Youthful Enthusiasm

[FelicityR]

It's always good watching Vugraph on BBO, and yes those vulnerable games at IMPs are important, but I just don't understand how the two sets of International Under 26 players contemplated bidding game on this hand. Am I missing something in the bidding evaluation and analysis? Both declarers returned a score of -2 tricks for a score of -200.

 

Both sets of players were from established bridge countries where, I presume, youth international bridge is actively encouraged. I'll be interested in your comments, and as always thank you for replies in advance.

 

This was the hand, N/S were vulnerable, Dealer North

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq9843hjda52ca643&w=sa6ha874dq6ckjt92&n=s752hkq632dkt94c5&e=skjtht95dj873cq87]399|300[/hv]

 

And this was the bidding at both tables.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1sd2hp2sp3sp4sppp]133|100[/hv]

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1s2c3cd3sp4sppp]133|100[/hv]

[apollo1201]

If down 1 is good bridge, maybe down 2 is even better?

 

I think if you pair South1 and North2, slam could be in the picture🤣.

[pescetom]

I could understand (almost) if North made a weak splinter or bid game as fast arrival.

But not this.

[HardVector]

Imps. The reward for bidding and making game is too good to pass up. I know that I've told a partner of mine to go ahead and show your values by making an invitational bid, but I'm probably going to accept the game try 99% of the time (this was an attempt to stop them from making sketchy game tries). Once we get to the 3 level, I'm almost always going to 4, unless our side is the weak side pushing them.

 

Another problem is that people have decided that trashy 11 counts are worth an opening bid. I have no idea why everyone thinks they can play like the world class players who started doing this, but they've decided that if Meekwell can do it, so can I. I wouldn't have opened the hand in 1st/2nd seat.

[KingCovert]

Imps. The reward for bidding and making game is too good to pass up. I know that I've told a partner of mine to go ahead and show your values by making an invitational bid, but I'm probably going to accept the game try 99% of the time (this was an attempt to stop them from making sketchy game tries). Once we get to the 3 level, I'm almost always going to 4, unless our side is the weak side pushing them.

 

Another problem is that people have decided that trashy 11 counts are worth an opening bid. I have no idea why everyone thinks they can play like the world class players who started doing this, but they've decided that if Meekwell can do it, so can I. I wouldn't have opened the hand in 1st/2nd seat.

 

It just depends on the system that you are playing. In 2/1, yeah, that's a pretty gross hand. However, the problem here is not the fact that South opened. Why North would think that their hand is worth anything more than a simple 2♠ raise is beyond me, and why they think it's then worth a further invite after already over-representing it with the 2♥ bid, I could understand raising 4♠ over some other forcing/invitational bid by South, but over a 2♠ reply it's an easy pass.

 

And there was a similar level of lunacy from the South hand in the 2nd auction. To suggest this has anything to do with the opening bid of 1♠ is insane though. That's just extremely poor communication/hand evaluation in the later rounds of the auction. This hand should have stopped at 2♠ and competed to 3♠ (which makes) on any line by West that doesn't start A♠ and out a ♠.

[smerriman]

I wouldn't have opened the hand in 1st/2nd seat.

 

They didn't; it was opened in third seat. Seems like a perfectly normal third seat opener to me.

 

But as above, I have no clue why any of the rest of the bidding happened. In the first case, I would have passed 2♥ as South (lack of redouble means it should be a weak hand with 6 hearts). And in the second, even if you judge it as a limit raise, which it isn't, then treating it as a GF is crazy.

[Cthulhu D]

It's always good watching Vugraph on BBO, and yes those vulnerable games at IMPs are important, but I just don't understand how the two sets of International Under 26 players contemplated bidding game on this hand. Am I missing something in the bidding evaluation and analysis? Both declarers returned a score of -2 tricks for a score of -200.

 

i think it's just people overcooking it at IMPs. Obviously easy to shout from the bleachers but it seems fairly clear in game 2 that north decided to bid his values twice (3C is some sort of good raise, and then he's elected to just bid game over a minimum noise by his partner). I don't know what the problem is in game 1. I'm not sure south really has the extras that 4S seems to promise, and his hand hasn't really improved after the 2H bid.

[nekthen]

My main surprise is that neither North was playing a system that allowed them to open 2♥

Also a wee bit surprised that neither East saw fit to double

Finally, isn't the South hand a classic 3rd hand weak 2?

[pescetom]

Finally, isn't the South hand a classic 3rd hand weak 2?

With 2 side Aces and a risk of missing game vulnerable at IMPS if North has no wastage in hearts? Not for me.

[paulg]

As someone who coaches and mentors such juniors, I expect both pairs were embarrassed by their performance on this board and would not be looking to justify their auctions.

 

In junior events, if you face a difficult, borderline, decision then it normally pays to take the aggressive option since everyone plays the cards far better than they defend. When the decision is not as borderline as you thought, and partner makes a similar mistake, then boards like this are the result.

 

A positive aspect is that results like this rarely put a junior on tilt and they can get on with the next board without concern.

[Cyberyeti]

My main surprise is that neither North was playing a system that allowed them to open 2♥

Also a wee bit surprised that neither East saw fit to double

Finally, isn't the South hand a classic 3rd hand weak 2?

 

If N opens 2♥ as we would, P-P it's an interesting problem for W, and no the south hand is not a 3rd in weak 2, too much defence and not a good enough suit.

[paulg]

As a junior sympathiser, I'd like to share a hand from the Montrose Congress last weekend where I took six U18 juniors.

 

North is the dealer at matchpoint pairs and everyone is vulnerable.

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sqhqdq8753cajt643&s=sa98762ht8632djck&e=sj4hk975dkt92cq75&w=skt53haj4da64c982&v=b]399|300[/hv]

With 34 tables in play, East-West won the contract three times and the average North-South score was -192. Thirteen NS pairs played in game, including two of the young pairs, but their senior counterparts did not distinguish themselves.

 

At my table a winner of the teams event forgot they were playing 2NT as an intermediate minor two-suiter and played in 4♥, an attempt at a Texas transfer. This provided a useful lesson in UI for the youngsters.

 

But the main lesson was that carnage is not always age-related.

[pescetom]

It sounds like North did the right thing with UI, even if by accident?

It's certainly a tough hand for any age to bid.

I guess youthful enthusiasts would not stop in 2♠ as NS, and even if they did I doubt we would reach 3NT as EW.

[miamijd]

Back to the OP, I think both N-S pairs need to discuss their bidding systems. I imagine there was a slight breakdown.

 

The second auction (where N bid 3C) is more understandable to me. I don't have a serious objection to 3C. N has a 7-loser hand in support of spades and a stiff club. Probably he will never sell to 3C, so why not show his values? When East Xs, South has several ways to proceed: pass, XX, 3D/H, 3S, and so on.

 

The question here is whether 3S or pass is weaker. I like to play that 3S is weaker, but some play that pass is weaker. I have a feeling that (i) N-S hadn't discussed this; (ii) S thought 3S was weaker; (iii) North thought pass was weaker; and (iv) North thought his hand might fit very well and at IMPs decided to bid 4S.

 

The first auction I don't understand unless 2H shows a good spade raise (which in most advanced systems it does). Bidding H naturally is silly here. If it shows a good spade raise, then N ought to respect South's 2S call and pass. I personally think a single raise is too conservative here and would make a limit raise bid (especially at IMPs), but once you have decided only to make a single raise, you don't want to change your mind and catch up later.

 

Maybe N-S in the first auction play that 2H is a good spade raise OR BETTER. In that case, North's 3S bid showed the limit raise. South ought to pass.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[cleveritis]

Well this is pretty ez have to say.

 

Over DOUBLE, we play transfers - so 2H = good 2S bid... the 11 count should hope he makes it and pass.

 

Over 2C is trickier because 2S in competition can be quite weak so he has to be 3C (good raise to 3S - WITH THREE TRUMPS if you play a good system) - then the 11 count (with a stiff honor should again hastily bid 3S and hope he makes)

 

So they went a little nuts- showing terrible judgment.

[FelicityR]

As someone who coaches and mentors such juniors, I expect both pairs were embarrassed by their performance on this board and would not be looking to justify their auctions.

 

That's the reason why I posted this board: I was quite surprised that both pairings reached 4♠ by different routes. I could imagine one pairing stretching to 3♠ if the opponents got competitive, but 4♠ seems a complete longshot, in my opinion.

 

It's as though both partnerships had forgotten their partner (North) had passed in first position, or that South is in third position and might have opened 1♠ with the lightest of hands. And I agree that this could happen to players of any age, not just juniors.

 

When I was watching Vugraph one table played the board some minutes before the other. I watched one auction reach 4♠, and thought that's not going to happen at the other table this will be a swing board, but it did. And then I questioned my own ability evaluating the hand via losers and the Losing Trick Count, thinking along the lines that with slightly different cards this contract makes in 7 out of 10 cases, let's say, so bidding game is favourable.

 

And thanks for your contributions.

[Joe_Old]

What was the state of the match? If one side was considerably behind they may have been trying to generate a swing, and the other pair was simply trying to maintain parity.

[VJ]

This is perhaps just a sign of how much sound and common sense bridge is fading away. With bread and butter bridge, you cannot get elsewhere than to 2♠, with West opening the fight.

[mdgraham]

Useful hand to have the agreement that North can bid 2♦ after the double to show hearts, and then, assuming S bids 2♥, bid 2♠.

[miamijd]

Useful hand to have the agreement that North can bid 2♦ after the double to show hearts, and then, assuming S bids 2♥, bid 2♠.

 

2D to show H is pretty standard, but 2D then 2S over 2H shows 2-card support, not 3-card support. If you have 3+ card support in opener's major, you don't go looking around for another suit. What if East bids 3C over 2D and opener doesn't have H support? What are you going to do now?

 

Support with support.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[chasetb]

At Table 1, they could be playing transfers over a double, so 1♠ - (X) - 2♥ might show a good raise of Spades. Regardless, 4♠ by South is wrong.

 

At Table 2, 3♣ is proper if that's their Limit Raise (or better). This time, North is wrong for bidding 4♠.

[nekthen]

With 2 side Aces and a risk of missing game vulnerable at IMPS if North has no wastage in hearts? Not for me.

 

My tongue was firmly in my cheek!

 

But in the context of junior internationals, I would expect someone to open 2♠ :D

[paulg]

This is perhaps just a sign of how much sound and common sense bridge is fading away. With bread and butter bridge, you cannot get elsewhere than to 2♠, with West opening the fight.

The juniors have already learned that sound and common sense bridge really does not get you very far in tournaments these days.

 

Many may decry this situation but I think it is reality. This hand is (clearly) a bad example, but it does highlight the attitude of top players whether Junior, Open, or Seniors in international events.