[the hog]

There was an interesting hand in the fiorst round of the Silidor Pairs. Why was it interesting? because imo it shows the differences in US bidding philosophy compared with others. Though it is a totally different situation, an analogy can be drawn to the hand in the thread where a number of players find a raise to 2H and others think it is a clear pass. I am inclined to think that European players would raise to 2H automatically.

The hand in question?


1st session of the Silodor Open Pairs:Dlr: East, Vul nil

♠ J 8 2
♥ A 9
♦ Q 8 4 2
♣ A K J 7

East, holding the hand above opened 1D

Wildavsky, holding the following 17 count passed. An amazing decision imo

♠ A K 7 3
♥ Q J 10
♦ A K 9 5 3
♣ 8

It was left to Doub to balance on the following trash after 1D (P) 1S (P) 1NT:

♠ Q
♥ 8 7 6 4 2
♦ J 10
♣ 9 5 4 3 2

Wildavsky and Doub were very lucky to get a good result on this board, due to very poor competitive bidding by East.

Again, I doubt that any European or top Asian pairs would have replicated their action.

[jdonn]

Given that most Americans would probably have bid on the hand, and that they got a good result by passing anyway, I don't see where this is going.

[the hog]

Would most US players have bid on the hand? That is the question.

[gnasher]

I'd replicate Wildavsky's actions (or inactions). On the first round I'd pass, planning a descriptive sequence like
  1♦-pass-1NT-pass
  2♣-dbl
or
  1♦-pass-1NT-pass
  pass-dbl-pass-2♣
  pass-2♦
One the second round I'd pass too, through lack of any alternatives. My methods aren't geared to getting into the auction when I have nine cards in the suits bid by the opponents.

[effervesce]

Ditto andy.

[jjbrr]

I'd bid at the table. Maybe a 1♠ overcall. Second choice is obv 1NT.

I personally would never balance with Doub's hand. As stupid as it sounds, it doesn't look impossible to me that the 1NT bidder didn't see the 1♦ opener or he has a good 10 count or partner is going to bid too much if I balance, and while I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, intuitively it seems like bean counting is sufficient to realize that this hand sucks and warrants a pass. One argument for bidding is that partner rates to have ♦ so my JT might be useful, so at least one point in my hand has some value. Though it also seems like they have a spade fit, so there's not reason to expect they aren't getting 170 or 140 instead of 150 or 120, so there's some chance passing is right even when we have a fit.

But whatever, pass with Wildavsky's hand is fine too. Either way could work out. Meck's been noted as saying something along the lines of "If you have a choice between bidding and passing, you should bid" so that's what I try to do.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Mar 23 2010, 03:56 AM, said:

Would most US players have bid on the hand? That is the question.

I think so but maybe it's an interesting question. I somewhat like 1NT. If partner transfers to spades I superaccept directly to 4, if to hearts I make a normal super accept.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on Mar 23 2010, 04:43 AM, said:

I'd replicate Wildavsky's actions (or inactions).  On the first round I'd pass, planning a descriptive sequence like
  1♦-pass-1NT-pass
  2♣-dbl
or
  1♦-pass-1NT-pass
  pass-dbl-pass-2♣
  pass-2♦
One the second round I'd pass too, through lack of any alternatives.  My methods aren't geared to getting into the auction when I have nine cards in the suits bid by the opponents.

So partner's expected to protect with

xxx, xxx, Q10x, AKxx ?

That's the danger, do you just reckon it's infrequent enough not to worry about it.

Also what are you going to do over 1D-P-1H-P-2H ?

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on Mar 23 2010, 07:49 PM, said:

So partner's expected to protect with

xxx, xxx, Q10x, AKxx ?

No.

Quote

That's the danger, do you just reckon it's infrequent enough not to worry about it.

It certainly seems unlikely that they should have arrived in 1NT with a combined 14-count, eschewing their 8-card club fit. The shape alone is possible - 4315 opposite 2443, or 4306 opposite 2452 - but that seems inconsistent with the high cards.

But this is missing the point somewhat. I pass over 1♠ not because I don't want to bid ever, but because I don't have a good bid on this round and I hope to have a better one on the next. When the next round comes along, it turns out that I still don't have a good bid, so I pass again.

Quote

Also what are you going to do over 1D-P-1H-P-2H ?

2♠, which I think shows approximately this shape.

[Jlall]

Wildavsky and Doub show the typical american bidding philosophy? Do we all look alike also?

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on Mar 23 2010, 02:55 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Mar 23 2010, 07:49 PM, said:

So partner's expected to protect with

xxx, xxx, Q10x, AKxx ?

No.

Quote

That's the danger, do you just reckon it's infrequent enough not to worry about it.

It certainly seems unlikely that they should have arrived in 1NT with a combined 14-count, eschewing their 8-card club fit. The shape alone is possible - 4315 opposite 2443, or 4306 opposite 2452 - but that seems inconsistent with the high cards.

But this is missing the point somewhat. I pass over 1♠ not because I don't want to bid ever, but because I don't have a good bid on this round and I hope to have a better one on the next. When the next round comes along, it turns out that I still don't have a good bid, so I pass again.

One of us didn't understand the auction.

I thought the 17 count passed over 1D not 1D-P-1S, I was suggesting that might be the whole auction if partner didn't protect on the hand I gave.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on Mar 23 2010, 10:00 PM, said:

One of us didn't understand the auction.

I thought the 17 count passed over 1D not 1D-P-1S, I was suggesting that might be the whole auction if partner didn't protect on the hand I gave.

No, we both understood the auction - I just didn't understand your question. I thought you were asking whether I thought partner should protect with a balanced 9-count after
1♦-pass-1♠-pass
1NT-pass-pass

Should partner protect with xxx, xxx, Q10x, AKxx after 1♦-pass-pass? No, probably not. But it would be unlucky to find partner with enough to make game, too much diamond length for a takeout double, and not enough high-card strength for 1NT.

[the hog]

I was wondering about a 1NT overcall as well. Perhpas it seven too good for that.

[the hog]

Jlall, on Mar 24 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

Wildavsky and Doub show the typical american bidding philosophy? Do we all look alike also?

Yes Justin, you do look a bit like Doub; and if you keep on making more stupid comments you will have about as much hair as him as well.
You know as well as i do that many US experts prefer to balance rather than getting tinto the acion immediately as Europeans and certainly Asians do. This is an example of that philosophy so don't be fatuous.

[Siegmund]

I think that experts the world over would agree that in general when you have a stack in opener's suit it's often right to pass and wait for a chance to come back in and/or nail them. You might also get them to agree that if you have to tell a "one card off" lie generally its better to lie about strength than about distribution.

This hand is a pretty extreme example - the Mike Lawrence devotees will say it's an obvious 1S bid - but I think pass > 1S > 1NT > X is about right. Any of the four might be a triumph or a disaster on any one deal. I imagine a poll of experts in any country will elicit votes for at least 3 calls.

[hanp]

In the old days Hamman was known for bidding 3NT whenever it was a reasonable option. Nowadays all US bridge players pass whenever they can avoid bidding. And Americans are so scared for the vulnerability, it's just absurd. Perhaps this is not so surprising in a land where the rules are handmade to protect players who cannot deal with bids invented after they were teenagers. Unfortunately for most American bridge players that means anything after the great depression.

I think it comes from eating too many hamburgers. Their beer is bad too.

[the hog]

Well someone has had too much beer.