have four of his seven losers covered, which I doubt will be the case more than one time in four. Since 3♥ will often go down and partner may accept a game try with the wrong hand, West is off the hook.

 

As for East, I just can't see any excuse for not making a constructive raise to three. All the points seem to be working hard - the hand would be much weaker if you altered the minors slightly: ♠KT ♥T853 ♦A732 ♣Q52, but even then I would judge it a tad too strong, since the fourth trump is such an asset.

[Jinksy]

If you have a limit raise you can almost always construct hands for opener where the three level is too high.

If that is your worry I suggest go back to the old culbertson days where raising immediately to the three level was a slam invite.

Bridge is a game of percentages and calculated risks. Avoiding a negative score in all circumstances is losing Bridge.

 

Sure. I just don't see why E gets this logic applied and not W, whose hand had some extra playing strength too. Either could have invited and found the hand that was actually opposite or one that went straight down. E had exactly the hand he bid, and was a point under the nominal max. I don't think an extra trump improves a balanced hand so much that it's worth an upgrade.

 

So maybe it's the methods at fault, but a) unless you're playing several artificial bids between a 1M opening and 2m raise the 1M 2M sequence is always going to have an uncomfortably wide range, and b) it seems like the methods should drive the stronger hand to invite at the three level on a wider range than the weaker one, since the weaker one more often has an accept (and complementarily, the stronger one will invite less often).

 

This hand is tailor made for Bergen raises. But if you're not playing them (and I would not do so freely), or anything fancy to compensate, then IMO this is the type of hand on which you should get a bad result as a consequence.

 

I could change my mind as a result of sim data or some arguments that otherwise somehow isolated E on frequency grounds, but so far all the arguments in favour of E bidding more aggressively could as soon be targeted at W.

[rmnka447]

I'd give East the lion's share of the blame.

 

I'd make a limit raise with the East hand. How often do you hold a 9 prime HCP, 2 QT hand with 4 trumps and a ruffing value? The extra trump is big. You'd still make a constructive raise if a ♥ was a ♣. And with that revised hand, you'd bid 3 ♦ over a 3 ♣ help suit game try. The extra trump adds more value, so that adds up to a limit raise IMHO.

[mikeh]

Switch West's minors and game is virtually hopeless on a club lead, which seems probable....even if trump are 2-2, there is a good chance that the opps can play a 4th round of clubs.

 

So to some degree this is a matter of bad luck; the sort of thing that will inevitably happen when both partners take a similar view of their hands, whether it be a tad conservative or a tad aggressive (when the problem is atb for reaching a silly high-level contract)

 

My own view is that I don't like making limit raises with 4 bad trump and a flat hand with 9 hcp, and I don't like making constructive raises with 4 trump and a prime 9 count.

 

If my only choices on this hand were the underbid of 2♥ or the overbid of a limit raise, I go for the limit, simply because I have 3 controls, the 4th trump, and the diamond Q is in the same (long) side suit as the Ace, all of which makes the limit far less of an overbid than the constructive is an underbid.

 

I would personally prefer 3♣ constructive, over which opener can bid 3♦ as a generic game-try, which east would accept in a heartbeat. 3♦ is a slight push, and I don't think a signoff could be harshly criticized, but I think with the shape and the knowledge of the 9 card fit, the hand is worth the invite.

 

So my atb has to be to east, since given the methods, the underbid was a bit too little, and I just can't see West making a gametry opposite what will usually be 3 trumps. 3 card support is more common than 4 card.

[benlessard]

This hand just gave me an idea on how to easily test resulting bias in bridge.

 

 

You have an example hand like this where you make an ATB poll where you didnt bid game but made 6or7.

 

Give the same hand to others players and you tell them that game was missed but you made 4or5.

 

The difference of 2H/3H between the 2 group will give an idea of the resulting bias.

[benlessard]

The other thing im thinking about is having 4 trumps raise without the QJ of trumps are quite different from those with good trumps.

 

Bad trumps are great to avoid trumps waste. Good trumps are great for dummy reversal if opener got a singleton.