Assign the blame

[Poky]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sjtxxhxxxdktxcaxx&w=sq9xhakqdqj6xxcxx&e=sahxxxxd7xxcjxxxx&s=sk8xxxhjxxda9ckqx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

1[sp] 2[di] 2[sp] 3[di]
3[sp] Dbl Pa 4[di]
Pa Pa Dbl All Pa

 

Who is to blame for the horrible result (and how may %)?

 

Rate the bids: 2♦, 3♦, Dbl, 4♦ (0-10).

 

TY, Poky

[helene_t]

Probably dbl was meant as penalty but read as action.

 

But the 2♦ overcall was extremely unsound. ♠Q and ♥AKQ make it unlikely that opps have game, so even -200 would be a bad result. And if partner has no tollerance for diamonds, -500 is quite realistic.

 

West must either pass or overcall 1NT. I'm not and expert in card evaluation so I could easily be wrong, but I think this hand has too little trick-taking potential for 1NT. So pass.

[Fluffy]

2♦: 4/10

3♦: 2/10

X= 1/10

4♦: 7/10

[Finch]

2D: 1/10 Might work, but horrible. And Qxx in spades the worst holding.

3D: 10/10 Impeccable

 

Dbl/4D: Seems to be a partnership issue. I play double as penalties here, in which case Dbl = 5/10 (aggressive but might work; clear at MPs) and 4D = 0. However, if dbl = game try then Dbl = 2/10 (why?) and 4D = 8/10.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I voted for double, but since the question was raised in Adv.

and Expert, I feel there is some crucial information missing.

 

Do you play Good-Bad 2 NT or Bad-Good 2 NT, i.e. was the

raise to 3D purely competitive or did it show some values?

 

If the raise was purely competitive, as it seems, the Dbl of 3S

is just hanging partner, if it shows values, well then the raise was

the culprit.

 

One may debate aboute the 4D escape bid, because the hand holds the

Ace of spades, i.e. sure trick, but probably 4D was bid, because this player

feared, that partner may have expected more for the 3D call.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Probbably I would not have bid 2D, but this is another partnership

issue as well.

[Chamaco]

Hi,

 

I voted for double, but since the question was raised in Adv.

and Expert, I feel there is some crucial information missing.

 

Do you play Good-Bad 2 NT or Bad-Good 2 NT, i.e. was the

raise to 3D purely competitive or did it show some values?

 

If the raise was purely competitive, as it seems, the Dbl of 3S

is just hanging partner, if it shows values, well then the raise was

the culprit.

 

One may debate aboute the 4D escape bid, because the hand holds the

Ace of spades, i.e. sure trick, but probably 4D was bid, because this player

feared, that partner may have expected more for the 3D call.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Probbably I would not have bid 2D, but this is another partnership

issue as well.

Agree with Marlowe here. To rate the bids, the interpretations are needed.

 

1. I would not bid 2D with this hand; I would expect more distribution and /or a better/longer suit.With AKQ in hearts, I would have doubled, not the best bid in the world, but avoids other problems.

 

2. 3D is purely competitive, the way I play it. So Double, even intended for penalties, is hanging pard.

 

 

In this view, 2D and 4D seem reasonable to me, and I do not like at all the 2D and DBL bids (DBL being much worse).

[flytoox]

2D: 1/10 Might work, but horrible. And Qxx in spades the worst holding.

3D: 10/10 Impeccable

 

Dbl/4D: Seems to be a partnership issue. I play double as penalties here, in which case Dbl = 5/10 (aggressive but might work; clear at MPs) and 4D = 0. However, if dbl = game try then Dbl = 2/10 (why?) and 4D = 8/10.

I think 2D is not that bad. I admit this is not an excellent overcall, but it is certainly not the worst.

 

About a year ago there is a similar hand on this board and I remembered Fred said he would overcall 2D or dbl if playing equal level conversioin. He even asked Justin to ask Hamman's opinion and Hamman says he will dbl. Apparently he is playing ELC.

 

I thought 2D is bad before that. Since ppl like Fred and Hamman consider to compete with this kind hand, perhaps we should think about it before pass.

 

 

I really dont like dbl. As for 3D. Since I like to hear pd's raise, I wont blame it.

 

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Hongjun

[mgtusi]

2 ♦ : 3/10

 

3 ♦ : 0/10

 

DOUBLE : 0/10 at IMPS, 10/10 at MP

 

4 ♦ : 0/10

 

 

As you understand, this sequence is not my style :)

[whereagles]

Dbl was for penalties (with fit, dbl = pen), and East doesn't have extreme enough distribution to pull it out. That being said, I would have pulled out had I seen pard's hand.. lol

[Finch]

About a year ago there is a similar hand on this board and I remembered Fred said he would overcall 2D or dbl if playing equal level conversioin. He even asked Justin to ask Hamman's opinion and Hamman says he will dbl. Apparently he is playing ELC.

 

I thought 2D is bad before that. Since ppl like Fred and Hamman consider to compete with this kind hand, perhaps we should think about it before pass.

It didn't have Qxx in RHO's first bid suit.

[coyot]

Well, the only questionable bid is 2♦. Other bids on that line are terrible.

3♦ is against LOTT (unless 2♦ promises 6card), in red a suicide already.

Dbl on 3♠, no matter how meant, suicide. I mean, if you expect partner to have 4card support, you might be lacking the ace, therefore making 3heart tricks and one trick on the side - either trump or club.

4♦ was IMHO another blunder, because when my p. doubles 3♠, this simply must be penalties. And, if I know that my 3♦ bid was bad, 3♠x will probably make, but 4♦ will go down even more :)

[hotShot]

dbl after an agreed fit, should be penalty, East holds ace of trump which is the savest trick, now west will have to produce 4 tricks to prove his bid right.

 

1) East should not run, so 4♦ is very bad.

2) dbl is lunatic, because you'll need lots of luck to get 3 tricks in ♥ and Q♠ and you still need partner to bring an additional trick.

[helene_t]

I don't think 3♦ is against the LOTT. Opps are almost certain to have eight spades and likely to have nine. Partner is likely to have six diamonds - when he makes a two-level overcall at IMPs, he says he will be very happy with a doubleton support and not too depressed with a singleton support, even if doubled. So if 2♠ makes, 3♦ cannot be more than one down if the LOTT is accurate, and is most likely to make. And even then, they might not double. Of course, 2♠ could be plus one while 3♦ is down two doubled, so 3♦ is not 100% LOTT-safe, but in most cases it will ok.

 

I can immagine a t/o dbl with the West hand if you play ELC. A friend of mine recently asked a number of experts how to bid in the same situation with

♠J7

♥K53

♦AQ963

♣K93

Being one spade shorter, pass is less attractive with this hand, and also the diamond suit is better. The panel was divided between dbl and pass.

[coyot]

2) dbl is lunatic, because you'll need lots of luck to get 3 tricks in ♥ and Q♠ and you still need partner to bring an additional trick.

Yep... if partner has Kxxx in diamonds and KQ in clubs, you're doubling on the hope that declarer has both spade honors :).

 

If partner has Axxx in diamonds, you're doubling on the hope that he has a side trick.

 

All that at IMPs where the gain is +100 and the loss -590 (comparing +200 to +100 if undoubled and -730 to -140 if undoubled.)

[P_Marlowe]

3♦ is against LOTT (unless 2♦ promises 6card), in red a suicide already.

Hi,

 

if you cite the LOTT, please cite it correctly :)

 

According to the law, it is ok, to go to the 3 level

with your 8 card fit, if they have a 8 card fit in a

higher ranking suit.

=> The law is of with -1, but this is ok.

 

What you should not do, is outbidding the oppoents

on the 3 level, if you hold only a 8 card fit, because in

this case the law may be off -2.

 

If you look at the hand of the 4D bidders, you have one

pos. adjustments, shortage in their suit, and one neg.

adjustments, the Ace of spades, since the number of

pos. and neg. is the same, you should follow the law.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Poky]

Dbl was for penalties (with fit, dbl = pen), and East doesn't have extreme enough distribution to pull it out. That being said, I would have pulled out had I seen pard's hand.. lol

So, what do you bid with:

♠x

♥KQx

♦KQ10xxx

♣AQx

[coyot]

3♦ is against LOTT (unless 2♦ promises 6card), in red a suicide already.

Hi,

 

if you cite the LOTT, please cite it correctly :)

 

According to the law, it is ok, to go to the 3 level

with your 8 card fit, if they have a 8 card fit in a

higher ranking suit.

=> The law is of with -1, but this is ok.

 

What you should not do, is outbidding the oppoents

on the 3 level, if you hold only a 8 card fit, because in

this case the law may be off -2.

 

If you look at the hand of the 4D bidders, you have one

pos. adjustments, shortage in their suit, and one neg.

adjustments, the Ace of spades, since the number of

pos. and neg. is the same, you should follow the law.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

If you want to cite LOTT correctly, do it. Look at the vulnerability. Defending their +110 by +200 is BAD :)

[mgtusi]

So, what do you bid with:

♠x

♥KQx

♦KQ10xxx

♣AQx

 

 

Double at IMPS and double at MP

[Free]

There isn't even a single decent bid from EW imo, so why bother? :)

[P_Marlowe]

3♦ is against LOTT (unless 2♦ promises 6card), in red a suicide already.

Hi,

 

if you cite the LOTT, please cite it correctly :)

 

According to the law, it is ok, to go to the 3 level

with your 8 card fit, if they have a 8 card fit in a

higher ranking suit.

=> The law is of with -1, but this is ok.

 

What you should not do, is outbidding the oppoents

on the 3 level, if you hold only a 8 card fit, because in

this case the law may be off -2.

 

If you look at the hand of the 4D bidders, you have one

pos. adjustments, shortage in their suit, and one neg.

adjustments, the Ace of spades, since the number of

pos. and neg. is the same, you should follow the law.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

If you want to cite LOTT correctly, do it. Look at the vulnerability. Defending their +110 by +200 is BAD :)

Hi

 

B) :) , ... well, you could be right, vulnerability may also be

a factor.

 

But playing IMP's I dont care, if they double 3D and it goes -1

for 200, because most of the time they will sweat blood and

water, because 3DX= is a real nice score to bring back.

 

Playing MP, you are right, but then the stress for the opponents

will be also great, and sometimes, they do not get the defence right.

 

With kind reards

Marlowe

[Chamaco]

dbl after an agreed fit, should be penalty, East holds ace of trump which is the savest trick, now west will have to produce 4 tricks to prove his bid right.

 

1) East should not run, so 4♦ is very bad.

2) dbl is lunatic, because you'll need lots of luck to get 3 tricks in ♥ and Q♠ and you still need partner to bring an additional trick.

 

DBL by a hand which simply overcalled at the previous round cannot be pure penalty.

The fact that the overcaller did not double at his first turn limits his hand to, say, 16 hcp , maybe 17.

 

The double by the 2D bidder is cardshowing: it should show a maximum 2D overcall (which I do not think he has: he has a good 14 hcp hand, but overcalling at the 2 level with less would be crazy, so he has already shown his values).

Pard is allowed to exert judgment and pull or pass according to his hand-type.

 

So the double is, IMO, much worse than the pulling: when west doubles, west sees only one trick in hand; is he supposed to play the 2D bidder for 4 tricks, to defeat 3S, at IMPS, risking doubling them into game ?

 

No thanks, I think the double, at IMPS, was ridiculous.

At IMPS you double a partscore when you expect to defeat it by 2+ tricks, the doubler here could not be sure of this: he might xpect to set the contract maybe by 1 trick, but then again the cost/benefit was against odds.

[coyot]

But playing IMP's I dont care, if they double 3D and it goes -1

for 200, because most of the time they will sweat blood and

water, because 3DX= is a real nice score to bring back.

 

Playing MP, you are right, but then the stress for the opponents

will be also great, and sometimes, they do not get the defence right.

 

With kind reards

Marlowe

Well, I do care :)

 

In fact, at MPs I would dare the 3♦ more often than at IMPs, because there gain vs. loss ratio is good (some chance they overbid, some chance they don't double or misdefend), but at IMPs, I play my bids by the book. I will NOT risk -200 or -500 unless I am sure that the defense will be very incompetent.

 

In the partscore battle, with opps not being stupid, the risk of -500 when cards lie badly for us is too big, because most of the field is likely to play 3♠+1 (not knowing about the good lie of cards while bidding).

 

To helene_t: If 2♦ promises a 6card (that is, partner is ready to accept the blame with 5card), this is a LOTT no-brainer, of course. But if the overcall is more often 5card than 6card, 3♦ is against LOTT.

[Blofeld]

The 3♦ bid is the only one in the auction that I actually like. The spade shortage along with the three card support give you enough for a competitive raise, I think. I'm reasonably happy at the three level even if partner has only five diamonds, and if six then passing now may let the opponents steal the auction at too low a level.

 

Given the yucky 2♦ bid, I don't mind the double that much (I'm assuming it's penalties as a fit has been found), but I don't think that I'd make it. I don't like 4♦ at all.

 

---

 

coyot: 3♦ doesn't really seem anti-LOTT even with a 5 card suit opposite.

Assuming we have an 8 card fit, they rate to have an 8 or 9 card fit. So to begin with we think that there are 16 or 17 total tricks available. But the singleton ♠ is a bonus, inclining us to a slightly higher estimate of the total tricks available (the fact that it is the Ace is more or less LOTT-neutral, I think), so 16+ to 17+.

 

If there are 16 total, which looks like the worst case, then if 2♠ is making, 3♦ is one off. So a bad score if they double. But people are wary of doubling you into game on borderline cases at IMPs. If 2♠ is one off, then 3♦ is making, which is a good result as we're not going to be able to double 2♠ (even better if they decided to double us!). If they're making 9 tricks, then we're just making 7 and things look a little more grim.

 

If there are 17 total, then passing 2♠ could be exhanging +110 for -110. If they're split other than 9/8 for us and them, then it doesn't make much difference.

 

And of course even if partner usually has just five, a reasonable amount of the time there will be more. Which may lead to 18 or more total trumps, and make it even more imperative to act. Partner won't bid again on his six card suit, so you'd better mention your support now.

[bearmum]

[coyot]

rating

2♦ 5 OK for overcall

3♦ MINUS 5!:) ( trumps /points insufficient at THIS vul)

X MINUS 10 ( where are 5 tricks coming from?)

4♦ 0 (all he could do after partnership's horrible bidding up to this point)

I'm not saying that 2♦ and x are equally good bids, but, if the doubling hand expects to score 3 hearts and 0.5 spade trick, it needs 1.5 tricks from partner,

but the same hand bids 2♦, when it can expect 6 tricks? (3♥ and with some luck 3♦, thus requiring 2 tricks from partner?

 

I would rate the 2♦ overcall as minus 5 as well, definitely not OK.

(the [3DI] that gets minus 5 from you expects a little more offense-oriented hand, likely 6card at this vul :blink:)