[wank]

The Gold Cup is the premier UK teams of 4 K-O competition. The QF was 64 boards. Opp team included the likes of Zia.

We lost by 5 imps. 2 of the hands that cost us below. ATBesque comments please.

---

This was cold for -730.

---

The club finesse is wrong so 6C is -1. Subsiding in 4C was rather poor though. Basic system is 4cM strong NT. 1C opener promised 4 unless 18-19 bal (then better minor). 2C was not inverted. To clarify 4C was not meant as, and obviously wasn't interpreted as, forcing.

[pooltuna]

1) North ...forgot the colors?
2) North for opening 1♣; South for not raising 4♣ to 5

[Flameous]

1. First double was negative, second should show flattish hand, values and defense cause partner is passing it fairly often. Here he has undisclosed 4 card support so partner can hardly make good decision. Should just bid 4♣. Of course I understand that he was trying to reach 3NT, so I don't blame him too much.

2. This seems just something that has to be agreed, what bid is GF, when can we stop in 4C and so on. Although I put mostly the blame on north here, he could just jump to 5♣ over 3NT. Of course if S has void in spades, there is still a slam. Depends a bit on handling those 55s overall. Does this sequence show bad spades and with good ones you'd open 1♠?

[nige1]

wank, on 2010-November-23, 11:17, said:

The Gold Cup is the premier UK teams of 4 K-O competition. The QF was 64 boards. Opp team included the likes of Zia. We lost by 5 imps. 2 of the hands that cost us below. ATBesque comments please. This was cold for -730.

---

The club finesse is wrong so 6C is -1. Subsiding in 4C was rather poor though. Basic system is 4cM strong NT. 1C opener promised 4 unless 18-19 bal (then better minor). 2C was not inverted. To clarify 4C was not meant as, and obviously wasn't interpreted as, forcing.

---

IMO...

• Methods = 60%, North 40%, South 0%. North has a difficult bid over 2♠ but double is a poor call when you have four-card or better support for partner's bid suit (although it always seems to be popular on BBO).
• South = 95% North 5%. North has shown an opening bid with at least 5 clubs and at least 5 spades. He could pattern out with 4♦ but that is an overbid. South showed a weak hand with four clubs, then reluctantly admitted to red suit stops. He has an ace, a singleton and an extra trump, in reserve. 4♣ is a sixpence and the Gold Cup is imps not BAM.

[ArtK78]

1. The second double with undisclosed 4 card club support was very poor. It reeks of matchpointitis. North should bid 4♣ rather than double.

2. Once South bids 3♦, I do not see how North can stop short of 5♣. It has to have some play. The heart void is HUGE.

[OleBerg]

1) Kinda bad luck. You'd expect to beat 3♠ a large amount of the time, and 4♣ is auto-down. Of course, if the second double is penalty, it stinks. The 2♣-overcall has all the defence partner should expect.

2) Degrees of obviousness. North has an obvious 5♣. South has an even more obvious raise of 4♣.

[Free]

1. I blame North for doubling twice.

2. FYP

wank, on 2010-November-23, 11:23, said:

Disagree with free wank. Why is this in the SAYC and 2/1 Advanced and Expert-Class forum?

[rhm]

OleBerg, on 2010-November-23, 13:38, said:

1) Kinda bad luck. You'd expect to beat 3♠ a large amount of the time, and 4♣ is auto-down. Of course, if the second double is penalty, it stinks. The 2♣-overcall has all the defence partner should expect.

I beg to differ. It is not bad luck and with one defensive trick I would not expect to beat 3♠ a large amount of time, particularly not when opponents are vulnerable. The second double, though not strictly penalty, is just asking for a disaster to happen. How often do you expect partner to run to 4♣ when you are looking at an undisclosed ♣QJ72? Double should not be a default action, if you do not know what to do. Pass is a much better candidate, though I would bid 4♣ here.

Rainer Herrmann

[dake50]

On first, your double included 4-support for partner's clubs.
When would you raise? 4C not repeat double!
On second, 5-support and subsiding?
They as much as told you 5C is on they fear.

[han]

Hand 1 I think both doubles were very bad. After 2S your hand is good enough to bid 3H and then you can bid 4C over 3S, that feels about right. Saying that 3SX= is unlucky because it would often go down is a very strange comment at IMPs. I would never double twice without showing QJxx of support.

Hand 2 your stone age methods were perfect for this hand. Responder's hand was very good for 2C, and when opener shows a good 5-5 or 5-6 I would never stop below game. Opener could also bid more, the 3D bid was welcome. Still I blame responder more.

[paulg]

The first hand is a problem with the soft values in the pointed suits. You'd prefer another heart for a direct 3♥, presuming forcing, although if partner raises with Hx then the contract will be no worse than 5♣. I don't like the first double but it does have upside and some level of control if they do not raise spades.

The second double is definitely wrong when partner has six clubs. However if you play ulven's style of 2♣ overcall, potentially weakish 5-card clubs with opening values, then it will work sometimes but seems more appropriate to matchpoints.

Only an expert partnership could concede -730 on this hand.

On the second hand I'm surprised North did not bid 5♣ as it seems very difficult to write down a hand for South where it is poor. Unlike Han I think this is really opener's fault.

[andy_h]

1. I think I prefer either 3H or 3S on the first round. But of course the 2nd double was the worst action when you supress QJxx support (especially that a lot of the times 2m overcalls will be 6 card suits).

2. Both are to blame but more to South. From South's perspective, the singleton spade, fifth trump and the Ace of diamonds seems to be screaming out for slam really. Opener has bid which sounds a lot like a 5-6 (but evidently with 5-5's too) but it justifies some sort of move at least. They pay bonuses for games! North should bid 5C over 3NT since the 3D bid by responder looks well-fitting with opener's hand. Responder made a delayed 3NT bid which suggests one stopper with possibly even five diamonds say xx Kx AJxxx xxxx. But on the actual hand I actually don't understand responder's 3NT bid if opener has suggested at least a 5-5 shape with only one stopper and a singleton spade. So big blame to South.

[OleBerg]

rhm, on 2010-November-24, 06:34, said:

I beg to differ. It is not bad luck and with one defensive trick I would not expect to beat 3♠ a large amount of time, particularly not when opponents are vulnerable. The second double, though not strictly penalty, is just asking for a disaster to happen. How often do you expect partner to run to 4♣ when you are looking at an undisclosed ♣QJ72? Double should not be a default action, if you do not know what to do. Pass is a much better candidate, though I would bid 4♣ here.

Rainer Herrmann

When I wrote "Kinda bad luck" I was referring to the combined NS effort. Looking at all four hands, I's expect 3♠ to be minus very often, -2 on a very sunny day.

I also assumed the second double to be take-out. (If it is penalty or DSIP (Whatever that is), I don't like it.) North-South has a difficult time on this hand, with 24 hcp and 3♣ as last winning spot.

I am not saying that their actions are standout, but looking at all four hands, I'd still rather defend 3♠X than play 4♣. Of course I'd prefer to defend 3♠ undoubled, but North simply has to take another bid.

Also, there's the odd chance that 3NT might still be a winner. Hard to get there after 4♣.

This time, what would normally have been the winning action, backfired. I'd still write it off as "***** happens".

Edit: I didn't put those stars there

[gnasher]

paulg, on 2010-November-24, 08:06, said:

On the second hand I'm surprised North did not bid 5♣ as it seems very difficult to write down a hand for South where it is poor.

xx Kxx AJ10x xxxx

Jx Axx J109x Kxxx

South bid 3♦ only after he was invited to do so by North. I don't think it shows the earth. North knew of some heart wastage opposite, so it would be optimistic to hope for South to cover two of his four losers

I think South was very feeble on this hand. A singleton in partner's suit is a good holding when you have five trumps. Although his hand was really no better than x xxx AJxx xxxxx, that's worth game once North shows 5-5 and then removes 3NT

[the hog]

wank, on 2010-November-23, 11:17, said:

The Gold Cup is the premier UK teams of 4 K-O competition. The QF was 64 boards. Opp team included the likes of Zia.

We lost by 5 imps. 2 of the hands that cost us below. ATBesque comments please.

---

This was cold for -730.

---

The club finesse is wrong so 6C is -1. Subsiding in 4C was rather poor though. Basic system is 4cM strong NT. 1C opener promised 4 unless 18-19 bal (then better minor). 2C was not inverted. To clarify 4C was not meant as, and obviously wasn't interpreted as, forcing.

The Gold Cup Quarter Final?!
On hand one North's bidding was from Alice in Wonderland. Why the first double? Ok perhaps 3H was not forcing and with 4 card C support, Nth wanted to make sure of a force. If 3H was forcing, then double is poor. The second double is insane however. Why does north believe he can beat 3S. Was it for takeout again?

The second hand. I thought that opening 1C with a 5-5 black shape had gone out of fashion when Noah lost his last Bridge match. However I guess there are some troglodytes around. North's failure to bid 5C is incomprehensible, as is South's failure to raise 5C to 4.

[rhm]

the hog, on 2010-November-24, 19:02, said:

The Gold Cup Quarter Final?!
On hand one North's bidding was from Alice in Wonderland. Why the first double? Ok perhaps 3H was not forcing and with 4 card C support, Nth wanted to make sure of a force. If 3H was forcing, then double is poor. The second double is insane however. Why does north believe he can beat 3S. Was it for takeout again?

Everybody plays the first double as takeout, for which I would expect 5 cards in ♥ more often than not, and I at least consider it pretty normal. Whether 3♥, even when forcing, is a better bid can be argued. Partner is unlikely to have ♥. ♣ or notrump contracts look like more likely contenders.
But you can define the second double as you like. It is true, that if you have a takeout double over 2 ♠, you can hardly have a penalty double now. However, fact is, that over-caller's options will be severely restricted, since he passed already over 3♠. If you double a second time the most likely contract by far will be 3♠ doubled and this is the contract, for which you must be prepared for.
(As a side note give South one ♦ more instead of a black card and he might now bid 4♦ over the second double and you will end up playing in 5♣ doubled.)
I would expect that most people would define the second double as showing extra strength. Superficially North does have this. But those values must be convertible to defensive tricks. 4 queens do not necessarily add up to a single defensive trick and the club length actually subtracts from the defensive prospects his partner will hold. Give yourself 3 more cards in ♦ instead of in ♣ and I would still not double a second time, but many would.

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

On the second hand 4♣ is forcing, so whatever north did before (wich I don't like much), south is to blame for passing a forcing bid.


On the first one I would never overcall 2♣ with that hand but I understand its a popular style.

North still gets all the blame for missjudging his ODR, doubling opponents at the 3 level with a 10 card fit and a possible 7 card fit in hearts leads to -730 more often than he thinks. Sure his double is not penalty, but it is not strictly take out any more either.

[kgr]

wank, on 2010-November-23, 11:17, said:

To clarify 4C was not meant as, and obviously wasn't interpreted as, forcing.

Fluffy, on 2010-November-25, 06:18, said:

On the second hand 4♣ is forcing, so whatever north did before (wich I don't like much), south is to blame for passing a forcing bid.

I would also take 4C as forcing, but apparently that wasn't a disagreement for OP.

[OleBerg]

At the table it would never have occurred to me, that 4♣ is non-forcing, but when you think about it, it makes perfect sense.

South has only supported 1♣ to 2♣, and should be in no position to set up a force, unless invited to do so. And there is no reason whatsoever that North should not be able to show 5-5 in the blacks, without commiting to 3NT or 5♣.

After all, if North want to force, he has 4♦ and 4♥ available.

All this within the "5-5 in blacks are opened with 1♣" context.

It's not my method, but I like the actual bidding-sequence. (Or rather, I would have, if NS had the cards to fit it.)

[wank]

well i was south on both. i seem to have escaped relatively unscathed on the first one - i thought doubling twice with undisclosed 4 card support was a bad idea for what was 95% to be a 6 card suit.

on the second one i get more criticism. at the time i thought i had shown some strength by voluntarily going past 3C and had implied short spades with 3NT - i had no desire to actually play there. when P signed off in 4C - yes a sign off in our methods - i was worried partner might have too many quick losers for 5C, e.g. KQJxx xx H AKQxx. With partner's actual hand I would have expected him to be more that delighted to hear the 3D call. I don't see how game can be on worse than a club finesse from that point.

this was a good hand for the 1930s bidding we wheel out. sad then that we didn't get to a sensible contract.

in case anyone's wondering how we got to this stage of the competition with bidding of this quality we did do better in the play. bragging alert: 2 hands against zia had me feeling rather smug - on one i led low away from KQT stiff towards 4 low on the 1st round of the suit, dropping his partner's stiff ace - on the other i got an endplay then triple squeezed zia which involved leading AQ out of hand to drop his finessable stiff king so the squeeze could repeat.