Bluff or Bluster

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=skhakt53da5cakj64&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1h2h(Michaels)4h4s6h6sppdrpp?]133|200[/hv]

Multiple teams on total IMPs

 

You decide to open 1H on the above hand, but the auction gathers momentum, and you are not at all surprised when the favourable opponents save against your slam. But when a dark blue card wends it way back, you have second thoughts. What now?

[Zelandakh]

[hv=pc=n&s=skhakt53da5cakj64&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1h2h(Michaels)4h4s6h6sppdrpp?]133|200[/hv]

Multiple teams on total IMPs

 

You decide to open 1H on the above hand, but the auction gathers momentum, and you are not at all surprised when the favourable opponents save against your slam. But when a dark blue card wends it way back, you have second thoughts. What now?

Any reason we didn't bid 6♣ last time round? You know very well that this kind of auction is often decided by which team can first identify the degree of fit in the side suit.

[shyams]

What options were available to North at the first turn?

- Does a 2♠ cue bid indicate a good raise in ♥?

- Is 3♥ competitive, 4♥ obstructive etc?

I think any agreement or approach on this would assist in the decision.

 

I also like Zel's idea of bidding ♣ on the way. It does help identify a double fit.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

 

maybe it makes, what do I know.

I am on lead, Ace of Clubs.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skhakt53da5cakj64&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1h2h(Michaels)4h4s6h6sppdrpp?]133|200| Lamford "Multiple teams on total IMPs. You decide to open 1H on the above hand, but the auction gathers momentum, and you are not at all surprised when the favourable opponents save against your slam. But when a dark blue card wends it way back, you have second thoughts. What now?

+++++++++++++++++++++

West advertises an unlikely ♠ A x x x x x ♥ - ♦ K Q x x x x x ♣ -.

If so, 6♠XX might make and 7♥X is likely to be defeated by 1-3 tricks, vul. Although West may well be bluffing, can we afford to take the risk? IMO: No. So you should bid 7♥, being prepared to congratulate West :( and apologise to partner :( but North's forcing pass over 6♠ implies you might even bask in team-mates' praise when partner turns up with ♠ - ♥ Q x x x ♦ J x x ♣ Q x x x x x :) [/hv]

[shyams]

West advertises an unlikely ♠ A x x x x x ♥ - ♦ K Q x x x x x ♣ -.

A minor modification: West's trump holding is more likely something like ♠AQxxxx; I feel this is more consistent with the bidding.

[KingCovert]

I think the narration here has us contemplating something we should never contemplate. Just pass.

 

So what if you're wrong? Based on the odds, are you really willing to take a guaranteed minus here? Forget not making 620/650/680 or 1430, but, a minus? What's more likely? That West has two voids? Or that West is praying his partner has one minor suit ace?

 

South did open 1H with 22HCP, which is more than anyone would reasonably expect, even on this auction. North did jump to 4H, instead of making a cue-bid. I think it's reasonable for West to expect more values than East will actually end up having.

 

I think the better narrative to consider here is: When your partner explodes at you for continuing here, how are you going to convince them not to quit your partnership? I don't think anyone realistically expects 7 hearts to make. This kind of decision is a partnership killer.

[lamford]

What options were available to North at the first turn?

- Does a 2♠ cue bid indicate a good raise in ♥?

- Is 3♥ competitive, 4♥ obstructive etc?

I think any agreement or approach on this would assist in the decision.

 

I also like Zel's idea of bidding ♣ on the way. It does help identify a double fit.

All normal options were available. 2♠ a good raise, 3♥ and 4♥ pre. Something like x Qxxxx xx Qxxxx would be plenty for 4H

[lamford]

Any reason we didn't bid 6♣ last time round? You know very well that this kind of auction is often decided by which team can first identify the degree of fit in the side suit.

Partner might well have interpreted that as a GS try with something like none AKxxxx Ax AKQxx. But it is not clear how you think partner is going to take an active part in the auction

[pescetom]

As said by others, it depends a lot on what the alternatives to 4♥ were.

We would splinter with the spades void variant however weak, but many would not for instance.

[johnu]

Any reason we didn't bid 6♣ last time round? You know very well that this kind of auction is often decided by which team can first identify the degree of fit in the side suit.

I'm not sacrificing against 6♠ no matter how we got to where we are. Of course, opps could have the superfreak hands where the sacrifice is the right bid, but odds say they don't. And partner could have a spade void and the cards so that 7♥ is a makeable sacrifice. Still, I'm not bidding again.

[Vampyr]

I think the narration here has us contemplating something we should never contemplate. Just pass.

 

A sacrifice should be contemplated in the same way no matter what level it is.

[Zelandakh]

I'm not sacrificing against 6♠ no matter how we got to where we are. Of course, opps could have the superfreak hands where the sacrifice is the right bid, but odds say they don't. And partner could have a spade void and the cards so that 7♥ is a makeable sacrifice. Still, I'm not bidding again.

Then let us talk for a moment about 6 level forcing passes. After 6♣ - (6♠), the default action for partner with no trick would be to double. For partner to make a forcing pass here they need to be bringing something to the table. What can that possibly be other than a double fit and a spade void? After 6♥ it is much less clear what partner might have for their pass. 6♥ is a lazy bid so we probably deserve to get this wrong after making it.

[Cyberyeti]

Then let us talk for a moment about 6 level forcing passes. After 6♣ - (6♠), the default action for partner with no trick would be to double. For partner to make a forcing pass here they need to be bringing something to the table. What can that possibly be other than a double fit and a spade void? After 6♥ it is much less clear what partner might have for their pass. 6♥ is a lazy bid so we probably deserve to get this wrong after making it.

 

But is he 0436 in which case we need to play in hearts, 0634 when we need to play in clubs or 0535 where we can't get rid of the diamond loser.

 

He doesn't necessarily know the answer as we don't have to be just 5-5.

[Zelandakh]

But is he 0436 in which case we need to play in hearts, 0634 when we need to play in clubs or 0535 where we can't get rid of the diamond loser.

 

He doesn't necessarily know the answer as we don't have to be just 5-5.

True enough - bidding is almost never a certainty but rather an exercise in assessing probabilities and finding ways to skew the odds in our favour. When I first suggested 6♣ it was more of a theoretical idea rather than seriously thinking about bidding on. But now after giving it some thought, it seems to me that that auction genuinely does change the odds on this hand. Bidding on becomes the action of partnership trust. Now I would agree that it takes a ridiculous level of trust to make the action but if we accept that partner thinks like us and must therefore have one of these hands for their pass, then bidding has become cheap insurance.

 

If I had to assess the relative likelihood of your 3 examples, I would rate the 55 as most likely followed by the 64, with the 46 most unlikely. That seems to suggest 7♣ as the call. Would I do it in practice? Almost certainly not, that's an insane level of trust to have in a partner at the level I play and an unreasonable level of respect for partner to have in me if it goes wrong. But opposite a super-expert version of myself, absolutely, 6♣, followed by 7♣ if partner FPs, is surely indicated.

[nekthen]

Yikes Multiple teams total imps

 

Do not double anything

[FelicityR]

How many times does a James Bond Moonraker Duke of Cumberland type of hand come up in normal bridge as this hand seems to be? When the opponents XX at the 6 level on such a direct and quick auction. The way I look at this psychologically (or in my case probably psycho-illogically :)) is the opponents would get a good score with 6♠X making so why provide the opponents an opportunity to sacrifice in 7♥X if the hands are that distributional. It's not Bluff or Bluster, in my humble opinion, but knowing that 6XX has a better than average chance of making, and perhaps XX'ing is being a bit greedy. I bid 7♥.

[Cyberyeti]

True enough - bidding is almost never a certainty but rather an exercise in assessing probabilities and finding ways to skew the odds in our favour. When I first suggested 6♣ it was more of a theoretical idea rather than seriously thinking about bidding on. But now after giving it some thought, it seems to me that that auction genuinely does change the odds on this hand. Bidding on becomes the action of partnership trust. Now I would agree that it takes a ridiculous level of trust to make the action but if we accept that partner thinks like us and must therefore have one of these hands for their pass, then bidding has become cheap insurance.

 

If I had to assess the relative likelihood of your 3 examples, I would rate the 55 as most likely followed by the 64, with the 46 most unlikely. That seems to suggest 7♣ as the call. Would I do it in practice? Almost certainly not, that's an insane level of trust to have in a partner at the level I play and an unreasonable level of respect for partner to have in me if it goes wrong. But opposite a super-expert version of myself, absolutely, 6♣, followed by 7♣ if partner FPs, is surely indicated.

 

I must admit I'd walk the dog here and bid 5♣ intending to bid 6♥ over 5♠ because on a lot of hands, the opps will feel they've pushed you one higher than you want to go and not bid 6♠. Plus it's very likely game scores better than 6♠x

[shyams]

I must say I found this problem thought-provoking and I must have spent quite a while thinking about the redouble.

 

IMHO, the only information that the redouble provides is that West strongly expects to make at least 11 tricks; it would be crazy to redouble so if West really thought -2 or -3 was possible and West was merely testing South's stomach.

 

In such a case, the redouble pays itself if West thought the chance of making 12 tricks is 25%.

--- Other table plays in 6♠x; if 12 tricks make opps win 9 IMPs, if 11 tricks we win 3 IMPs

--- Other table plays in 6♠; if 12 tricks make opps win 12 IMPs, if 11 tricks we win 4 IMPs

 

So I would not alter my action as South based on the redouble. I stick to 6♠xx and lead the ♣A

[Zelandakh]

I must admit I'd walk the dog here and bid 5♣ intending to bid 6♥ over 5♠ because on a lot of hands, the opps will feel they've pushed you one higher than you want to go and not bid 6♠. Plus it's very likely game scores better than 6♠x

That is a good plan and quite possibly better than the immediate 6♣.

[Cyberyeti]

That is a good plan and quite possibly better than the immediate 6♣.

 

I don't think it will work on this hand, but I think it will work on a lot of others

[Huibertus]

Well, the partnership has created a mess here. Introducing ♣ instead of bidding 6 ♥ would have put partner in a place to make a well informed decission. What do we do now? No idea we no longer can bring the message across how partner should look at ♣ queen, we have not given ourselves the chance to find out if he has ♦ K. Also, could partner have bid 4♦ as a fit bid? If so, surely we have to pass as 7 ♥ will go down if partner has too many diamonds.

 

Furthermore, Partner gave a forcing pass being void in spades. If we feel bidding 7 ♥ is right we should have done so instead of doubling 6 ♠, that would have put the onus of have to make the last guess on the opponents instead of us.

 

So what do we do now? I'd pass. I trust opponents will never redouble without knowing 7 ♥ is down, and assume they also don't redouble knowing 7♥ would be a cheap save. So let's hope they are not in bad strategy redoubles as those might work now due to our bidding.

[dsLawsd]

Pass.

 

maybe it makes, what do I know.

I am on lead, Ace of Clubs.

 

Quite so and wise. Sure they could be 7-6 and partner might have the Spade Ace- but that ship has sailed. It isn't for $ fortunately!

[miamijd]

I think I would have bid 5C, not 6H, but regardless, I'll pass now. If West has something like 6070, then I'll have to pay off, but if West was so sure of making 6SX, which surely would be good score, why XX and prompt a good sac?

[AL78]

I think I would have bid 5C, not 6H, but regardless, I'll pass now. If West has something like 6070, then I'll have to pay off, but if West was so sure of making 6SX, which surely would be good score, why XX and prompt a good sac?

 

To try and psyche the opponents into a phantom sac?