[jonottawa]

IMPs, 1st seat, favorable

You and your partner ended up in the wrong spot in the 'Pass or Correct' problem and you went down 3 in game instead of making game. Now you're on to the last board of the match (6-round 8-board sectional a/x swiss).

Edit: I didn't think I had to add that other boards weren't great or bad for us, guess I did.

♠QJT9xx ♥AT98 ♦ATx ♣-

Uncontested auction:

1S - 2N (Jacoby)
3C - 4S (nothing extra/no slam interest)
?

[kenrexford]

Not enough ino. i'd want to know more about state of the match and state of the event. i also want to know more on methods.

that said, if i want to blast for a score, i'm looking toward 6H. So, I'd bid 6H in that event.

[ArtK78]

I would pass under normal circumstances. And I don't have enough information about the match (other than one truly rotten result) to do anything else.

For all that I know, partner has

Kxxx
Qx
Qxx
KQJx

or

xxxx
KQx
Qx
AKxx

Even if you replace the Qx of hearts in the first example with the Kx of hearts, partner should have bid 3♠. KQJx opposite a stiff is not just a loser - it is two tricks minimum. They might not be totally wasted. And it appears that opener is unlimited in this problem, as nothing was explained about the 3♣ bid. So I assume the partnership is using "standard" Jacoby 2NT.

[jjbrr]

pass is clear

[Jlall]

Getting blitzed is not very good, I'd rather just lose!

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Apr 1 2010, 12:22 PM, said:

Getting blitzed is not very good, I'd rather just lose!

I like to save getting blitzed for after I lose. Or, after I win. Either way works for me.

Wait a minute. YOU are claiming that getting blitzed is a bad thing? YOU?!?!?! Please.

[jonottawa]

Wow, I thought this would be a lot more divided (I actually thought it was a problem under the conditions presented, go figure.)

I forever tanked and then bid 6♠. I got a low ♣ lead.

Partner tracked the usual dummy:

♠Axxx ♥Qx ♦J98 ♣KQ9x

♠QJT9xx ♥AT98 ♦ ATx ♣-

Sigh.

Played low from dummy and the beautiful ♣Ace appeared.

The ♠ were 3-0 offside, however. -50

Felt like so much bad luck at the time. Guess I need to go back to trying to never look foolish. (At least my calculation that we needed a slam to win/tie the match turned out to be correct. We lost a dozen or so on the missed game hand and were a combined +1 IMP on the other boards.)

[MFA]

It seems that when partner jumps all the way from 3♣ to 4♠ we are not entitled to hope for a good dummy. This is not a close call.

[P_Marlowe]

Yes. (=Pass?!)

We have a nice hand, but p is captain, and he could have made a cue,
he had all the room below 4S, ... and he refused to do so.

He will have good trumps, which is nice, and club honors, which is not
nice.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

jonottawa, on Apr 3 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

Wow, I thought this would be a lot more divided (I actually thought it was a problem under the conditions presented, go figure.)

I forever tanked and then bid 6♠. I got a low ♣ lead.

Partner tracked the usual dummy:

♠Axxx ♥Qx ♦J98 ♣KQ9x

♠QJT9xx ♥AT98 ♦ ATx ♣-

Sigh.

Played low from dummy and the beautiful ♣Ace appeared.

The ♠ were 3-0 offside, however. -50

Felt like so much bad luck at the time. Guess I need to go back to trying to never look foolish. (At least my calculation that we needed a slam to win/tie the match turned out to be correct. We lost a dozen or so on the missed game hand and were a combined +1 IMP on the other boards.)

The hand showes, that p was also aware, that you needed a swing,
his 2NT bid was fine, but one could also claim, that 3S (limit raise
with 4 trumps, 10-12HCP) would have also been a nice description.

He stretched, and stopped.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Jlall]

jonottawa, on Apr 3 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

Felt like so much bad luck at the time.

Lol, that's like when we're in a 2 % contract and get our first 8 things and then we lose the last hook and go down. It always feels super unlucky then but...it's not.

You caught a very good dummy on this auction, and you caught a favorable lead, and you caught them playing the ace (presumably meaning they had no CJ, so you won that finesse, and also that they somehow did not read their partner's count)...

Quote

At least my calculation that we needed a slam to win/tie the match turned out to be correct.

Well done, so you lost by 22 instead of 11 or something? That is 2 VPs instead of 5. Unless you're playing win/loss, this is not a binary thing and doing dumb things to try to win in a hopeless situation just causes you to dig yourself into more of a hole.

Also, imagine if your opponents had revoked or gone for a number at the other table, so you were actually winning small. All it takes is for your teammates to have one good result. Maybe the other guys also missed game. It's resulting to say "well I was right about the score..." it was probably more likely your teammates had 1 good result in than that you make this slam. And again, throwing away 3 VPs is not good even if there is 0 % your teammates can have a good board.

Lastly, why does no one ever seem to take into account that partner also knows the state of the match. Partner will also be wanting to stretch to a thin slam, which makes his range of hands to bid 4S even weaker. He is desperately telling you "even with this state of the match, my hand is now SO BAD, please don't stretch" but you didn't listen. Bridge is a partnership/team game, it's not just on you to do something desperate and try to pull it out.

[MarkDean]

Completely agree with Justin. I have had teammates who liked to try to guess the state of the match and take fliers - it rarely worked out well, and it definitely put strain on the team.