Who to blame (3)

[HeartA]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sajxxxhkxxdqtxcat&s=sxhaqxxxxdxcjxxxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP

Opps are silent. Bidding goes:

1♠ - 1NT

2♣ - 2♥

pass[/hv]

 

Who is (more) responsible for missing a good game?

[scoob]

system?

[Guest Jlall]

north could have raised to 3H, and south could have bid 3H. All actions were reasonable...I'll say 50/50.

[helium]

I would open 1 nt whit the North hand to avoid the rebid problem, But if 14 is to weak for you,(i play (14)15-17 nt). i would bid 3 ♥ over 2 ♥ not pass.

 

 

 

kenneth

[Walddk]

After North's 2♣ rebid (where did he get that from?) South has a fairly good hand, and a jump to 3♥ would not have been unreasonable. 2♥ is no error, and North could perhaps have raised to 3. Three card support for a (nearly always) 6-card suit justifies a raise.

 

Game is not that easy to bid if you open 1♠. Weak notrumpers who allow a 5-card major would have an easy ride.

 

1NT - 4♥

 

Yes, I do play transfers, but opposite a 12-14 NT I can choose declarer. I don't mind declaring with that hand. In other instances where I have an AQ or KJ combination I will also choose a direct 4♥. With something like

 

Jx

AKJxxxx

xx

xx

 

I would bid 2♦ followed by 4♥ (not slam invitational in my methods). I have no tenaces to protect, whereas partner may have.

 

Roland

[whereagles]

I don't like this "who's to blame" way of putting problems. As if any of us had any authority to question other people's judgements at table.

 

Besides, it usually takes two mistakes to make an error, if you see what I mean, so it's almost always unfair to say someone was more guilty than the other. And sometimes it's a matter of systemic shortcomings, so there's even NO culprit.

 

This is actually the case. No one is guilty on his own. Both took perfectly sound actions, which on another day might have been the correct ones.

[han]

I don't like this "who's to blame" way of putting problems. As if any of us had any authority to question other people's judgements at table.

 

Besides, it usually takes two mistakes to make an error, if you see what I mean, so it's almost always unfair to say someone was more guilty than the other. And sometimes it's a matter of systemic shortcomings, so there's even NO culprit.

 

This is actually the case. No one is guilty on his own. Both took perfectly sound actions, which on another day might have been the correct ones.

I don't agree with this, one big mistake is often plenty for ending up in the wrong contract. Here I agree with you that there is not one person to blame though.

[EricK]

Here the system seems to be to blame.

 

North has bid two suits on a balanced hand. South can hardly bid strongly just in the hope that North has good three card support, when it is more likely he has a singleton or small doubleton.

 

Similarly North has a minimum opening. He can hardly bid this hand three times when South has shown very little, else they will get to too many dodgy games.

 

Eric

[awm]

I'd blame North for this one. Holding three-card support and aces it is right to raise partner in the auction given. The 2♥ bid is not particularly strong, but frequently has 7-8 losers. Partner's willing to play in hearts opposite a likely singleton, so he's got to have six good ones. Note that a minimum 2♥ bid might be something like:

 

xx

QJTxxx

Kx

xxx

 

This terrible hand has eight losers, 3♥ is excellent opposite the opening hand given, and even 4♥ has a small amount of play. I wouldn't expect responder to bid game over a 3♥ raise with this hand. On the other hand, it often pays to go slowly with a misfit and I think a hand like:

 

x

AQxxxx

Kxxx

xx

 

is a pretty clear 2♥ bid. Usually 3♥ implies better spots and/or more values than this. I'd want to be in game opposite this hand.

 

So I think North really needs to bid 3♥ on the hand given. Will miss many games like this otherwise.

[whereagles]

I don't like this "who's to blame" way of putting problems. As if any of us had any authority to question other people's judgements at table.

 

Besides, it usually takes two mistakes to make an error, if you see what I mean, so it's almost always unfair to say someone was more guilty than the other. And sometimes it's a matter of systemic shortcomings, so there's even NO culprit.

 

This is actually the case. No one is guilty on his own. Both took perfectly sound actions, which on another day might have been the correct ones.

I don't agree with this, one big mistake is often plenty for ending up in the wrong contract. Here I agree with you that there is not one person to blame though.

It is always better not to try and put someone the blame. Any reasonably intelligent player will quickly find out by himself what he did wrong. Pointing out errors to him is redundant and will only suceed in irritating the person. This is not the way to go if you want to win.

 

The good attitude is to tell him "I probably would have done the same."

[Elianna]

I don't like this "who's to blame" way of putting problems. As if any of us had any authority to question other people's judgements at table.

 

Besides, it usually takes two mistakes to make an error, if you see what I mean, so it's almost always unfair to say someone was more guilty than the other. And sometimes it's a matter of systemic shortcomings, so there's even NO culprit.

 

This is actually the case. No one is guilty on his own. Both took perfectly sound actions, which on another day might have been the correct ones.

I don't agree with this, one big mistake is often plenty for ending up in the wrong contract. Here I agree with you that there is not one person to blame though.

It is always better not to try and put someone the blame. Any reasonably intelligent player will quickly find out by himself what he did wrong. Pointing out errors to him is redundant and will only suceed in irritating the person. This is not the way to go if you want to win.

 

The good attitude is to tell him "I probably would have done the same."

Maybe it would be better, instead of blaming SOMEONE, to ask the question of which bid is most suspect? Or to ask the general question of would anyone do something different with either of the two hands? That way it's construed more constructively? Is this what you're unhappy with?

[whereagles]

Maybe it would be better, instead of blaming SOMEONE, to ask the question of which bid is most suspect? Or to ask the general question of would anyone do something different with either of the two hands? That way it's construed more constructively? Is this what you're unhappy with?

I'm unhappy with the fact people are intolerant towards others' mistakes. The "assign the blame" fad is just a reflection of that.

 

Eversince I realized criticism achieves nothing but irritating pard, I have never made one single negative remark regarding my pard's play.

[HeartA]

I'm unhappy with the fact people are intolerant towards others' mistakes. The "assign the blame" fad is just a reflection of that.

 

Eversince I realized criticism achieves nothing but irritating pard, I have never made one single negative remark regarding my pard's play.

The "who to blame" or "assign the blame" is totally different from pointing fingers. This is to ask opinions about which bid is not a good one (or worst). So that we can learn from it.

 

BTW, you always say "well done, pd" or "nice try pd" even if he makes mistakes and goes down of a cold contract, or let opps to make an impossible contract? I wonder how you learn to improve.

 

In the "who to blame" series, I can be one who is most responsible for the mistakes. If I believe I am (almost) 100% right, I don't bother to post it here. I post these hands because I myself have doubts.

[luke warm]

i really can't blame north for passing 2H... south would bid the same way with only 5 hearts unless he judged 1nt a better spot... i do think 1nt was a better opening tho, and i'm not crazy about north's rebid

 

i think as south i'd have bid 3H over 2C... if i *have* to assign blame, 60/40 south

[the hog]

I would prefer to open a 14-16 NT with the Nth hand. After a 1NT opening it is easy to get to 4H.

 

Playing a forcing NT the 2C rebid by Nth is in line with modern standards where a 2D rebid after a fnt shows 4+D or a 4531 hand after a 1H opening, and a 2C rebid is made on 5332 shapes.

 

In the given auction Nth might have raised H, but it's marginal. Better is to play Bart or Antibart and then you will probably get to 4H as well.

[Chamaco]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sajxxxhkxxdqtxcat&s=sxhaqxxxxdxcjxxxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP

Opps are silent.  Bidding goes:

1♠ - 1NT

2♣ - 2♥

pass[/hv]

 

Who is (more) responsible for missing a good game?

I agree with whereagles that the "who's to blame" formula does not seem very nice (despite its popularity in many bridge forums), even when one or both players are indeed criticizable.

 

Anyway, here is my thought:

North has bid more or less his hand (except for th 2C rebid, which seems weird unless one plays some sort of Gazzilli relay); he might have raise, true, but he has a 14 count which will hardly produce game if pard has anything but this perfect hand.

So I don't feel like criticizing his choice (except for the 2C rebid, maybe a system-driven choice).

 

South on the other hand did not deliver the playing strength of his hand:

he has a 6.5 losers hand (1 spade, 1.5 H. 1D, 3C), which is equivalent to the playing strength of a non-minimum opening, if/when you find a fit.

After opener's 2C rebid, responder knows of (or I should say "expects") a club fit, at least, so he is committing to bid game in a suit (even an invitational bid would be an underbid).

 

Admittedly, he might have headaches deciding whether bidding 5C (after the weird 2C rebid by opener) or 4H.

 

So, IMO, if anyone should take the push, it is certainly south.

[whereagles]

The "who to blame" or "assign the blame" is totally different from pointing fingers.  This is to ask opinions about which bid is not a good one (or worst).  So that we can learn from it.

It's not hard to see what you mean. Although the intention might very well be constructive, I just don't think "who to blame" is the right way of putting the question because it has an inescapable negative tone. I would ask the same question in this manner: "who could have done better?" But hey, maybe it's just me being picky.. lol B)

 

BTW, you always say "well done, pd" or "nice try pd" even if he makes mistakes and goes down of a cold contract, or let opps to make an impossible contract?  I wonder how you learn to improve.

I can't say well done when pard goes down on a cold contract. That would be hypocrate B) I usually don't say anything because normally my pards can figure out quite easily for themselves where they went wrong. I think it's unpolite to point out something obvious :) On occasion I say something along the lines of "nasty setback, pard". I learned this one from Zia.. lol.

 

I am very tolerant towards pard because:

 

1. He is on the same side as me.

2. I have to see he feels happy so that he can play his best game. To irritate him is not good.

2. It is unpolite towards both pard and opps to discuss stuff at table. At the end we have a review of the match, and that's it.

[P_Marlowe]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sajxxxhkxxdqtxcat&s=sxhaqxxxxdxcjxxxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP

Opps are silent.  Bidding goes:

1♠ - 1NT

2♣ - 2♥

pass[/hv]

 

Who is (more) responsible for missing a good game?

I assume you are playing weak NT.

 

The opening bid was correct, and if you dont

want to jumb to game with the North Hand,

a move which sometimes works and sometimes

not, well then ..., the inv. sequence by South

was correct, but then North has a maximum for

his 1 NT opener, so North should raise to game.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Fluffy]

Here the system seems to be to blame.

 

North has bid two suits on a balanced hand. South can hardly bid strongly just in the hope that North has good three card support, when it is more likely he has a singleton or small doubleton.

 

Similarly North has a minimum opening. He can hardly bid this hand three times when South has shown very little, else they will get to too many dodgy games.

 

Eric

The sysytem didn't work perfectly, but I hope you don't prefer a natural 1♠-1NT-pass auction on this one B).

[pclayton]

Looks like vanilla southern cal 2/1 to me. Forcing NT and 2♣ could be doubleton.

 

Its actually a good hand for playing BART. The knowledge of a 9 card fit should make North upgrade with these primes to a 3♥ raise. By the way, I don't play BART, but a lot of good players do.

 

Even then, both North and South made conservative decisions with their last call, which is frequently the case on these underbid hands.

 

The hand raises some questions: is it too strong for a weak NT or too weak for a strong NT? Looks like its right on the cusp to me; I don't like a 14 count for a weak NT with a 5 bagger, but AJ - 5th isn't all that great, and the Ax isn't working that hard.

 

I'd probably come down a little harder on South. While 2♣ might be a doubleton, it probably isn't. Even a 6-2 heart fit is playable with a decent side suit, so South should upgrade that Jxxxx and try 3♥ over 2♣.

[mcphee]

A point which may have been overlooked here. Lets suggest the S hand was opened a weak 2 bid in H, would not N try for game using what ever methods they had, feature or Ogust? If we view the problem in that light N has an easy raise to 3H on the bidding shown.

[the hog]

A point which may have been overlooked here. Lets suggest the S hand was opened a weak 2 bid in H, would not N try for game using what ever methods they had, feature or Ogust? If we view the problem in that light N has an easy raise to 3H on the bidding shown.

This is not worth a game try opposite a nv weak 2 opening!

[Chamaco]

A point which may have been overlooked here. Lets suggest the S hand was opened a weak 2 bid in H, would not N try for game using what ever methods they had, feature or Ogust? If we view the problem in that light N has an easy raise to 3H on the bidding shown.

I may be wrong, but the power of South's hand, with a 6511 seems to me considerably higher than a weak 2 opener.

 

A good weak 2 opener is usually 8-7 losers (actually with 7 losers I tend to open often at the 1 level, but in a strong club context).

This hand is even better than that (6.5 losers) AND has 2 places to play.

 

So I still think the big underbid is by S, although a single raise by N would not be unreasonable.

[geller]

As a wise man once said, "It is very dangerous NOT to raise partner with a fit," and this hand seems to confirm that. The risk/reward ratio for North to raise to 3 hearts with almost perfect cards (only the queen of diamonds is wasted) appears to strongly favor the raise over the pass.

[Chamaco]

As a wise man once said, "It is very dangerous NOT to raise partner with a fit," and this hand seems to confirm that.  The risk/reward ratio for North to raise to 3 hearts with almost perfect cards (only the queen of diamonds is wasted) appears to strongly favor the raise over the pass.

True enough, a raise could be fair by N, but certainly the power of S 6511 was understated BY FAR by South, who should not even invite, but force to game on his own.