[jtfanclub]

gwnn, on Jun 13 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

jocdelevat, on Jun 13 2008, 11:40 PM, said:

West  North East  South

-     -     -     1♦
3♣    3♦    3♥    4♦
5♣    Pass  Pass  5♦
Dbl   Pass  Pass  Pass

the auction doesn't normally exist.

and it surely doesn't exist here.

How does this not exist, when at least two posters said they'd X in part because they don't want partner to bid 5♦?

A pass of 5♣ implies no defense of 5♣. Now opener gets to decide whether he can set 5♣ in his own hand, and if not if it's worth sacrificing.

How can this bid possibly "not exist"? Print out the auction and the hand, and pass it around a bid to people you respect. See how many of them go on.

Note that opener has a fairly typical opening hand, what you'd expect from the auction. And yet, on the spade lead everybody has suggested, you set this four tricks (club, spade, spade ruff, diamond, heart, and either a second diamond or a second spade ruff or uppercut, depending on how they played it).

That's *700* points you just left on the table by not Xing. And this was to protect against the 150 point penalty if your partner lied to you?

At this vulnerability, 5♦ is right if they make it or if you make it. A pass by responder implies that they'll make it. I think you'll find lots of people who think that bid exists.

EDIT: I would not bid 5♦ with this hand. But I would certainly bid 5♦ with hands I can create where 5♣ is going down, down, down....

Something as simple as....

Axxx
xxx
KQJxxx
v

I'm supposed to let the opps play this in 5♣? NV vs. V? No thanks. I'll give them their 300 and save 300.

[ArtK78]

I do not understand how partner can bid 5♦. If he has a 5♦ bid over 5♣, he probably had one over 3♥.

[jtfanclub]

ArtK78, on Jun 13 2008, 05:24 PM, said:

I do not understand how partner can bid 5♦.  If he has a 5♦ bid over 5♣, he probably had one over 3♥.

Bidding 5♦ over 3♥ only works if 5♦ makes. Bidding 5♦ over 5♣ works if 5♦ makes OR if 5♣ makes. There's no reason when he bids 3♥ to think sacrifice.


Edited to add: You can see on this hand why you shouldn't bid 5♦ right away. Most sane Wests will pass 4♦- they described their hand with the WJO, and the 7th club is canceled out by having only a singleton in partner's suit. Meanwhile, most sane Easts will also pass 4♦, having a mighty 10 count across a WJO. So most people will get to play it in 4♦. Why sacrifice in 5 when you can take the contract in 4?

[rogerclee]

jocdelevat, on Jun 13 2008, 02:40 PM, said:

We lost 7.9 imps here and of course my pard an advanced player(has acbl 6 number) blame on me because I didn't x. He or she played very well during the whole tourney and I canot say was a disguise intermediate. I didn't x because I thought diamonds will be ruff but still i should give credit to her opening for 2 tricks.
Anyhow if you switch the ace spade contract will make.

It is not uncommon to find a player who is actually quite good at bridge, whether by talent or by experience, who just has no idea how to bid. These people either never bothered to actually learn anything about bidding judgment or are so steeped in the old school that they will never become expert-class players.

Anyway 5♦ is wrong.

[kfay]

I'd Dbl at MPs. Pass here.

[CSGibson]

Pass. We are not in a forcing pass auction, partner's 5 diamond bid is bad bridge. Phantom sacrifices are killers in an imp setting. Let them play their 5 level contract unless you have a void or something that partner cannot visualize, or unless you are bidding to make.

[gwnn]

jt, there is virtually no chance on Earth 5♣ will make on this auction. Bidding 5♦ is believing your opponents but not partner. I see your point about "Great! Now we can win imps if 5♦ OR 5♣ make!" but I think it's a non-point. This certainly applies to many auctions involving 4♠ vs 4♥, but it applies much less often in 5 vs 5 auctions and certainly not here. Your point about "look TWO POSTERS think partner can bid 5♦" is also somewhat of a non-point. Just because two people (from which one is you) think something, doesn't make you right.

btw the auction 4♦-p-p-5♣; p-p-5♦ very much exists, because the auction suggests they certainly can make 5♣.

[rogerclee]

jtfanclub, at first I was not going to post, because your ideas are really ridiculous in this thread. But then I realized that a lot of B/I players out there think like you do about this situation, so here are some points.

1) First I will admit that I would auto-x if my opponents were clueless. There is just too much to gain by doubling when your opponents are idiots and at the 5-level after a weird sequence. You should not consider hands like the given one in your analysis of the situation, especially against reasonable (not even good, just reasonable) opposition, which is really how B/I players should be considering bridge problems. While it is fun to score up 13 IMPs over a nothing-board against weak opponents, this is not the way to get better.

2) A pass of 5♣ does NOT IMPLY NO DEFENSE OF 5♦. It does not invite a sacrifice in any way. This seems very, very hard for some people to grasp, and they make crazy bids with this as justification. Pass just says "I think it is best to defend, and I either think they are making or am unsure enough to double, but anyway, we are getting a good score if this goes down" and includes a huge number of hands. I am really amazed how often B/I (and sometimes better) players make penalty doubles on nothing and do not realize how many IMPs they throw away by doing this.

3) w/r does not mean we should automatically sacrifice if both sides have a known fit. B/I players sacrifice way too often and always remember when they saved 3 IMPs by shaving 120 off their minus with their tactical genius, never the 12 IMP phantoms that they give away over nothing.

4) You seem to make a lot of assumptions that you can make 5♦ some non-zero percentage of the time. Why?

5) The proposed auction is "impossible" because south has done two contradictory things. One, by bidding 4♦, he has said that he does not think game is likely. After 5♣, he has bid 5♦ saying, even though you are leaning towards defense, partner, I am going to bid 5♦, which is surely a minus score. He is overruling his partner with no extra clues from the auction that this is a winning action. I don't understand what you mean by bidding 4♦ just to see if you can buy it there. South either thinks his side can make game or it can't and bids accordingly.

6) The south hand in no way constitutes a 5♦ call. It doesn't even have six trumps and has good defensive prospects for setting 5♣. See above for more reasons.

[jtfanclub]

gwnn, on Jun 15 2008, 03:32 AM, said:

jt, there is virtually no chance on Earth 5♣ will make on this auction.

But how does that fit with not doubling?

Look, I'm not saying 5♦ is a wonderful bid. I'm not suggesting that I would bid 5♦ with that hand- I wouldn't.

Let me rephrase this:

I would double because:

1. I think this has a good chance of going down, and the IMPs table tells me that if I think it has a good chance of going down, doubling is the right thing to do.

2. I'm afraid if I don't double, partner will make a 5♦ call.

Now, if you were to say that there is no hand where you would bid 5♦, I would believe you. Even with hearts pumping, lights flashing, the bidding getting higher and higher, vulnerability is flashing GO-GO-GO and you've got a fit with partner, you're cool as a cucumber and there's not so much as a tremor when you put down that green card.

And if you want to argue that for my sample hand and for all hands, you should always pass 5♣ in this situation, I won't debate it.

But, ya know. My partner hasn't read this thread. And when the bidding comes around to him, he's gonna be sweatin'. He's gonna be tremblin' like he's got the heebie-jeebies. And by gum, no matter how much I think "PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS", I'm not at all confident that the next card I see is going to be a green one.

I think it was Justin who said 99.9% of players on BBO are bad players. Maybe 5♦ is impossible for you, but it sure isn't impossible for those 99.9%. I'm certainly not saying that this is the passer's fault, but the 5♦ bidder's going to have a lot of company. A double here is 1100. Passing it out is 400. A pass followed by partner doing something stupid is -300.

So the IMP chart looks something like:
Passed out at 5♣: Baseline (0)
Double and they make: -4 IMPs (on average)
Double and they get set: +4 IMPs (on average)
Pass and partner does something stupid: -12 IMPs (on average)

It doesn't take a high percentage on that 'partner does something stupid' line to start making that X look a lot better.

It's just know your partner, know your opponents. How many experts would have the E-W auction with those cards? If rogerclee and jlall are the opponents, and gwnn is my partner, fine, I'll pass.

But I know that 99.9%. I know the crap they bid 5♣ with, and I know how often they make 'impossible' bids. Heck, I'm one of them myself.

I double.

[Codo]

HI JT, I agree that there are millions of bad bridge players out there. And IF you face such a player and IF you belive that your double will stop him from bidding 5 Diamond, then double.

But if your partner is someone who wants to improve, better tell him after the hand that 5 Diamond is not bridge and why it is a bad bid and that you don't want to make bids anymore just to stop him from playing bad bridge.

So the only reason to double is that you expect that 5 Club won't make. You are in a minority here but I had doubled too and so had some others.

[CSGibson]

jtfanclub, on Jun 15 2008, 09:45 PM, said:

(long post)

This seems to be a case of whether you want to take the action that will incur the probability of the best result on this particular hand (X to prevent bad partner from sacrificing), or whether you want to create good habits for yourself and your partner that can translate into long-term winning strategies. It depends on your goals for the day and for your own development.

I think that you can do whatever you damn well please in this situation, as long as you "know" the long-term winning strategy and, more importantly, why it's the long-term winning strategy (hint: not passing to suggest a sacrifice).

[Mbodell]

gwnn, on Jun 13 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

jocdelevat, on Jun 13 2008, 11:40 PM, said:

West  North East  South

-    -    -    1♦
3♣    3♦    3♥    4♦
5♣    Pass  Pass  5♦
Dbl  Pass  Pass  Pass

the auction doesn't normally exist.

I agree it seems very unusual. For the "not normal" of what this could mean case would you consider the following 4 reasons to be what this auction could mean:

1. You were pretty sure you could buy it for 4♦, and that you'd make at most 10 tricks in ♦ and that they'd make 11 tricks in ♣ and that 5♦X would score better than 5♣=. Talk about a parlay.

2. You were pretty sure you could make 4♦, you could set 4♥, they could make 5♣, and that 5♦X would score better than 5♣=. Again seems a pretty narrow option. Maybe a very red hand.

3. You were walking the dog and confident that 4♦ wouldn't get passed out. I could see doing that live when you have a read on your opponents, think 5♦ will make, and maybe are worried they'll have a profitable sac over your 5♦ if you bid it directly.

4. You notice your hand changes between your 2nd and 3rd bid. Like your KQx of ♥ are actually extra ♦.

gwnn, on Jun 13 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

and it surely doesn't exist here.

no arguments here, although IMPs favorable after 1♦(3♣)3♦(3♥)4♦(5♣)P(P) I think 5♦ is very rare, but P would also be pretty rare, no? I mean if you can't X the 5♣ as opener because you are worried they might make it then you probably should have already bid 5♦ last time (which is clearly what this hand should have done).

[awm]

gwnn said:

there is virtually no chance on Earth 5♣ will make on this auction. Bidding 5♦ is believing your opponents but not partner

How can this be an argument against doubling with the responder hand? Surely if the opponents bid something that has virtually no chance to make, you should double?

rogerclee said:

The proposed auction is "impossible" because south has done two contradictory things. One, by bidding 4♦, he has said that he does not think game is likely. After 5♣, he has bid 5♦ saying, even though you are leaning towards defense, partner, I am going to bid 5♦, which is surely a minus score

I disagree with this statement on general principle. There are several key points that must be considered. First, just because you prefer playing 4♦ to playing 5♦ does not mean you prefer defending 5♣ to playing 5♦. For example, suppose you have ten tricks in diamonds 90% of the time and eleven tricks 10% of the time. Obviously this makes 5♦ a lousy NV game and you want no part of it. But now suppose that 5♣ makes 30% of the time and is down one 70% of the time. Once opponents bid 5♣, bidding 5♦ wins imps over passing even though the opponents 5♣ contract is also below the official imp odds for a game contract. Finally, partner does have additional information after he bid 4♦ -- he has the information that opponents think they can make 5♣ reasonably often (they bid it) as well as the information that while partner isn't sure they can make 5♣, he doesn't have enough to double it. Of course, opener's actual hand is not a 5♦ bid.

Doubling 5♣ seems like a reasonable call to me. This is a ridiculous auction, and I agree with gwnn that it seems very likely 5♣ is failing. Further, if 5♣ makes there is a good chance that it won't be bid at other tables (given the ridiculousness of the bidding at my table) in which case doubling doesn't really cost. Holding ♣KTx and ♦A is quite good defensively for a preempt and my partner did open the bidding. I do think there are hands where it would be right for partner to bid 5♦ over 5♣, although the hand he actually held certainly isn't one of them, and I want to make a stronger suggestion that we defend. Finally, the IMP odds for doubling marginal vulnerable game contracts are actually pretty good.

[mikeh]

I am very late to the thread. Let me add my two cents worth.

I probably double, for penalties, less often than virtually any other expert. I would double 5♣ here.

Partner opened the bidding. Give partner KQJ of diamonds, and he is still well short of an opening bid. So even if the ♦A is worthless, we still rate to beat 5♣ more times than not.

I would double and lead a spade.... note that if partner has AK of spades or the AQ over the king in dummy, then we are getting 500 even if the diamond doesn't cash.

This is imps (or X-imps, which are not quite the same thing but are far closer related than they are to mps or BAM). If they make doubled, we are losing at most 4 imps... and often fewer. If they fail 1 trick doubled, we are gaining only a few imps... but what if they are failing by 500? On the actual hand, we could actually win a spade, a spade ruff, the club King, the heart A and a diamond! 800 is staring us in the face.

Now, in a good field, you'd never face this problem and, if you did, you can be sure that you are being set up in some manner... I'd still double... but in a semi-random field, such as any online tournament, you will do reasonably well, imo, to assume that someone who bids funny doesn't know what they are doing.. and rho bid funny.

As for pass saying anything about willingness to hear 5♦.. or about bidding 5♦ on the actual hand... well, the less said the better Suffice it to say that I think that the OP's partner did not impress me with that decision.

[Trumpace]

Sorry for the basic question: what kind of hand does the 3♦ bid show? (I quickly glanced through the whole thread but could not find any discussion about that, probably because it is too basic).

[Trumpace]

Also, does anyone think that OP's partner should have bid 4♣ instead of 4♦?

[NickRW]

Trumpace, on Jun 18 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

Sorry for the basic question: what kind of hand does the 3♦ bid show? (I quickly glanced through the whole thread but could not find any discussion about that, probably because it is too basic).

Given the interference, good ♦ fit, competitive, not particularly forward going, does not deny 4cM. However, perhaps a little stronger than 3♦ would have been had there not been interference (assuming you play inverted minors) - one of the main reasons for having the 3 level inverted raise is to try to shut out opps - but they're already active here.

Quote

Also, does anyone think that OP's partner should have bid 4♣ instead of 4♦?

Well, if dbl would not be take out for the partnership, then yes, that could be seen as a better alternative - it is possible that 4♠ is on your way if there should be a double fit. If dbl is t/o, then no, I don't rate 4♣ - I think I'd take it as stronger.