blame game

[eagles123]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt32haqt96da2c8&n=s94h8543dj93caj62&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1d2dp2h2sd3dpp3hppp]266|200[/hv]

 

whose to blame

thanks

 

Eagles

[PhantomSac]

North has a massive hand. I don't exactly like how south bid it but assuming he meant his double as "good hand" north can bid game directly. To pass 3D then pass 3H is criminal with 4 trumps and an ace and a doubleton spade.

[PhilKing]

It's almost as rational to jump to slam on the North hand as it is to stop in part score.

 

Put it this way - North has a clear jump to 3♥ on the second round and a 4♣ slam try on the fourth (they went to the bar on the third round).

[mikeh]

I think one of the hardest things to learn, to go from intermediate to advanced or beyond, is to start appreciating when strong hands have turned to crap and weak hands to gold. Here, the N hand turned to gold.

[wank]

south's 3h bid was excessive. he already showed a strong hand and he's got no extra length. north was absurd repeatedly.

[lycier]

After 3♦,I never raise to 3♥,I would better make a double to tell north my good hand,let north decide final contract.

[mike777]

my guess is and only a guess.

 

North never never knew south had a strong hand.

 

the north hand is not golden when north does not know south has stronghand

 

---------------

 

 

to put this another way. I bet if you ask north...north thought south was just comp bid.

 

If so then the hand becomes a teaching one....when is south really strong after michaels bid......I bet many many are confused.

 

So many play michaels bid =wk, int, strong or whatever

[MrAce]

NORTH

[mike777]

this is yet another example that shows the MIchaELS CUEBID CONVENTION IS BROKEN.

 

 

You can look at this bid over the decades and see how often confusion arises, too often.

 

Over and over again people say what the bid should mean....they miss the point, people don't know...too many don't know for whatever reason.

[alok c]

North's passing of 3D is poor but South's 3H bid is equally poor particularly after East's 2S bid.

[Cyberyeti]

Was your Michaels "weak or strong" or any range ?

 

With the weak/strong variant, this is easy, the double says strong probably without extra shape and N should just bid game.

 

For the "any range" variant it's more awkward, I think I'd have done something other than double over 2♠ which could (although shouldn't) suggest to partner in an undiscussed sequence your spades are much better than your hearts and you have a reasonable hand, something like AQJ9x, J10xxx, x, KQ essentially a free invite to 3♥ but even so, with 4 trumps partner should bid 3♥ over 3♦ and you now bid 4.

[fourdad]

The only thing that this hand demonstrates is that the partnership had no pre arranged agreement as to whether the Michaels convention was preemptive or strong.

 

Without such, no rational opinion is possible except shame on both of them for not discussing it.

[StevenG]

With the weak/strong variant, this is easy, the double says strong probably without extra shape and N should just bid game.

Why does it show that?

 

To me, it looks as though partner, having shown spades has doubled a spade bid for penalties. I know I'm naive :( but I doubt my equally naive partners would understand the double either. A direct raise to 3♥ would show a strong hand and do the job much more safely.

[msjennifer]

Both are equally to be blamed.Instead of doubling 2spades South must bid Three Diamonds to show a powerful hand or at least three heart depending upon the partnership agreement.North was a little over conservative in passing three hearts or even the three diamond bid.He could have doubled three diamonds to show a better than Yarborough hand or bid three hearts then and there only.

[MrAce]

Why does it show that?

 

To me, it looks as though partner, having shown spades has doubled a spade bid for penalties. I know I'm naive :( but I doubt my equally naive partners would understand the double either. A direct raise to 3♥ would show a strong hand and do the job much more safely.

 

No, 2♥ was not a support for hearts. It was preference. Thus raising to 3♥ shows extra hearts. When someone says he has 5-5 majors, he does not double spades for penalty. His pd already knows he has spades. Dbl shows strength. You may argue that passing 2♠ shows weak spades and doubling shows good ones. This is a very small target for it to be useful if any. No need to let opponents gain bidding space by doubling when your intention is not to bid further. Now assume pd had 2♥ and single ♠, you double 2♠ with strength and pd now can double them at 3 level wherever they run, if he wants to. But by bidding 3♥, instead of getting a juicy penalty bonus, you probably will end up playing 3 ♥ 5-2 fit when your pd has no help to spade either.

 

3♥ is anything but a safe bid!

 

I do not even know why we are still debating this. I do not even know why people think all of this should be pre agreement or that michaels is broken. Michaels has its weak spots but this is not one of them. I strongly doubt neither Justin nor Mike nor Phil have exclusively discussed with their pd about what they just wrote here. This is ABC of bridge. This DBL or double of any suit after michaels, when both suits are known, is extras. It is not agreement, it is logic. Raising the suit to 3 level just because you have extras, when double was available, is downright awful thing to do. I see people still replying that blame goes to both, because S could have bid 3♦. I call this BS, 3♦ shows a huge hand, at least bigger than this. And just like 3♥ 3♦ forces us to play 3♥ if not 4 or 5 a 5-2 or at best 5-3 fit when we were about to kill them. Sadly all of this tells me we still have people who has not yet grasped the difference between support and simple preference and commenting in int/adv forums. This should have been solved long ago when we just started bridge!

 

If we still can not see that North was out to lunch on this board, we have serious problems about bidding. And I am not talking about only michaels bidding. South overbid his hand by 3♥ and this did not cause any damage. Perhaps he knew his pd and did it on purpose, but as I said N was out to lunch.

[helene_t]

Some say that this is about agreements or about understanding the Michaels convention but it really isn't. It is about something much more basic and much more important.

 

North knows that he hasn't promised his partner anything. He could have had two hearts and zero points. Despite this, his partner bids 3♥. At all red this clearly doesn't mean that he is primarily looking for a sac against 3♦. He is saying that he still has interest in game.

 

South probably already showed extra values with his double. But even if that wasn't the case, 3♥ would be a serious message.

 

North should think: If p thinks he can make nine tricks with almost no help from me, surely ten tricks must have good chances. I can ruff a spade loser, my hearts are no great but they are long enough to prevent p from being tapped or from losing a trick to ♥Jxxx. Now that East has shown that his values are in diamonds and spades (if that is what the 2♠ bid shows, who knows), my club honours may be well placed. Even if not, ♣A is always a great card.

 

Don't think: I have a bad hand. I am passing.

Do think: My hand is a lot better than it might have been, and p is showing interest despite knowing that I don't have much.

[Trump Echo]

I'm not clear on what the double is. If the double is for penalty, then I blame South. If the double is a raise, then I blame North.

[StevenG]

I strongly doubt neither Justin nor Mike nor Phil have exclusively discussed with their pd about what they just wrote here. This is ABC of bridge. This DBL or double of any suit after michaels, when both suits are known, is extras. It is not agreement, it is logic. Raising the suit to 3 level just because you have extras, when double was available, is downright awful thing to do.

There is a problem here. I don't play with Justin or Mike or Phil (or Timo). Double is obviously the right thing to do with an expert partner. But this is the I/A forum, and I can promise you it will fail dismally with an intermediate/adv- partner, at least in my part of Acol-land. I would still bid 3, despite having read the thread, for the logic Helene gives in another post. I know partner has only shown preference, and may have nothing. But I could have passed, so I'm still interested, and I would expect partner to raise on that hand. It may be crude, but it's practical, and it's the best I can do with the partners I have.

[Cyberyeti]

Why does it show that?

 

To me, it looks as though partner, having shown spades has doubled a spade bid for penalties. I know I'm naive :( but I doubt my equally naive partners would understand the double either. A direct raise to 3♥ would show a strong hand and do the job much more safely.

 

Anything other than pass or possibly 3♥/4♥ which you might bid with more cards in your suits shows the strong hand as far as I'm concerned, you have 2N/3m available to show good hands so you can impart a lot of info with discussion. You don't double 2♠ for pens with AQ10xx, Q10xxx, xx, x as there is no guarantee you're beating it even with 4 trump tricks.

[jodepp]

1) IMO North's initial bid of 2♥ is wrong. That hand has to do something more, as all 2♥ says is 'I prefer hearts to spades and I'm not thrilled about it.' I really like the previous comment on recognizing (paraphrasing) 'when good hands go bad and when bad hands go good'.

 

2) South's double of 2♠ is understandable but probably inefficient. It's hard to believe opener was serious with 2♠ and the natural reaction would be to double, but IMO all this double says is 'my spades are pretty good'. It doesn't say anything about overall quality. 3♦ is probably better at asking - begging? - North to go on to game with anything that resembles a value or two.

 

3) If North is going to underbid at first turn, North MUST bid 3♥ after responder's 3♦ correction. This is a serious error, worse than the original underbid. North has an extra heart and side ace, but in ostrich-like fashion put his/her head in the sand. A 3♥ call is more than enough to get South to bid the good game.

 

As far as South's last call goes, 3♥ was all South could do at that point. North has been saying continuously 'I've got nothing' and South needs help to make game.

 

Maybe North was asleep...

[cherdano]

There is a problem here. I don't play with Justin or Mike or Phil (or Timo). Double is obviously the right thing to do with an expert partner. But this is the I/A forum, and I can promise you it will fail dismally with an intermediate/adv- partner, at least in my part of Acol-land. I would still bid 3, despite having read the thread, for the logic Helene gives in another post. I know partner has only shown preference, and may have nothing. But I could have passed, so I'm still interested, and I would expect partner to raise on that hand. It may be crude, but it's practical, and it's the best I can do with the partners I have.

 

But this is very basic! There are many auctions where double shows extra values rather than penalties, and after Michaels is one of the most obvious cases. (And the principle is especially important when playing a weak NT, so ACOL has nothing to do with it - unless you are saying that "advanced" ACOL players have a particularly weak understanding of competitive bidding.)

 

I guess it depends on your goals. If this is an individual, then maybe bidding 3H is the best bet. But if you are going to play more than two sessions with partner, then assuming basic bidding understanding, and working things out that go wrong, seems a better strategy.

[StevenG]

But this is very basic! There are many auctions where double shows extra values rather than penalties, and after Michaels is one of the most obvious cases. (And the principle is especially important when playing a weak NT, so ACOL has nothing to do with it - unless you are saying that "advanced" ACOL players have a particularly weak understanding of competitive bidding.)

 

I guess it depends on your goals. If this is an individual, then maybe bidding 3H is the best bet. But if you are going to play more than two sessions with partner, then assuming basic bidding understanding, and working things out that go wrong, seems a better strategy.

I did say adv-, with the "-" there intentionally. My current club partner has an NGS of 55 or abouts whenever I look, but is nowhere near the standard needed to work these things out. I've been looking for a partner of the right standard to learn from for the last 15 years and it's impossible. Should I just give up completely?

[ArtK78]

If you have what you have already promised, and are not forced to act, then you pass.

 

If you have more than you already promised, then you do something else.

 

This is pretty basic stuff.

 

I don't understand the criticism of the double of 2♠. It is NOT for penalties. You have already shown 5 spades, so the opps are not playing in 2♠. You are showing extras and inviting partner to bid more.

 

Now, if the opps decide that they want to play in 2♠x, you are not going to be disappointed. But you know when you double 2♠ that the auction is not going to end there. So any discussion of whether the opps can make 2♠ or not is not relevant.

 

 

 

[billw55]

For north it is a classic case of "how much worse could my hand be?" In context it is really good, but he bid it like a misfitting yarb.

[mikeh]

But this is very basic! There are many auctions where double shows extra values rather than penalties, and after Michaels is one of the most obvious cases. (And the principle is especially important when playing a weak NT, so ACOL has nothing to do with it - unless you are saying that "advanced" ACOL players have a particularly weak understanding of competitive bidding.)

 

I guess it depends on your goals. If this is an individual, then maybe bidding 3H is the best bet. But if you are going to play more than two sessions with partner, then assuming basic bidding understanding, and working things out that go wrong, seems a better strategy.

I do not agree that it is 'very basic'.

 

I suspect that part of the problem with experts doing so much of the posting on the I/A and B/N forums is that it can be difficult to remember when we, the experts, were B/N or even I/A.

 

So much of bridge becomes ingrained, and automatic. We 'know' that the best use for double in many competitive auctions is as an encouraging noise, and we (usually) 'know' the exceptions when, for instance, it would be penalty. We don't remember when, for us, penalty was the default meaning and when it was that we learned that there are better options, and how and when to determine that they applied.

 

I am willing to bet that most of us either learned that with an interested-in-learning partner of similar experience as us or, as for me in much of my early years, by playing 'up' in my partnerships as often as better players would allow it, and by going to the bar after the game and listening to the good players discuss things.

 

One of the realities of the aging bridge demographic is that we no longer, in my neck of the woods, get 10-15 players heading off to the bar for a loud, long, and sometimes heated but always friendly recap of the session's hands, with less experienced players getting lots of free advice from the experts. Hopefully BBF helps fill that void.

 

In doing so, however, we need to be aware that much of what we take for granted or as obvious is not obvious at all, anymore than any of us was able to get on a bicycle at whatever age we first did so and immediately go mountain-biking.

 

As a side note, Arend, this is a reason why I write those long posts, replete with what seem to you to be explanations of the obvious, such that you think I am being insulting :D