[awm]

I was north on this hand. I can understand why people don't like my 1♦ opening bid. My justification was as follows:

(1) I have length in both majors, so we are fairly likely to have a major suit fit. It wouldn't surprise me if the par result on this hand was +110 our way because of this, and if I pass and the board passes out (which may not happen, but is possible) then I think lose 3 imps is the most likely result.

(2) I am well-placed to pass any bid partner makes, with a reasonable chance of making. I agree that my hand is bad, but that's no reason to think we can't make 1♥, or 2♣ opposite a five card suit and 9-11 points.

(3) I don't expect partner to go crazy with the double card, given that we are unfavorable (wrong color to penalize), it's IMPs (wrong scoring for speculative partscore doubles), and all I did was open in third seat.

(4) I don't hold with the philosophy that a third seat opening is a "virtual command to lead my suit if we end up defending." My partners usually make good leads and I trust their judgement of whether to lead my suit or not. I understand that some very good players disagree with me on this (and would also point out that many of the top Italian pairs play very few lead directional bids or doubles, so I am definitely not alone here).

I'll note that opposite my partner's actual hand, we can probably make 2NT (and also a heart partial if hearts weren't 5-1).

What really troubles me is the plurality of people who blame not my light opening, but the failure to double 2♠ for our result. My judgement here was that 2♠ would probably make, and looking at the actual hands my judgement was dead on correct. Telling me that I should robotically double 2♠ is informing me that I am not allowed to use judgement which I think is somewhat offensive and a rather poor way to play bridge. Remind me not to partner anyone who thinks this way.

I should note that my partner did in fact blame my failure to double 2♠ for the result, saying that a double should be "automatic." I guess I am not a good enough player to understand that I should penalty double cold partscores into game at IMPs.

It's also interesting to me that for all the people who pointed out how awful my opening bid was (lots of slow cards, no controls), no one mentioned that the same holds of the double of 2♦. Partner has slow cards in both minors; is this really a hand where we should be defending a doubled major suit partscore opposite a major two-suiter? If you "upgrade" my hand to a real opening bid, most of the times we get 2♠X for 300 we'd also have made 3NT. I'd prefer a simple 2NT call (or a 2NT after the double) to the actual auction partner embarked on.

[DJNeill]

Hi all,
One interesting idea is what Garozzo currently plays: after a 3rd seat opening, and partner makes a card-showing XX (or here, double of Michaels), then opener's pass over RHO's action denies a full opening. All full openings must call. After handling charges, pretty good I think.

Later,
Dan

[P_Marlowe]

Hi Awm,

just one point, to a certain extend already made by Dan:

The partnership needs to discuss, if the double
creates a forcing pass situation.
This is probably standard, if the Dbl is made by
an unpassed hand, but the partnership also has
to discuss, if forcing pass is on, if the Dbler is
a passed hand, and if you want, if it is a 3rd seat
opener.

If the pass by opener is forcing:
You are allowed to use your judgement, but you have
to take into account, that pass says, that the partnership
is better of playing on the 3 level, because partner cant
bid 2NT missing a stopper.
People who dbl 2S also use their judgement, saying we
are fixed, lets hope for the best.

If the pass by opener is non-forcing, then 3C is a terrible
bid and responder should probaly pass, because there is no
other sensible bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

Adam,

You say you find some of the reactions offensive, but I don't understand this. You start a thread asking people to choose the worst bid, and when the plurality chooses your pass you are offended? Keep in mind that players of all levels react and vote here, and they should as it is a great learning experience to think about these hands. Usually the outcome of a poll is less valuable than the motivations given by some of the posters.


Although I agree with you that pass by you is better than double, I disagree with some of the other points you make. While opening 1D with the north hand is very unattractive to me, I think that the double of 2D is automatic. What other call do you suggest? South does have a really bad 12-count, but still, redouble is the only way to announce values with this hand. I also find it hard to blame the 3C call, it is tough to pass out 2S when they seemingly have a fit and you have the balance of strength. Of course, the redouble is insane. (please take no offense South)

[awm]

My point was, it is very strange to ask which bid was the worst mistake and to be told by a plurality that the worst mistake was not doubling a cold partscore into game.

It's like asking "whose fault was it that the company went under?" and getting a response of "it's your fault, because you didn't embezzle money from the company coffers." How could a decision that was correct, as the cards lie be to blame for a poor result? If I had actually doubled 2♠ and gotten the result of -470, and posted this same question, would I be told "no one was to blame, you just got fixed?"

Suggesting that I should double a contract that I think will make, and that actually does make, and that a failure to do so is primarily to blame for a result, seems really off-base to me. Perhaps "offensive" is a bad choice of words, but I reiterate that I wouldn't want to partner anyone who blames bad results on my failure to double cold partscores into games at IMPs. And from your standpoint... would you rather play with someone who often penalty doubles making partscores into game? Or would you rather have a partner who exercises caution and good judgement in these situations? Evidently a lot of people would rather the partner who doubles making contracts. Weird.

Honestly I think there's a lot of blame to go around on this hand. I would've opened partner's cards. I can definitely understand the view that passing my hand would be better than 1♦. I would've bid 2NT over 2♦ on partner's cards. Given the auction up to that point, I would've bid 2NT and not 3♣ on partner's cards. Perhaps when 3♣ doubled came to me, I should've bid 3NT (which might go undoubled, and probably fails by only one trick). Partner's redouble is basically a failure to play bridge in my view, and is totally ridiculous... but perhaps I should pull that to 3NT. Basically, I think N/S made only one call in this auction which was absolutely, unequivocally correct. Only one call where the main alternative would have lead absolutely, irretrievably to a terrible score. And that one good bid in this entire awful mess was the pass of 2♠. And yet this is the bid most people pick as the "biggest mistake."

[Fluffy]

awm, on Dec 21 2005, 11:25 PM, said:

My point was, it is very strange to ask which bid was the worst mistake and to be told by a plurality that the worst mistake was not doubling a cold partscore into game.

It's like asking "whose fault was it that the company went under?" and getting a response of "it's your fault, because you didn't embezzle money from the company coffers." How could a decision that was correct, as the cards lie be to blame for a poor result? If I had actually doubled 2♠ and gotten the result of -470, and posted this same question, would I be told "no one was to blame, you just got fixed?"

Suggesting that I should double a contract that I think will make, and that actually does make, and that a failure to do so is primarily to blame for a result, seems really off-base to me. Perhaps "offensive" is a bad choice of words, but I reiterate that I wouldn't want to partner anyone who blames bad results on my failure to double cold partscores into games at IMPs. And from your standpoint... would you rather play with someone who often penalty doubles making partscores into game? Or would you rather have a partner who exercises caution and good judgement in these situations? Evidently a lot of people would rather the partner who doubles making contracts. Weird.

What I would like is a partner that doubles when I ask him to do it and doesn't mastermind these deals, apply judgement when you should, not when you aren't asked to do so. If I make a stayman and partner fails to bid 2M because he thinks its doubleton ♣AQ is good for NT I will be upset, regardless of the contract reached being best. Sorry for repeating myself, but I still believe doubling was the best thing to do.

If what you were asking is wich of the bids was the one that led to the bad result it is fairly easy then:

1♦: pass would lead to pass out. So it is worse
first pass: opening would probably mean -50 or -100.
3♣: Even being on auto-forcing position, passing would lead to only -110
redouble: converted 300 into 600
double: in the end it converted -470 into -600

[luke warm]

awm, on Dec 21 2005, 06:25 PM, said:

My point was, it is very strange to ask which bid was the worst mistake and to be told by a plurality that the worst mistake was not doubling a cold partscore into game.

adam, i'm sorry but this reasoning makes no sense to me...

1) when 2♠ came to you, how did you *know* it was cold?

2) what does your partner's double of 2♦ say to you?

3) how would you expect partner to bid if she felt it was your hand and they were in trouble?

4) did your partner have her bid?

5) did you have your bid (1♦)

Quote

How could a decision that was correct, as the cards lie be to blame for a poor result?

the truth is, you only know the decision was correct now, *after* the fact... if that isn't resulting the hand, please tell me what is...

Quote

If I had actually doubled 2♠ and gotten the result of -470, and posted this same question, would I be told "no one was to blame, you just got fixed?"

absolutely

Quote

I reiterate that I wouldn't want to partner anyone who blames bad results on my failure to double cold partscores into games at IMPs.

your partner says "it's our hand.. i think we can beat a 2 level major suit, at least if it's the suit i have"... so how is it you knew it was cold?

Quote

And from your standpoint... would you rather play with someone who often penalty doubles making partscores into game? Or would you rather have a partner who exercises caution and good judgement in these situations? Evidently a lot of people would rather the partner who doubles making contracts. Weird.

if someone "often" does that, it would be a cause for concern... if someone *never* does it, it would be a cause for concern... it comes down to, what was partner telling (asking) me to do, and do i trust her judgment?

Quote

And that one good bid in this entire awful mess was the pass of 2♠. And yet this is the bid most people pick as the "biggest mistake

well there's no doubt that on this hand pass was better than double (after all, as we've been told, the hand was cold)... but i still think this is after the fact thinking.. while i'll probably never play as well as you do, or as fluffy does, i have to agree with him that going by the result isn't always the best way to judge a bid

[awm]

My point here is:

(1) I do not think this is a hand where partner has "asked me" to double. I think partner has shown a decent hand with cards in at least one major, and I am allowed to use my judgement as to what action is best.

(2) My hand is very poor, a light third seat opening. My partner is a passed hand. It is IMPs. They are not vulnerable. I have too many hearts -- since partner apparently has a bunch of them (he promised length/cards in a major) and I have THREE, it seems likely there will be fast ruffs in dummy. My minor suit cards are kings and queens, not aces. All of these things point to doubling being wrong.

(3) I do not think my pass says "I do not have four spades." I think pass says "I think 2♠ is probably making, or at least it's likely enough that I don't want to double it."

How do I know? I don't know, perhaps 2♠ will be one down. What I do know is that with nonvul opponents, opposite a passed hand, I am not going to get rich defending on this pile of junk. Deal out reasonable hands for everyone else at the table based on the auction a few hundred times, and I think you will find that 2♠ will make a lot more often than it goes two down.

Should I have opened 1♦? I dunno, maybe not. Certainly if I knew my partner was this ready and willing to hang me for a light opening bid, I would've passed. If you want to blame my 1♦ opening for this disaster I can accept that. I think it had some redeeming features, but obviously it's not a wonderful bid that I am proud of making.

When I get a bad result, and ask which bid to blame, what I'm looking for is one of three things:

(1) A bid that was just wrong, and misdescribed a hand. Perhaps my 1♦ bid was in this category. Perhaps partner's initial pass was. Partner's redouble definitely falls into this category, but at that point perhaps the damage was already done.

(2) A bid where someone applied judgement, and ended up making a reasonable decision that worked out really badly. If I had doubled 2♠ and it had made, perhaps it falls into this category. I think many bids in this auction can be second-guessed.

(3) A claim that it's just a fix. Everyone did everything in a reasonable way, but the cards just didn't lie right.

But yet many people here are pointing to a place where judgement was applied and a reasonable decision was made, which was right on the lie of the cards. How can this be the cause of the problem?

I would be happy if I never doubled a making partscore at IMPs. People say if you never double a making contract you're not doubling enough... but I think that has a lot more to do with matchpoints. At IMPs, I don't double for one trick sets.

Like I said, I don't want to play with a partner who thinks I must robotically double a contract that I think is more likely to make than to go two down. Partner's double of 2♦ is not, cannot be an order to double 2♠ since he's already limited his hand by the initial pass. This is not akin to refusing to show a four-card major in response to stayman... it's a lot more like looking at a bad fourteen count and deciding to decline partner's limit raise. I prefer to play in partnerships where this kind of judgement is allowed.

[P_Marlowe]

awm, on Dec 21 2005, 10:19 PM, said:

<snip>
Partner's double of 2♦ is not, cannot be an order to double 2♠ since he's already limited his hand by the initial pass.
<snip>

In other words, you did think, that the dbl did not create
a forcing pass situation, contrary to your partner.

In other words, you had a disagreement in the bidding,
which led to the result, discuss the whole thing with partner
and forget the result.

Marlowe

[pclayton]

I tend to agree with Adam.

The double of 2♠ at IMPs is pretty questionable. I might do it and I might not. Frequently, this is a rhythm double we all see ourselves making.

I can't believe the votes for the pass of 2♠ vs the redouble. Redouble is such a tilt call - how can that possibly be defended?

[luke warm]

well phil, you're right... but i personally never got around to discussing the xx, the pass of 2S got in the way

but you did entertain the idea of doubling 2S... i've really only objected to the "this pass must be right cause the contract was cold" reasoning... it seems to me that can't be ones argument

[han]

Just to get this straight, I agree with Adam about the pass/double of 2S, I just didn't agree with the term offensive. Of course, it is easier to be offended about a hand when your partner has made a crazy redouble and blamed the result on you...

[temp3600]

awm, on Dec 21 2005, 06:25 PM, said:

My point was, it is very strange to ask which bid was the worst mistake and to be told by a plurality that the worst mistake was not doubling a cold partscore into game.

It's like asking "whose fault was it that the company went under?" and getting a response of "it's your fault, because you didn't embezzle money from the company coffers." How could a decision that was correct, as the cards lie be to blame for a poor result? If I had actually doubled 2♠ and gotten the result of -470, and posted this same question, would I be told "no one was to blame, you just got fixed?"

Suggesting that I should double a contract that I think will make, and that actually does make, and that a failure to do so is primarily to blame for a result, seems really off-base to me. Perhaps "offensive" is a bad choice of words, but I reiterate that I wouldn't want to partner anyone who blames bad results on my failure to double cold partscores into games at IMPs. And from your standpoint... would you rather play with someone who often penalty doubles making partscores into game? Or would you rather have a partner who exercises caution and good judgement in these situations? Evidently a lot of people would rather the partner who doubles making contracts. Weird.

You forget to consider that a pass of 2S leads to 3CX -2, -500. On the actual deal you are screwed whatever you do, because of the lucky lie of the cards for EW. The "good judgement" of not doubling 2S is, in my opinion, an illusion.

Suppose that cards are not lying in such a friendly way for EW. Now 2S is probably down 1 or 2 while NS barely make 3C, or are down 1.

I think that doubling 2S will lead to an equal or better result than passing most of the time.

[mikeh]

If we are looking for root causes of getting a bad board, they are, in order of appearance:

opening 1♦ on garbage: this bid reflected an inadequate (in my view) understanding of the purpose of bidding, which is not merely to make a noise (I am sorry that this sounds harsh, but it both reflects and explains my view)

redoubling: an act of insanity, confirming that neither partner has an adequate understanding of the purpose of bidding

The 1♦ bid is the cause of the occurrence of a disaster; the redouble was the cause of the magnitude of the disaster. The 1♦ started the fire, the redouble sprayed gasoline on it.

I started to write a caustic diatribe about the lunacy of doubling 2♠, but I think my thoughts are already known. You doublers may be great bridge players, but I am glad not to be on a team with you. BAM, maybe, imps.... not a chance.

[luke warm]

mikeh said:

I started to write a caustic diatribe about the lunacy of doubling 2♠, but I think my thoughts are already known. You doublers may be great bridge players, but I am glad not to be on a team with you. BAM, maybe, imps.... not a chance

only a few of the doublers, and/or those who entertained doubling, are really good bridge players, and i'm not one of them... but i don't know why you'd want to write a caustic diatribe, given the calm nature of your first post on this subject, in which you said

Quote

North's pass of 2♠ is reasonable. Doubling would be an overstatement of values... he had none and he'd already shown more than that.

that is an excellent reason to pass (or not double), especially if one believes that pass can't be forcing on a passed hand partner (which i happen to believe)... however, i still object to anyone using the result of a hand as a defense for a particular bid, and adam did later admit that maybe the 1D opening was partially to blame for the result

i haven't defended my choice of double, mainly because it's easy to be cowed by better, more experienced players.. but i chose that bid because i felt it's what partner wanted me to do, if i had defense against their contract... if a person disagrees with that, well and good... but i would like to know how partner would have bid if he *did* want me to double an e/w contract