Beginners luck?

[AL78]

An unimportant short duplicate session following the club AGM. The third session in a row I pick up the worst hands at the table (average HCP 9.0). 45.9% in a very variable field not my finest hour.

 

This hand came up against a pair of beginners who said at the start of the round they didn't really know what they were doing (a statement which is nearly always a precursor to being on the receiving end of a hammering):

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat9hajdajt654ca7&w=sqj764ht852d83c63&n=s832h9764dk9ct954&e=sk5hkq3dq72ckqj82&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dpp2c2nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I was East. I had to think about what to bid in the passout seat and couldn't see anything better than a simple overcall, maybe a touch heavy in the protective seat but I would like a club lead if LHO declares. Needless to say LHO did declare and partner led a club, but thanks to dummy coming down with the perfect 3 count nine tricks were rattled off with the aid of the diamond finesse. A complete bottom, all but one are in a diamond partscore with one West playing in 2♠ going one off.

 

This was followed by the second board of the round and the second beating:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=st76hk843dacq6543&w=s32hajt2d7432cat9&n=sakq84h76dq86cj72&e=sj95hq95dkjt95ck8&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1sp1nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Partner lead the two of hearts and that was declarer's seventh trick. -90 was worth 4/14 MPs for us as most of the NS's in the room chose to go between one and four off in 3 or 4♠ instead. One East must have overcalled on my hand as they played in 4♦-2 and one West played in 3♥-2, the two EW pairs we beat.

 

My recent flurry of better scores has now finished and my bridge is back to looking almost as bad as the UK's economy again. My partner is a lovely lady so it was still an enjoyable way to spend the evening despite the bridge.

[Cyberyeti]

We probably bid the second one 1N-2♣-2♠.

[thepossum]

I'm starting to think Andrew is the theoretical unluckiest person in the Bridge universe. The one who never gets a decent hand of Bridge

 

But the last sentence suggests quality of Bridge hands is more than just the cards

[AL78]

I'm starting to think Andrew is the theoretical unluckiest person in the Bridge universe. The one who never gets a decent hand of Bridge

 

But the last sentence suggests quality of Bridge hands is more than just the cards

 

 

I don't know who Andrew is but I am either doing something fundamentally wrong or going through an extreme example of random clustering. According to Pianola, over the last three months (12 sessions) I have defended on 87% of hands. This compares to 82% over the last 12 months.

[helene_t]

On the second hand, partner could have made a t/o double on 1NT. Also, I think that if they want to lead a heart, the Jack (or Ten, depending on your lead conventions) is better than the small one, although it wouldn't matter on this deal.

[paulg]

According to Pianola, over the last three months (12 sessions) I have defended on 87% of hands. This compares to 82% over the last 12 months.

Pianola's 'share of hands' often contains significant errors. In particular, if there are sessions where it doesn't know which seat you occupied, then it will go haywire. You can fix this by going to the Session Report for a session and setting it.

 

This is particularly true of online sessions.

[AL78]

On the second hand, partner could have made a t/o double on 1NT. Also, I think that if they want to lead a heart, the Jack (or Ten, depending on your lead conventions) is better than the small one, although it wouldn't matter on this deal.

 

An interesting suggestion, is there not a danger of walking into a powerful North hand or a horrible misfit and going for a number?

[helene_t]

An interesting suggestion, is there not a danger of walking into a powerful North hand or a horrible misfit and going for a number?

Yes, there is a danger. But it is white against white and it is matchpoints, so pass is possibly more dangerous :)

[thepossum]

I don't know who Andrew is but I am either doing something fundamentally wrong or going through an extreme example of random clustering. According to Pianola, over the last three months (12 sessions) I have defended on 87% of hands. This compares to 82% over the last 12 months.

 

Apologies for getting the name wrong. My memory playing tricks.

 

Connections gone awry

[apollo1201]

Yes, there is a danger. But it is white against white and it is matchpoints, so pass is possibly more dangerous :)

I thought it was a penalty X based on S, asking partner to lead S. As you usually don’t want to stick your neck at the window in what looks like a misfit auction and more or less 20-20 HCP situation, and as with a TOX hand you’d have done it one round earlier.

Or is it just with green greeen?

[helene_t]

I thought it was a penalty X based on S, asking partner to lead S. As you usually don’t want to stick your neck at the window in what looks like a misfit auction and more or less 20-20 HCP situation, and as with a TOX hand you’d have done it one round earlier.

Or is it just with green greeen?

No, a penalty double of 1NT would ask partner to lead dummy's suit. Here, you (West) are on lead yourself. If East doubles 1NT it might be interpreted as a penalty double but even then I think t/o is a more normal interpretation. Especially when opps play weak NT so that the auction suggests that NS has the majority of the points.

 

The meaning of the double doesn't depend on the vulnerability except that you obviously need to have better shape and texture when you are vulnerable. I wouldn't double with this hand when vulnerably, and at IMPs I wouldn't double with this hand anyway. But I would always double with something like x-AT9x-AT9x-JTxx.

 

All this said I don't necessarily think that West should have doubled. I would probably have done it myself but I am not sure what is best.

[AL78]

Pianola's 'share of hands' often contains significant errors. In particular, if there are sessions where it doesn't know which seat you occupied, then it will go haywire. You can fix this by going to the Session Report for a session and setting it.

 

This is particularly true of online sessions.

 

I don't play online but you are correct. I have manually checked the stats for the same sessions and I have calculated that we have defended about 54% of the time which sounds more reasonable.

[apollo1201]

All this said I don't necessarily think that West should have doubled. I would probably have done it myself but I am not sure what is best.

Thx Helene I had the hand reversed, and indeed it is a (very) borderline TOX. Only green at pairs worth the risk, I guess.

[mikeh]

I don't know who Andrew is but I am either doing something fundamentally wrong or going through an extreme example of random clustering. According to Pianola, over the last three months (12 sessions) I have defended on 87% of hands. This compares to 82% over the last 12 months.

If this is correct, then it is extremely likely that you, your partners, or probably both are far too conservative

 

You post a lot of very poor results, usually the result of your partner knowing very little about how to play. Occasionally, as here, you post examples of being fixed by the opps. Everyone gets fixed by the opps on occasion, but usually that sort of misbidding and/or misplay should result in a good board for your side.

 

There’s no way to diagnose why or where you and/or your partners are screwing up in the bidding as often as it appears you must be: not without seeing the hand records and the auctions for every board during those 12 sessions. Given that you have posted, ever since I recall you posting here, that you routinely defend far more than your share of boards, I am as certain as I can be, without that analysis, that you and/or partner are creating this situation. Not on every board, of course, but over the course of the session probably missing two or three opportunities to be declarer, to your benefit.

 

To give you an example of why I come to that view, many years ago, when I was a fairly good (in context) player playing club and sectional games with a regular partner, I did track declaring and defending frequencies. We defended roughly 45% of boards over about a year (I’d estimate 60 sessions or so) and I declared about 28% of the time and my partner a tiny fraction less. We lived in a small city, hundreds of miles from any major centre, so the bridge wasn’t strong and we won more often than not. I only say this to show that we weren’t hogging the hands at the cost of getting bad results

 

I haven’t done that sort of analysis for a very long time so I have only impressions of frequencies these days. However, in my regular partnerships we open light, respond on air, preempt aggressively and so on. So, except when playing serious events against experts (most of whom do the same), I suspect we defend no more than 45% of the time.

 

I’m not offering to do a big analysis but if you had records from one session where the average hcp were approximately equal, averaged over tge session, yet you defended more than 65% of the time, I’m virtually certain I’d find issues that you and/or partner could work on.

[AL78]

If this is correct, then it is extremely likely that you, your partners, or probably both are far too conservative

 

You post a lot of very poor results, usually the result of your partner knowing very little about how to play. Occasionally, as here, you post examples of being fixed by the opps. Everyone gets fixed by the opps on occasion, but usually that sort of misbidding and/or misplay should result in a good board for your side.

 

There’s no way to diagnose why or where you and/or your partners are screwing up in the bidding as often as it appears you must be: not without seeing the hand records and the auctions for every board during those 12 sessions. Given that you have posted, ever since I recall you posting here, that you routinely defend far more than your share of boards, I am as certain as I can be, without that analysis, that you and/or partner are creating this situation. Not on every board, of course, but over the course of the session probably missing two or three opportunities to be declarer, to your benefit.

 

To give you an example of why I come to that view, many years ago, when I was a fairly good (in context) player playing club and sectional games with a regular partner, I did track declaring and defending frequencies. We defended roughly 45% of boards over about a year (I’d estimate 60 sessions or so) and I declared about 28% of the time and my partner a tiny fraction less. We lived in a small city, hundreds of miles from any major centre, so the bridge wasn’t strong and we won more often than not. I only say this to show that we weren’t hogging the hands at the cost of getting bad results

 

I haven’t done that sort of analysis for a very long time so I have only impressions of frequencies these days. However, in my regular partnerships we open light, respond on air, preempt aggressively and so on. So, except when playing serious events against experts (most of whom do the same), I suspect we defend no more than 45% of the time.

 

I’m not offering to do a big analysis but if you had records from one session where the average hcp were approximately equal, averaged over tge session, yet you defended more than 65% of the time, I’m virtually certain I’d find issues that you and/or partner could work on.

 

Thanks Mike. Paulg was correct in that Pianola has gone haywire with the stats. Over the last 12 sessions we are defending about 53% of the time, which is a slight bias but nothing like what Pianola suggests.

 

I believe there is an issue with my game but I can't put my finger on it, hence why I post hands on here to try and identify a common factor to work on. I can't really find one other than my partner seems to get blamed quite frequently, which doesn't help me find the problem with my game. Recently I got a game with one of the club's better players who is considerably better than my regular partners and we still didn't reach 50%, although partner only declaring once in 24 boards didn't help there.

 

I feel I should be able to do better in a club field of mixed standard and I used to do better 10-15 years ago, but troubling the scorers seems elusive these days. It is harder when you get nonsense like this against you a handful of times in most sessions:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa965ha3dk7caq976&w=st32hq9752daj4ckj&n=skjhj864dq8652c52&e=sq874hktdt93ct843&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1c1h2dp2sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I was East. We managed to get it one down but that gave us 1/8 MPs when all but one of the field is going two or three off in 3NT. If there are three or four hands like this it means we have to nail the bidding and play in the other boards to do well, and I don't have the necessary skill/judgement.