Game going hand but lacking in bidding space

[AL78]

[hv=pc=n&e=sak52h87daj93cj63&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1dp1s2h3d3h]133|200[/hv]

 

Playing 5CM strong NT, what do you do here, MPs? For some reason it has come out as EW vuln but it was no-one vuln.

[jillybean]

I think we have to continue with 4♥, it's an awkward auction but how else can we move forward?

I expect that we will end in some number of diamonds, partner does not have 4 spades.

[Cyberyeti]

Unless you have the agreement that X invites 3N with a stop (yes this works well if partner has say Qx, A, KQ10xxxx, Qxx) I think you have to bid 4♥.

[AL78]

I didn't consider 4♥, with a scratch partner who knows how she will interpret it and where we will end up. I made the most practical bid I could think of which was 5♦. The full deal:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt763hkq652dc754&w=sjhat3dkq6542cat9&n=s984hj94dt87ckq82&e=sak52h87daj93cj63&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1dp1s2h3d3h5dppp]399|300[/hv]

 

5♦ made 11 tricks. Of course partner has a heart stop and 10 tricks off the top in NT so we lost out to those who found 3NT. I suspect other EW pairs did not get such aggressive interference.

[Stephen Tu]

It's very normal, not having established any fits yet, for double to be "strong hand, DSIP".

[pescetom]

I didn't consider 4♥, with a scratch partner who knows how she will interpret it and where we will end up. I made the most practical bid I could think of which was 5♦.

 

5♦ made 11 tricks. Of course partner has a heart stop and 10 tricks off the top in NT so we lost out to those who found 3NT. I suspect other EW pairs did not get such aggressive interference.

 

Awkward, but I would probably double: I don't like 4♥ here, I think it should show a hearts control in a more offensive hand.

I would not berate partner who punted 3NT rather than 3♦, even if it went pear shaped.

[mikeh]

While I agree with Stephen that most experienced players use double of low level ‘fit and raise’ interference as ‘values to bid but no clear direction’, I’d advise against it on this auction.

 

Yes, it would work here if partner bid 3N but I’d be very tempted, as west, to pass and lead my spade, which won’t work well

 

Why doesn’t it work well? Look at your diamonds. You have at least a 10 card fit.

 

The opps here were insane. I doubt that 2H would find a lot of support amongst good players. 3H is also hyper aggressive but at least he ought to be thinking his side has a 9 card fit…which they don’t.

 

So I don’t recommend double nor do I recommend 4H. How does 4H begin to describe this hand? You have only 4 spades, you have no heart control, and you hav3nt told partner about diamonds!

 

I’d be torn between 4D and 5D and would opt for 5D simply because partner’s diamonds aren’t strong, as opposed to long, and we do have the AK of spades..he won’t play me for quite this much when I’m bidding under pressure.

 

 

Sometimes very bad bridge works. As keep reminding myself, whenever we get fixed, it’s a big part of why the game has been popular. Players who bid as did NS here will be volunteering a lot of boards…unfortunately not to us today.

[Cyberyeti]

 

So I don’t recommend double nor do I recommend 4H. How does 4H begin to describe this hand? You have only 4 spades, you have no heart control, and you hav3nt told partner about diamonds!

 

 

I assumed unless massive extra values were present that 4♥ showed diamonds (and would tend to deny 5 good spades because I haven't SJSd).

 

Of course I don't have this problem because I started with 2♦.

[jillybean]

 

So I don’t recommend double nor do I recommend 4H. How does 4H begin to describe this hand? You have only 4 spades, you have no heart control, and you hav3nt told partner about diamonds!

 

I’d be torn between 4D and 5D and would opt for 5D simply because partner’s diamonds aren’t strong, as opposed to long, and we do have the AK of spades..he won’t play me for quite this much when I’m bidding under pressure.

 

The opponents have made it difficult, taken our bidding room and the ability to show a gf diamond raise here. 4D would be nf, 5D could be an underbid.

1♦ p 1♠ (2♥)

3♦ (3♥) ?

 

It's awkward, 4♥ must start a checkback type sequence, DSIP allowing us to show the diamonds at our next turn.

Do you play 4NT (by west) here to play?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would have made a X, not and the result may be only -1 / -2, i.e. less than what you got from 5D=.

If SuppX are in place, 3D denies 3 spades, you will make AK in spade + ruff, at most 1 diamond,

the 10 card fit is a neg., but partner opened, so there should be club tricks.

 

Playing MP is hard.

 

And yes, the opponents are ..., especially the raise to 3H being 4333 and facing a passed hand is

asking for it, unfortunately the prayers went unheard.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

The opponents have made it difficult, taken our bidding room and the ability to show a gf diamond raise here. 4D would be nf, 5D could be an underbid.

1♦ p 1♠ (2♥)

3♦ (3♥) ?

 

It's awkward, 4♥ must start a checkback type sequence, DSIP allowing us to show the diamonds at our next turn.

Do you play 4NT (by west) here to play?

I dont know what MikeH is playing, but lots of strong player would play 2NT by openers as some kind of Lebensohl, the implication being, that either 3D

showes or denies add. strength.

 

If opener has limited his hand to a min opener, you have no slam interest, and you have to decide, if you go for blood or try 5D.

The problem with 5D is, you have to assume 2 heart loosers, assuming a 9 card fit, and your xx in hearts is not a good sign, xxx would be a lot better.

If he showed add. strength, you will have to make a move, you have a 10 card fit, the way to make a slam move is via 4H, not showing a heart control,

just a strong diamond raise with slam interest.

 

Also relevant is the meaning of 4C.

[AL78]

Sometimes very bad bridge works. As keep reminding myself, whenever we get fixed, it’s a big part of why the game has been popular. Players who bid as did NS here will be volunteering a lot of boards…unfortunately not to us today.

 

It certainly worked for them. The NS pair here won convincingly with 65.14%, we were second by a fair distance with 58.73% so they weren't volunteering many boards to anyone else in the field either.

[jillybean]

I dont know what MikeH is playing, but lots of strong player would play 2NT by openers as some kind of Lebensohl, the implication being, that either 3D

showes or denies add. strength.

 

If opener has limited his hand to a min opener, you have no slam interest, and you have to decide, if you go for blood or try 5D.

The problem with 5D is, you have to assume 2 heart loosers, assuming a 9 card fit, and your xx in hearts is not a good sign, xxx would be a lot better.

If he showed add. strength, you will have to make a move, you have a 10 card fit, the way to make a slam move is via 4H, not showing a heart control,

just a strong diamond raise with slam interest.

 

Also relevant is the meaning of 4C.

Opener has freely bid 3♦, if he was a minimum opener wouldn't he pass 2♥?

[P_Marlowe]

Opener has freely bid 3♦, if he was a minimum opener wouldn't he pass 2♥?

Maybe.

 

The 3D was made freely, yes, but does this imply 15HCP+? Or is there an upper bound?

 

Ask yourself, would you pass with a nice 12 count and a good 6 carder?

Do you expect partner to reopen with the knowledge that there is no secondary spade

fit (lack of suppX) and 2-3 hearts and 8-10 points?

 

I am not saying it is unplayable, I never say this, but having to pass with opening hands holding

a 6 carder with 12-15 gives up the part score fight very quickly.

 

At IMPs you may gain with the game going / slam interested hands, but 2 part score swings

are also equal a game swing, at MP it is even more problematic, possible a winning strategy,

although I would be sceptical, but it would involve a lot of discipline.

[P_Marlowe]

It certainly worked for them. The NS pair here won convincingly with 65.14%, we were second by a fair distance with 58.73% so they weren't volunteering many boards to anyone else in the field either.

There are players, that handle card play well and, given the right field, their agressive bidding intimidates the opponents, they dont place as well,

when the quality of the field is higher, or a bit higher and more homogenious.

The style generates a lot of swings, and you can get higher sections scores, if the winds blow in your direction, a less swingy style makes it harder

to achieve high overall section scores.

 

.......

 

It is a statistical fact, that in a coin flip competition, if you lead, chances are high, that you stay in the lead.

Good results bring you in the zone, and if you are in the zone, good results keep coming.

[DavidKok]

Ask yourself, would you pass with a nice 12 count and a good 6 carder?

Do you expect partner to reopen with the knowledge that there is no secondary spade

fit (lack of suppX) and 2-3 hearts and 8-10 points?

 

I am not saying it is unplayable, I never say this, but having to pass with opening hands holding

a 6 carder with 12-15 gives up the part score fight very quickly.

I expect partner to make the right decision most of the time, especially if I open diamonds which already promises 5 (almost always). But this exact problem is why some people play a Good/Bad 2NT. Passing is less risky than it may seem.

 

 

There are players, that handle card play well and, given the right field, their agressive bidding intimidates the opponents, they dont place as well,

when the quality of the field is higher, or a bit higher and more homogenious.

The style generates a lot of swings, and you can get higher sections scores, if the winds blow in your direction, a less swingy style makes it harder

to achieve high overall section scores.

 

.......

 

It is a statistical fact, that in a coin flip competition, if you lead, chances are high, that you stay in the lead.

Good results bring you in the zone, and if you are in the zone, good results keep coming.

I think aggressive bidding is a net winner, pretty much regardless of the quality of the field. The risks are higher in a good field but so are the gains (you don't let them play their perfected constructive system). The variance bit is true, but I'm not happy with the idea that aggressive bidding intimidates the opponents. In my view competitive bidding is far more important than constructive bidding, and if someone is not comfortable with contested auctions that's mostly on them.

The 'zone' thing is more of a pitfall than a boon, in my experience. Results are a martingale. If I find they're not, and my results on previous boards sway me to take different actions on the current one, I always try to take a moment to calm down. Last board doesn't change the odds on the current deal.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

I think aggressive bidding is a net winner, pretty much regardless of the quality of the field. The risks are higher in a good field but so are the gains (you don't let them play their perfected constructive system). The variance bit is true, but I'm not happy with the idea that aggressive bidding intimidates the opponents. In my view competitive bidding is far more important than constructive bidding, and if someone is not comfortable with contested auctions that's mostly on them.

The 'zone' thing is just false. It's just a martingale.

 

I agree, ..., to clarify: "aggressive bidding intimidates the opponents"

 

A certain type of players likes to trash bunnies, i.e. like to play in fields, that are weaker than they are,

and quite often the opponents are not able to counter those tactics.

You need to know the specific peoble involved, but Als post indicated a mixed / club level field, and

some players that dominate those fields due to their agressive bidding fail to do similar well in stronger fields.

 

...

 

 

What ever you call it, riding the martingale is fun.

On a more serious note: Good results improve your mood / spirit, and being in a good mood helps your game.

If you get better, bad results dont get your mood down as easily, but it still has an effect.

[P_Marlowe]

I expect partner to make the right decision most of the time, especially if I open diamonds which already promises 5 (almost always). But this exact problem is why some people play a Good/Bad 2NT. Passing is less risky than it may seem.

 

And if you agree to pass with those hands, pass puts a upper bound on your hand, and bidding a lower bound, where ever the bound starts.

And whatever the bounds are, partner with the original hand, has to use the brakes or accelerate.

Just be sure, that you are on the same page with regards to the driver manual.

[pescetom]

The 'zone' thing is more of a pitfall than a boon, in my experience. Results are a martingale. If I find they're not, and my results on previous boards sway me to take different actions on the current one, I always try to take a moment to calm down. Last board doesn't change the odds on the current deal.

 

Naah. I often agree with you, but not here. My modest experience in bridge and more significant experience in other sports says that the 'zone' thing is fundamental to winning and to minimising the cost of winning. If you can find it, you can win almost by turning up and enjoying yourself. If you can't, success can be a stress and not trying a relief.

[Gilithin]

[hv=pc=n&e=sak52h87daj93cj63&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1dp1s2h3d3h]133|200[/hv]

 

Playing 5CM strong NT, what do you do here, MPs? For some reason it has come out as EW vuln but it was no-one vuln.

In order for us to make an informed decision over 3♥, we first have to know what agreements were in place for partner over 2♥. Once we get that far, we also have to discuss agreements for our seat. Many players, myself included, prefer some form of Thrump double at the 3 level. Meanwhile, many social players still play all doubles above 2♠ as penalty in line with Culbertson's rules. Looking at the South hand, it would also be helpful to know that we are playing against weak/social players. These all seem to be factors that might affect the choice here.

[AL78]

In order for us to make an informed decision over 3♥, we first have to know what agreements were in place for partner over 2♥. Once we get that far, we also have to discuss agreements for our seat. Many players, myself included, prefer some form of Thrump double at the 3 level. Meanwhile, many social players still play all doubles above 2♠ as penalty in line with Culbertson's rules. Looking at the South hand, it would also be helpful to know that we are playing against weak/social players. These all seem to be factors that might affect the choice here.

 

This was a scratch partnership with very little agreement beyond cue bidding opps suit shows a constructive raise. A double by partner would have shown heart shortage and tolerance for the black suits. I assumed 3♦ was a better than minimum opener. There was no agreement on what a double over 3♥ by me would mean. North is a fairly experienced but not very strong player. South is a weak player.

[P_Marlowe]

This was a scratch partnership with very little agreement beyond cue bidding opps suit shows a constructive raise. A double by partner would have shown heart shortage and tolerance for the black suits. I assumed 3♦ was a better than minimum opener. There was no agreement on what a double over 3♥ by me would mean. North is a fairly experienced but not very strong player. South is a weak player.

Hi,

 

#1 looking at the bids 2H / 3H, I may have assesed the playing strength of N / S switched, raising a passed hand with 4333

in an auction that still could be a part score battle is ..., 2H is a gambit, at least you give partner a hint what to lead,

if he has to lead.

 

#2 You had three reasonable options X, 4H (only if you are certain partner does not take it as a control showing fit raise), 5D.

5D did not work out, but it is unclear, if X would have worked out better, X does not promise game going values, only inv.+ value, partner may or

may not have passed (hopefully he does not repeat his story, by rebidding diamonds a 3rd time).

The problem with 5D is, you are playing MP.

 

#3 You regular voice, that you are frustrated with your final session results, I understand this and can relate.

The thing is, you need a partnership that does not start at zero at the begin of every evening.

For a scratch partnership 58% in a session is a success, and it does not matter, who won.

You could take this result as starting point to repeat the partnership, after a couple of weeks, you have formed a loose partnership and hopefully

learned to understand each other better with each session.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jillybean]

Upvote for the above discussion, it reminds that I should be disciplined regardless of whom I am playing against.

[Gilithin]

Opener has freely bid 3♦, if he was a minimum opener wouldn't he pass 2♥?

The answer to this depends on how the pair plays X and 2NT. This is why the agreements are important. Without some basic agreements, competitive auctions can easily turn into more or less random guesses.

[AL78]

#3 You regular voice, that you are frustrated with your final session results, I understand this and can relate.

The thing is, you need a partnership that does not start at zero at the begin of every evening.

For a scratch partnership 58% in a session is a success, and it does not matter, who won.

You could take this result as starting point to repeat the partnership, after a couple of weeks, you have formed a loose partnership and hopefully

learned to understand each other better with each session.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

Ideally I would have a thorough discussion on bids and sequences in competitive situations but given I am only playing with this partner in one event I'm not sure it is worth the time and effort to go into in depth discussion. Yesterday we only got 49% but that was mostly self inflicted, neither of us were at our best, and it didn't help that it took until round seven out of eight before I got to declare.

 

58% last week was a good result and I am happy with that. I was expecting much worse. When there are only a few tables and boards are only played three times, I question how meaningful the final scores are. The purpose of our recent sessions was not to win but to get a bit of a feel for each other. The session yesterday worked out badly for that because we were on the wrong end of a hand bias and hardly got into the auction on many boards.

 

I've been getting less frustrated with results recently because I have been doing better which I suspect is due to a reduction in being on the wrong side of randomness but I haven't done any rigorous analysis.