Hand that defies accurate description

[eugeneric]

White vs Red, IMPS, playing 2/1 with unknown partner, who showed competence for 5-6 boards so far. Opponents ok.

 

Q865432

void

QJ732

A

 

RHO passes. What to bid? Thanks!

[nige1]

White vs Red, IMPS, playing 2/1 with unknown partner, who showed competence for 5-6 boards so far. Opponents ok.

♠ Q 8 6 5 4 3 2 ♥- ♦ Q J 7 3 2 ♣ A

RHO passes. What to bid?

I rank

1. 4♠ PRE. OK at green in spite of the poor suit quality. The downside of other actions is that by the time you reach 4♠, opponents might have a better idea of what to do.

2. 3♠ PRE.

3. 2♠. PRE. Misdescriptive unless a subsequent ♦ bid would show this kind of hand.

4. 1♠.NAT. Unenterprising

5. Pass. Intending to show 2-suiter later. .

[eagles123]

easy 4s

[dboxley]

White vs Red, IMPS, playing 2/1 with unknown partner, who showed competence for 5-6 boards so far. Opponents ok.

 

Q865432

void

QJ732

A

 

RHO passes. What to bid? Thanks!

 

Goulies so who knows. 1S, I don't see any reason to preempt partner who probably has some cards and I have the highest ranking suit. In 1st seat I would probably open 4S. In 3rd or 4th seat it would be no problem.

[neilkaz]

4♠ even in 2nd seat for me with this weak freak that often takes only 1 trick on defense.

[Phil]

Hate 4!s in 2nd seat with this suit and a very playable side suit.

 

I'd open 1.

[eugeneric]

Thanks guys for all your answers and votes!

If you are curious, I passed. My regular partner (I was not playing with him) favors 1S. He agrees pass is reasonable and I agree 1S is reasonable.

About half of the field opened 2s or 3s and another half passed. One or two opened 1S or 4S.

Those who opened usually reached 4S for a 5-10IMPS (depending on dbl) result. Those who passed did not reach 4S and lost less than 1IMP. The bad results were kind of unreasonable sequences.

 

My argument for pass (please criticize me, I welcome it): I hope I can enter the bidding later, when I know more about the other hands. This may result in an average score, but there is potential for a great result, as:

1)They may have some surprises if they play the hand

2)They may be tempted to impulsively double us in a S or D contract

[rhm]

Thanks guys for all your answers and votes!

If you are curious, I passed. My regular partner (I was not playing with him) favors 1S. He agrees pass is reasonable and I agree 1S is reasonable.

About half of the field opened 2s or 3s and another half passed. One or two opened 1S or 4S.

Those who opened usually reached 4S for a 5-10IMPS (depending on dbl) result. Those who passed did not reach 4S and lost less than 1IMP. The bad results were kind of unreasonable sequences.

 

My argument for pass (please criticize me, I welcome it): I hope I can enter the bidding later, when I know more about the other hands. This may result in an average score, but there is potential for a great result, as:

1)They may have some surprises if they play the hand

2)They may be tempted to impulsively double us in a S or D contract

I do not see the merit of passing with such an offensive hand and no rebid problems. (For me a 5 loser hand and I consider this assessment conservative)

I will never understand why some people open balanced 11 HCP hands but pass with such a hand.

Sure if you pass you might deceive opponents when you come in later.

In fact opponents are deceived by not being alerted to your style. You will profit from not fully disclose your methods to them, at best a dubious, though quite common practice.

Anyway, it is much more likely your partner will be deceived.

The only options I would consider is 1♠ and 4♠.

I prefer 1♠, since we might make 6♦ while going down in 4♠

 

Rainer Herrmann

[eugeneric]

>In fact opponents are deceived by not being alerted to your style. You will profit from not fully disclose your methods to them, at best a dubious, though quite common practice.

Fair enough, except the above. Playing with unknown partner you pick up

 

AKQXXXX

void

xxxxxxx

void

 

You bid whatever you decide to bid. Did you "deceive opponents by not being alerted to your style"? Note that in my case, half the field made an 'unethical' bid. Self-alerted or not, I don't know, but let me guess...

[rhm]

>In fact opponents are deceived by not being alerted to your style. You will profit from not fully disclose your methods to them, at best a dubious, though quite common practice.

Fair enough, except the above. Playing with unknown partner you pick up

 

AKQXXXX

void

xxxxxxx

void

 

You bid whatever you decide to bid. Did you "deceive opponents by not being alerted to your style"? Note that in my case, half the field made an 'unethical' bid. Self-alerted or not, I don't know, but let me guess...

If you psyche intentionally (and assuming you do not do it often so that your partner is "aware" about it) there is no issue and I agree there is no issue when playing in a new partnership or in an Individual.

However, if you play in an established partnership and consider the best bid with such hands to pass initially, because you think no bid describes your hand well (so it is not a psyche) there is an issue.

For an established partnership I would consider this dubious, assuming your partner will not alert when you come in later at a high level.

It has long been established that treatments arising from past experience are just as alertable than conventions.

But this guideline is followed more in theory than in practice and when an alert is missed they usually get away with it, because this is often considered a "grey" area.

Few partners do alert. If the partnership succeeds and they make their doubled contract with an overtrick, most declarers are proud of themselves how clever they have been.

The ethical side is rarely even discussed.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

Yes, when you play with an unknown partner you don't have to tell opps about your own style which partner doesn't know.

 

But I think it is best to open this hand. Especially with an unknown partner who may not be able to figure out what you have when you start with pass and then bid aggresively later.

 

That it is second seat call for disciplined bidding but then again, it is white/red at IMPs so there are more to gain from jamming their auction than there is to lose from jamming your own auction.

 

And although you have a decent side suit, you do have a 7-card major after all. It is very likely that you belong in spades, and even if you belong in diamonds it may not matter because

- you may not be able to show your diamonds anyway

- opps may outbid you in hearts

 

So either 1♠ or 4♠. 1♠ still allows you to find the diamond fit, probably better than pass does since once you have shown you spades you can elect to bid diamonds next.

 

So I don't see the advantage of pass as opposed to 1♠. Of course it could work - opps don't expect you to be 7-5 when you pass. But neither does partner. And partner is more interested in your hand than opps are.

 

4♠ is fine also.

[PhantomSac]

4S

[Fluffy]

Hate 4!s in 2nd seat with this suit and a very playable side suit.

 

I'd open 1.

 

I had a bad experience with a similar hand:

 

http://www.cavendishmonaco.com/index.php?option=com_bridgeresultats&view=resultats&layout=fqsheets&rep=2014_2en&session=4&pos=P28&type=B3-1&lang=en

 

See board 27.

 

As you can deduct most of the field opens 4♥ at equal and goes 2 down unless west makes an unlucky ♣A lead, the hand is not the same, the suit quality is better, the vulnerability is less agressive and there is no side ace. But I think you get the idea.

 

....

 

Bad experience because it was second to last round and while I was having a bad tournament, I happened to be playing against the players who were on first position and one of them is one of my best friends. I had no ***** idea what to open with that, all I could think is... if I get a good score here I will hate me forever, if I get a bad everybody will point a finger at me forever.

 

I got 2 averages on that round which makes me feel very good, but in retrospect I think I should had simply rejected to play that round. Someone else faced friends on that round BTW, and their results although very possible, they couldn't look more suspicious.

[gordontd]

I think I should had simply rejected to play that round.

On what basis could you have done that?

[Fluffy]

Conflict of interests, I wanted my opponent to prevail and fight for the 70.000 prize.

[PhantomSac]

Dont play the cavendish if you're unable to play bridge in that situation

[Fluffy]

You are very wrong here.

[PhantomSac]

lol Fluffy, so you think the correct course of action is to refuse to play that round? And how does that work? Do your opponents get zero imps for the round, or do they get a prorated amount of imps relative to their score, imps/board? If the former you may be helping them (if they have a huge lead), or you may be hurting them (if they are in contention but need a good round to win). If the latter you are obviously helping them.

 

The correct course of action is to man up and play bridge exactly as you would against anyone else. If you cannot stomach the thought of being in this position and behaving ethically and perhaps costing your friends a lot of money then do not play the cavendish. The fact that you think "not playing" is even tenable is laughable dude.

[PhantomSac]

It is also completely unfair to the other pairs in contention if you refuse to play, depending on the score. Imagine you were in second and a pair was in first and their opps refused to play, wouldn't you be pissed as your best chance to be first would be for the pair in first to have a bad round?

 

This is all part of playing in the cavendish. It happens to everybody who has played in it enough time and has any friends.

[Fluffy]

Yeah its much better than I play and dump (If you think this things don't happen I will LOL at you). That's would be so fair. It is not my fault. It is organization's fault.

 

Organization suposedly takes care of me playing against whoever pairs I have financially invested, or invested in me early. This is exactly the same.

[PhantomSac]

Yeah its much better than I play and dump (If you think this things don't happen I will LOL at you). That's would be so fair. It is not my fault. It is organization's fault.

 

Organization suposedly takes care of me playing against whoever pairs I have financially invested, or invested in me early. This is exactly the same.

 

If your options are play and dump, or not play, I see why you think that not playing is better.

 

In the real world you have an option of play and not dump. Play your best, play your hardest, do what you would do against anyone else. What if you are playing against someone you hate? Should you not play, as you might play harder against them or try to ***** them?

 

Part of playing in the cavendish and playing bridge in general is playing your hardest no matter what the circumstances are. If you are unable to play and not dump vs your friends, then what about when it's not money but you're playing a national or world pair game and they are in contention and you're nowhere? Can you find it within yourself to not dump to them when its just prestige, not money on the line?

 

And yes, of course I think that people cheat more and collude more and softplay their friends more when money is on the line. Why do you think no US pairs play in the cavendish since it's moved to europe?

 

But to hear you say your only option is to not play since otherwise you have to dump is LOL. When the cavendish was here I would say that at least half of the field was my good friend. I played in it every year for many years. I have seen this situation many times and I was able to play and not dump, it must be so hard!

 

I am still waiting for you to explain to me how it is tenable to not play by the way. How does that work? Should you write down on a sheet who you like and who you don't like on a scale of 1-10 and they should cross reference that for the optimal arrangement?

 

While we're on this subject, I actually had an interesting thing along these lines come up once. One of my best friends was in contention for winning the whole event. I was out of contention, but there was a session prize of 10k, so my goal was to win the session (which means I need big session, ergo more swingy actions is my optimal strategy here). I don't remember if it was early on but it was not late, maybe in the middle and we were doing alright, anyways, I psyched against my friend who was in contention for the win. It was a "normal" psyche for me in a situation where I need to win the session/beat lots of pairs, maybe white red opposite a passed hand and I overcalled KQJ and out. My opps missed a slam.

 

The countrymen of my friend were absolutely outraged. They wondered how I could call him a good friend and do that to him, take money out of his pocket (and I didn't win the session so the money didn't go to me). My friend, to his credit, argued that I would be cheating to NOT do this if I would do it against anyone else. It is cheating to softplay because it's your friend and they're doing well. Yes, I totally think this happens, and I no longer play in the joke of the event that is the cavendish. But I certainly think that it is possible to behave in an ethical manner and not have to resort to a completely untenable "i refuse to play" "solution."

 

The fact that you cannot see that your obvious choice is to go in there and play as hard as possible rather than dump or not play is mind blowing to me bro.

 

In both poker and bridge, sometimes you cost your friends money. Sometimes the goal of the game is to cost your friends money. Sometimes you make an awesome play and it makes them not win a national pair game, while you end 29th. This is part of the game, and the money has nothing to do with the ethics of the situation.

 

I'll say it again, if you're gonna feel bad about possible scenarios where you cost your friends money, to the point that you feel the need to either not play or to dump, then don't play in the cavendish.

[PhantomSac]

And yeah dude I know exactly what most people do in those situations. I am not disputing that. You see the same ***** in poker all the time also. You will not be seeing me at the cavendish ever again lol, and haven't since it moved to Monaco, except maybe to bid on the players. That is not the point.

[Fluffy]

I am still waiting for you to explain to me how it is tenable to not play by the way. How does that work? Should you write down on a sheet who you like and who you don't like on a scale of 1-10 and they should cross reference that for the optimal arrangement?

Realicing the only pairs that speak spannish and have interchangeable partners have common interests is not rocketscience. This is Europe, just make everyone from same country play first sessions against each other and you have a very good start.

 

This is the best tournament of the world in theory, yes they should make it sure that 4th session is totally free of possible collusions, I can think of many systems for this. I even sent them some proposals.

[Fluffy]

While we're on this subject, I actually had an interesting thing along these lines come up once. One of my best friends was in contention for winning the whole event. I was out of contention, but there was a session prize of 10k, so my goal was to win the session (which means I need big session, ergo more swingy actions is my optimal strategy here). I don't remember if it was early on but it was not late, maybe in the middle and we were doing alright, anyways, I psyched against my friend who was in contention for the win. It was a "normal" psyche for me in a situation where I need to win the session/beat lots of pairs, maybe white red opposite a passed hand and I overcalled KQJ and out. My opps missed a slam.

 

The countrymen of my friend were absolutely outraged. They wondered how I could call him a good friend and do that to him, take money out of his pocket (and I didn't win the session so the money didn't go to me). My friend, to his credit, argued that I would be cheating to NOT do this if I would do it against anyone else. It is cheating to softplay because it's your friend and they're doing well. Yes, I totally think this happens, and I no longer play in the joke of the event that is the cavendish. But I certainly think that it is possible to behave in an ethical manner and not have to resort to a completely untenable "i refuse to play" "solution."

Now be sincere and consider if you would psyche if you had no upside for doing well. Also you said so you were friends with almost everyone so you are just trading one friend to another, I am friend with only one. And I also suspect impact for winning cavendish for my friend and yours would be very different.

 

BTW you seems to assume I say my only option is to refuse to play. It is my best option, not the only one, At the table I simply played, with half my brain messed in conflicts. And I even took what seemed to me the variance route. I am happy for you for being able to be an emotionalless player, I am not.