[helene_t]

One of my bad habbits (which probably prevents me from ever becomming and advanced player) is that I tend to get anoyed with partners that bid incorrectly. As for a definition of "incorrectly", I consider myself relatively tollerant, but who don't consider themselves tollerant.... Anyway, yesterday two auctions called for reflections:
Love all (Butler), holding ♠xxx ♥Axxxx ♦xx ♣AQx

Me LHO P RHO
p 1♠ 2♦ 2♥
p bla p bla
p bla p 6♠ (all pass)

Obviously somebody was either psyching or counting ZAR points. 6♠ was makeable but went 1 down because declarer didn't expect me to hold both missing aces, given that P overcalled. P had Kxxxx of diamonds and nothing else.

At another board, P made an outrageous penalty double (not a psyche, at least not a conscious psyche, just a bit optimistic) of a cold contract. So declarer expected him to have trump length, and consequently .... well, you guessed it.

Is there any lesson to be learned? Mike Lawrence writes in "The complete book on overcalls" that you can often get away with a bad bid at matchpoints. But this was butler. Does that suggest that yesterday was expecptional and I should try to forget about it?

[whereagles]

I've seen people whose behaviour at table is similar to what you describe. My guess is it has nothing to do with bridge itself, but with psychological complexes. I don't think you can do anything to change it, so you either learn to live with it and adapt, or simply quit pard.

[Free]

First hand: 2♦ was a clear destructive bid. Partner knows opps have at least game since you passed, so he can't get hit by a truck. However, it's quite agressive, but if opps are in a slam with 2 missing aces (and probably not one in a void), come on NV 3rd seat biddings can be light, always remember that. Also overcalls in 4th hand, again because you didn't open, and partner will know the limit of the hand.

2nd hand: penalty doubles sometimes fire back. It's not an exact science you know. Haven't you ever made a doubled contract? Haven't you ever let opps make a doubled contract? If you haven't, then you certainly don't double enough. As long as you gain more than you lose, you're a good penalty doubler imo

These things happen, so don't worry about them Don't stare too much at HCP's, but also at the reason why partner bids this way. His 2♦ is a good enough bid imo, I haven't seen his hand for his penalty double.

[inquiry]

Bridge is a funny game... Bad bids sometimes turn out well. Horrible contracts sometimes come home on remarkable distributions with an extremely small percentage chance of occurring. Having said that, winning bridge, in the long term, seems to be bidding as well as possible and getting to sound rather than nearly hopeless contracts.

Double with nothing and opponents misguess when you luckily catch your partner with stuff... win a few imps... Weight that against what happens when your partner has even less and they redouble and make overtricks. Overcdall on King-empty and out, and have them magically go down when they bid a 27 hop slam (missing two aces, a king and a queen)? Weigh that against the trouble you could have gotten into if your partner with 10 hcp had decided to participate in the auction or to double them when they got to four spades.

The occassional tactical double when your partner is marked with trump length or considerable stregth and yet hasn't bid can be a powerful weapon.... but you have to be sure about your analysis to do so. I have made, quite successfully, and unsuccessfully too, ligtner doubles for my partner when I know he is short in a side suit, and if I pass, his double might might tip them off and get them to bid 6NT. Same thing applies when I think my partner has a trump stack and I have a likely trick, or I think he has a trump stack and enough points to take a likely additional trick. But these bids are rare indeed, and can backfire in a huge way. Like I said, bridge is a funny game.

Ben

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Oct 28 2004, 07:35 AM, said:

One of my bad habbits (which probably prevents me from ever becomming and advanced player) is that I tend to get anoyed with partners that bid incorrectly. As for a definition of "incorrectly", I consider myself relatively tollerant, but who don't consider themselves tollerant.... Anyway, yesterday two auctions called for reflections:
Love all (Butler), holding ♠xxx ♥Axxxx ♦xx ♣AQx

Me LHO P RHO
p 1♠ 2♦ 2♥
p bla p bla
p bla p 6♠ (all pass)

Obviously somebody was either psyching or counting ZAR points. 6♠ was makeable but went 1 down because declarer didn't expect me to hold both missing aces, given that P overcalled. P had Kxxxx of diamonds and nothing else.

At another board, P made an outrageous penalty double (not a psyche, at least not a conscious psyche, just a bit optimistic) of a cold contract. So declarer expected him to have trump length, and consequently .... well, you guessed it.

Is there any lesson to be learned? Mike Lawrence writes in "The complete book on overcalls" that you can often get away with a bad bid at matchpoints. But this was butler. Does that suggest that yesterday was expecptional and I should try to forget about it?

To me a bad bid is one that...

1. Leads to a bad result (or is likely to lead to a bad result), or
2. Fools your partner.

It sounds like you weren't fooled either time, and they didn't lead to bad results (and weren't likely to lead to bad results) so....

If you know your partner well enough, you can often bid their points and distribution as well as your own, if the opponent's bidding is specific enough to let you know this. I'm reading Mike Lawrence's book on overcalls, and it's clear he often does exactly that.

[luke warm]

i don't believe your definition #2 is accurate... i've been *really* fooled by partners, but the bids were good ones, for tactical or other reasons... p/p/1nt/ etc... as a matter of fact, i don't agree with #1 either... even if a bid turns out ok it doesn't necessarily relieve it of the 'bad' tag... even a blind hog finds an acorn occasionally

my philosophy on bidding is simple, thanks to bergen's 'points schmoints'... if you have a partner you trust, in a general way, then assume she's bidding in good faith, assume she wants to win as badly as you do... if (when) she makes a mistake, deal another hand... and hope she thinks the same when *you* make one, as we all do... now if the *same* mistake occurs more than once, it might be time to talk it over, but always in private and always without rancor

[Flame]

I hope this isnt your regular partner, since i got the impression you deserve alot better.
I myself is an extreme case of good partner, i do everything i can to make sure my partner wont mistake, this include not bidding somethign i think is right but partner might not understand, i dont test my partners at diffence either.
I think my way is too extreme and its sometime fustrating, i think its a results of aggresive partner who would jump to slam or double the opponents on any pips i made. The opposite isnt good either, partnership comes before anything else, and making moves of your own is just telling partner you dont need her.

[jtfanclub]

luke warm, on Oct 28 2004, 06:26 PM, said:

i don't believe your definition #2 is accurate... i've been *really* fooled by partners, but the bids were good ones, for tactical or other reasons... p/p/1nt/ etc... as a matter of fact, i don't agree with #1 either... even if a bid turns out ok it doesn't necessarily relieve it of the 'bad' tag... even a blind hog finds an acorn occasionally

OK, let me rephrase them. A bad bid is one that:

1. I likely to lead to a bad result.

2. Is likely to cause partner to make a bad bid, either now or on future hands.

I don't think these bids qualified. They weren't likely to lead to bad results, or to fool partner into making a bad bid. Your partner just figured out your likely points and distribution and bid your hand as well as his own. There's a lot of cases where that's to the partnership's advantage.

I honestly don't understand why that's a problem.

[pclayton]

I played with a lunatic Monday night for the first and last night who seems to fit this thread. Two auctions I've seldom seen before:

Me......LHO.......Mr. Nuts......RHO
1♥.....1♠......1N.....Pass
2♣......2♦......3N!!!!!!!!.....Pass
Pass.....4♦......Double.

We got +500. 3N is down 2.

Me.....LHO.....Mr. Nuts.....RHO
Pass.....Pass.....2♠.....3♥
Pass.....4♥.....4♠!!!...Dbl.

He got lucky and caught me with 2 good cards and he played it well; -100.

My blood pressure had increased about 15 points over the course of the session. Amazingly, we had a 175.

I won't play with people like this. Regardless of the result, they insist on making the final decision on every hand, whether it be bidding or play.

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on Oct 28 2004, 08:35 PM, said:

I played with a lunatic Monday night for the first and last night who seems to fit this thread.

Arrrgh...I'm still talking, aren't I? Last message on this thread, I promise.

Certainly there are lunatics- I've ended up banning two of them from my tourneys because I don't think they ever finished the tourney with the same guy they started with, sometimes going through as many as four partners in nine boards. I even had one guy yell at me for making him sub with one of them. Nice people, didn't do anything improper, but I just can't chew through subs that way. Not fair to the subs, not fair to the other people in the tourney.

But I don't think helene's examples qualify. In one case, her partner figured out that they were going to at least game and likely slam and that a lead directing bid wouldn't hurt. In the other case, he listened to the auction, looked at his trump shortness, realized his partner had trump length, and doubled on her trumps. To me, that's not the sign of a lunatic, that's the sign of an Advanced player.

Someday, I'll be good enough to make those bids.

OK, all done now.

[Gerben47]

I'm not sure what a 175 is but the first auction seems the craziest. Double on general principles would be the right punishment I guess. Luckily someone similar to your partner was at the table (or did your partner KNOW opps would bid again?)

[helene_t]

I should have clarrified this: the penalty double in quetion was
2♥-(dbl)-3♥-(4♠)
pass-(pass)-dbl-a.p.
He had no way of knowing that I had three spades. Or maybe he did .... he said (in retrospect) that his gut feeling was that it would go down. Maybe het felt that his RHO was flushing inside because of his undiciplined t/o double with only two spades, now that his pd bid spades. I didn't notice anything but my pd was looking at the guy's left half-face, which, according to neuroscientists tends to carry more emotional messages than his right half. Also, my pd had drunken less alcohol than I had at that time.

[pclayton]

Gerben47, on Oct 29 2004, 03:28 AM, said:

I'm not sure what a 175 is but the first auction seems the craziest. Double on general principles would be the right punishment I guess. Luckily someone similar to your partner was at the table (or did your partner KNOW opps would bid again?)

175 on a 156 average; typical mitchell movement for 13-17 tables. Works out to a 56% game.