[Hanoi5]

---

[Cyberyeti]

Having seen the hands and the auction, there's no guarantee that anybody's done anything wrong yet, -200 with ♠3-1, ♣4-2 and a correct guess would appear to be par

I really don't like the 3♠ bid though, give the 3♠ bidder AKxx, xxx, xx, KQxx which might be more normal and 4♠ looks very reasonable opposite.

[JLOGIC]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-29, 05:40, said:

Having seen the hands and the auction, there's no guarantee that anybody's done anything wrong yet, -200 with ♠3-1, ♣4-2 and a correct guess would appear to be par

If south has 3 diamonds and Jxx of spades you still go down 2 on this optimistic layout. Ok, I guess not that optimistic, south could have AK doubleton of diamonds and be blocked after a heart lead and then you just wrap 4S

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the 3S bid told West, that he has a 64 fit, partner did bid freely,
4S was not a sacrifice, assuming a standard 3S bid, 4S has a good chance
to make.

I wont comment on the 3S, but if partner complains about the 4S bid, he is
dead.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gordontd]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-February-29, 06:26, said:

the 3S bid told West, that he has a 64 fit, partner did bid freely,

Doesn't 1S show five, and therefore 3S only promise three? (Not that I'm defending the 3S bid entirely).

[HighLow21]

I agree with 3♠ entirely. Partner made a free bid. That means he has at least 5 (if playing negative doubles) and enough strength to act. I have AKQ, the best 3-card holding possible. Put simply, we want to play in spades. Partner needs to know we have a fit and that's exactly what 3♠ shows. (By the way, the 3-small holding in ♥ is now very valuable. It guarantees that partner has heart shortness and there's no reason to believe he has a wasted heart honor.)

4♠ is a bit of a problem. It is marginal, but reasonable at IMPs, shooting for the vulnerable game, and if partner had one more club and one fewer diamonds, or if partner also held A♥ or K♥ and the diamonds blocked, or a number of other things, then 4♠ has chances. However the game is not a good one for several reasons:
1. West has a 9-loser hand. Assuming the LTC is accurate for this hand, East would need a 5-loser hand for 4♠ to be on. East's bidding tends to show at least 6 losers, probably 7. (He actually has 7.5.)
2. West is minimum in HCP for his bidding; he has a 6th spade but nothing extra.
3. West's Q♥ is proven to be nearly worthless on the auction.
4. West's Q♥ suggests that East must be minimum for his bidding. (See Mike Lawrence, Hand Evaluation for further elaboration on this very important point.)

Thus the game has to be an underdog to fail. Still it's not a terrible shot, and with a minimum of 9 spades held together, the LTC is usually conservative by 1. In other words, if partner has 6 losers, and 24 - (9 + 6) = 9 tricks, then maybe a 10th will appear out of any of a series of possible events. So, in my view, both East and West are stretching a bit, but neither bid is terrible.

Also, it pays to bid 4♠ over 4♥ in the long run on hands where one is not sure who can make what -- and on this hand, West has no reason to believe 4♥ must fail, and no reason to believe 4♠ must fail.

The worst bid of all of them was, in my opinion, the double of 4♠. It stands to gain 100 points most of the time and lose from 170 in the event of 4♠=, up to 860 in the event of a redoubled overtrick. At matchpoints it might be a good tactic, because 4♠ rates to go down more than the necessary 50% of the time, but the double is terrible at IMPs in my opinion.

[Cyberyeti]

HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 08:15, said:

The worst bid of all of them was, in my opinion, the double of 4♠. It stands to gain 100 points most of the time and lose from 170 in the event of 4♠=, up to 860 in the event of a redoubled overtrick. At matchpoints it might be a good tactic, because 4♠ rates to go down more than the necessary 50% of the time, but the double is terrible at IMPs in my opinion.

Well unless he has a club void and 3 spades and is getting 1100 for missing 6♥ But seriously this can easily be 500 in a couple of ways (either Justin's method or a club misguess)

[Phil]

HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 08:15, said:

Partner made a free bid.

/reading

[HighLow21]

Phil, on 2012-February-29, 11:06, said:

/reading

Huh?

[Statto]

HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 08:15, said:

The worst bid of all of them was, in my opinion, the double of 4♠. It stands to gain 100 points most of the time and lose from 170 in the event of 4♠=, up to 860 in the event of a redoubled overtrick. At matchpoints it might be a good tactic, because 4♠ rates to go down more than the necessary 50% of the time, but the double is terrible at IMPs in my opinion.

Not sure how you can criticise this without seeing North's hand. 100:170 is 3:5, so a 63% chance of defeating would be enough, but you overlook the chance of it going 2 off which is gaining 7 IMPs compared to undoubled.

[ArtK78]

I don't know if I find fault with any of the calls.

Certainly, the 3♠ bid with xxx in both red suits is flawed, but it could easily be right. After all, you hold AKQ in partner's known 5 card (or longer) suit. If you don't raise, partner is unlikely to bid the suit again when it is right to do so.

And it can certainly be said that the West hand is not a thing of beauty, either. Four quick losers in the red suits and a trump suit of xxxxxx.

Still, if either partner had a doubleton diamond we would be looking for the ♣Q to score up this contract. And, on top of everything else, the opponents may very well be cold for 4♥.

So, assigning the blame on this one may just be an exercise in 20-20 hindsight.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on 2012-February-29, 15:13, said:

Still, if either partner had a doubleton diamond we would be looking for the ♣Q to score up this contract.

True, but East knows that he doesn't have a doubleton diamond, and he should think it unlikely that West has one, as West probably has a singleton heart. Having three low in a suit where you expect your partner to have 3 or 4 cards is bad.

That's probably just another way of saying that 4333 is a bad shape for a suit contract.

[HighLow21]

Statto, on 2012-February-29, 15:04, said:

Not sure how you can criticise this without seeing North's hand. 100:170 is 3:5, so a 63% chance of defeating would be enough, but you overlook the chance of it going 2 off which is gaining 7 IMPs compared to undoubled.

Yes, I do want to see North's hand. It's possible that he has his double, so perhaps I should have waited to see North's hand before making the comment. That said, I've just seen far too may of these doubles on BBO and when they work out, they are OK, but they often risk a lot to gain little. I cannot imagine North's double is a good percentage play without all 4 missing spades and a singleton in one of the minors, for example.

At least the double is of a game contract. I've seen so many of these doubles at the 2 or 3 level, risking a game bonus and everything else, in the hope of collecting an extra 100.

[HighLow21]

ArtK78, on 2012-February-29, 15:13, said:

I don't know if I find fault with any of the calls.

Certainly, the 3♠ bid with xxx in both red suits is flawed, but it could easily be right. After all, you hold AKQ in partner's known 5 card (or longer) suit. If you don't raise, partner is unlikely to bid the suit again when it is right to do so.

And it can certainly be said that the West hand is not a thing of beauty, either. Four quick losers in the red suits and a trump suit of xxxxxx.

Still, if either partner had a doubleton diamond we would be looking for the ♣Q to score up this contract. And, on top of everything else, the opponents may very well be cold for 4♥.

So, assigning the blame on this one may just be an exercise in 20-20 hindsight.

Yeah I guess I should say: none of the calls to me is DEFINITELY wrong. If I had to place a wager on the worst call made without seeing the N/S hands, I'd have to put my money on North's double -- again, barring complete information.