[AL78]

I was suckered on this board.

---

I open a weak NT. We are playing Lebensohl, though what a direct 3 minor shows from a passed hand is uncertain. I doubled because it sounded like partner had some values, I didn't want to pass, but at the same time didn't want to commit to 4♣, so intended it as takeout. Partner passed and I soon put -630 into the bridgemate. Despite holding the majority of the HCP we have to let them have it, because most pairs are finding 4♥, so defending 3♥ would be a good score. As soon as I doubler I have lost the board, since opponents are bidding 4♥ if one of us bids 4♣.

This is one area I really struggle with, when to compete and when to sell out. I seem to get it wrong more often than I get it right.

[akwoo]

I don't think you should double in direct seat opposite a competent partner. You have a pretty average hand for your opening and no additional information to offer partner here. Pass and let partner decide.

If partner is bad at competing and or behaves as if -100 is worse than -110, then you are in a bit of a pickle here. I tend to think 4♣ is better than double is better than pass if partner is the type who always passes at this point and you have to make the decision. You're probably looking at 18 total tricks, so it's right to compete at MPs.

One of the annoyances at club games is that, to win, you frequently have to figure out which opponents to play for fools (and fools in which ways). It's up to you whether to engage in this or to pretend all your opponents are good and use the game as practice for more competitive ventures.

[FelicityR]

Yes, the bidding is bizarre on both sides, but playing Acol at adverse vulnerability in 3rd position opposite a passed partner I really dislike opening 1NT here: I prefer 1♦. The 1NT opener has no intermediate cards, and you also hold four cards in the anchor suit, ♠s.

1NT may be pre-emptive but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the right bid: that North hand despite it's 13 HCPs is so poor. It's unlikely game's going to be missed, but a part score might be.

[AL78]

FelicityR, on 2020-February-15, 21:10, said:

Yes, the bidding is bizarre on both sides, but playing Acol at adverse vulnerability in 3rd position opposite a passed partner I really dislike opening 1NT here: I prefer 1♦. The 1NT opener has no intermediate cards, and you also hold four cards in the anchor suit, ♠s.

1NT may be pre-emptive but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the right bid: that North hand despite it's 13 HCPs is so poor. It's unlikely game's going to be missed, but a part score might be.

I'm not sure about that. It is not that bad a hand with two quick tricks, and it will be very anti-field. If I don't open 1NT on that hand I might as well be playing a strong NT.

[FelicityR]

AL78, on 2020-February-16, 04:42, said:

I'm not sure about that. It is not that bad a hand with two quick tricks, and it will be very anti-field. If I don't open 1NT on that hand I might as well be playing a strong NT.

Being anti-field at MPs isn't such a bad thing. The 1NT hand is really poor 13 HCP count despite it's two quick tricks. (Kaplans and Rubens evaluator puts it at a measly 11.65!**see below) As the cards lie East/West can make 4♥ so what possessed you to double their 3♥ contract goodness only knows but at least you openly acknowledge that the double was wrong.

Bidding a bad hand twice is where you went wrong. When partner bids 3♣ automatically showing 6+ clubs in my opinion, the chances of the opponents having a singleton or void in that suit increase considerably. Your club honours are therefore virtually worthless.

I do not feel that having just two quick tricks is enough to warrant opening a weak no-trump, especially when you do not have a maximum hand and some solidity to the suits. Two quick tricks with a number of Q-J-10-9 cards also in the hand is acceptable: two quick tricks with tram tickets is winging it, in my personal opinion. Quick tricks are a good measure for suit contracts in the same way that the Kaplan and Rubens evaluator is also a tool used for suit contract evaluation** as opposed no-trump contracts.

I am not criticising you in any sense for playing with the field if that is your preferred option, but I am also acutely aware at this vulnerability of the opponents doubling your final contract and going one down for -200 at MPs which everyone knows is a bad score.


.

[fromageGB]

AL78, on 2020-February-16, 04:42, said:

If I don't open 1NT on that hand I might as well be playing a strong NT.

Yes, good idea. Weak NT destroys finding fits with partner.

[AL78]

fromageGB, on 2020-February-16, 09:00, said:

Yes, good idea. Weak NT destroys finding fits with partner.

I've played both flavours of NT opening, and I can't say there is an advantage to either. Some hands work best for one, some for the other. The worst thing about playing strong NT in a field of weak NTers is having to open one of a suit on the weak balanced hands, giving the opponents the opportunity to get in cheaply with a one level suit overcall, that would not be available after a weak 1NT opening, hence you end up defending 2H/S whilst everyone else makes or goes one off in 1NT.

[helene_t]

AL78, on 2020-February-16, 04:42, said:

If I don't open 1NT on that hand I might as well be playing a strong NT.

Yes, actually I would go so far as to say that if you don't open this hand 1NT, you should play strong NT (at least in this position; you could still play weak NT in 1st/2nd and/or nonvulnerable, of course).

You can't open 1m with 12-14 while also opening 1NT with 15+. Partner will make a negative double with an 9-count, and if you then rebid 1NT, you will be showing 15-16(17?) so he will raise.

A sensible system is 12-14 in 1st/2nd and 14-16 in 3rd/4th, but it is quite a bid of work to discuss all the implications of two different NT ranges, so probably not worth it.

[AL78]

helene_t, on 2020-February-16, 14:18, said:

Yes, actually I would go so far as to say that if you don't open this hand 1NT, you should play strong NT (at least in this position; you could still play weak NT in 1st/2nd and/or nonvulnerable, of course).

You can't open 1m with 12-14 while also opening 1NT with 15+. Partner will make a negative double with an 9-count, and if you then rebid 1NT, you will be showing 15-16(17?) so he will raise.

A sensible system is 12-14 in 1st/2nd and 14-16 in 3rd/4th, but it is quite a bid of work to discuss all the implications of two different NT ranges, so probably not worth it.

I can see the argument for opening 1♦, as I can comfortably pass any response from partner.

The problem was not with me opening 1NT, it was with me not shutting up. This is at least partly because in the past, I have got stung a lot by people bidding very aggressively against me, and they get away with it because either we don't bid on or we don't take a decent penalty. As such, I am trying not to sell out so easily. As on this hand, I don't always judge correctly when the opponents are taking liberties or when they are bidding on full playing strength. It is frustrating, those times when you are defending 3♥-1 and the room is in 2♠= your way.

[helene_t]

If you play Lebensohl, probably 3♣ by a passed hand is invitational, but maybe partner thought that it is just competitive. It also looks like partner took your double as penalty.

As it happens, 5♣ can go for -500 so it is best to just sell out, but it is for a part just bad luck. If partner's 3♣ is invitational and double is understood as t/o then I think double is ok.

[mikeh]

You need to learn to listen to the auction and consider how that auction impacts your hand. You also need to learn not to bid the same values twice.

Partner, being a passed hand, was obviously not intending to establish a force, but wanted to show you a good hand, in the context of having already passed, with 6 or more clubs.

Meanwhile, the opps are suggesting at least 9 hearts between them.

You hold AKJ in your partner’s suit. How many tricks do you expect that holding to take on defence? The answer, btw, is 1. Yes, sometimes you take 2 but more often 1 and on a bad day, none.

So your hand has gone DOWN in value, for defence. Plus partner probably has the club Q, which is now of no use at all on defence, whereas had you held, say, Kx, his Q rates to be worth a trick.

Meanwhile on the side you hold two queens. Partner has maybe 7-8 hcp outside of hearts, if you are lucky, and somehow you need to take 4 tricks outside of clubs.

In short, doubling reveals that you paid no real attention to the auction or that you didn’t bother looking at your hand before doubling.

The second lesson, not bidding the same values twice, should reinforce the obvious pass of 3H. You’ve shown 12-14 balanced. You have a minimum, which has (as noted above) gone down in terms of defence. If you pass, what do you think your partner will assume you have? Here’s a clue. He’ll think you have a flat 12-14 hcp with no reason to bid.

Bingo! You’ve described your hand and now let partner bid his hand (here, pass is clear).

[akwoo]

mikeh, on 2020-February-16, 17:00, said:

Bingo! You’ve described your hand and now let partner bid his hand (here, pass is clear).

I've got some sympathy for OP here. If you're commonly saddled with partners who don't understand that -100 is better than -140 (and +130 is better than +100) and hence don't bid their hands in competitive situations, you have a choice between consistently losing or developing some bad habits that at least let you win when you are a little lucky.

You give a pro this hand and tell him he is playing with a competent partner - he would surely agree with pass. You give a pro this hand and tell him he is playing with a hopeless client - you might get a different answer, though I'm not sure what.

[helene_t]

Btw if North passes, South should probably make a t/o double (assuming it is MP) and North will then bid 4♣. It will lift opps to 4♥, but probably E will bid 4♥ anyway if North doesn't double 3♥. I don't think South can realistically pass over 4♥.

[mikeh]

akwoo, on 2020-February-16, 21:26, said:

I've got some sympathy for OP here. If you're commonly saddled with partners who don't understand that -100 is better than -140 (and +130 is better than +100) and hence don't bid their hands in competitive situations, you have a choice between consistently losing or developing some bad habits that at least let you win when you are a little lucky.

You give a pro this hand and tell him he is playing with a competent partner - he would surely agree with pass. You give a pro this hand and tell him he is playing with a hopeless client - you might get a different answer, though I'm not sure what.

Playing bad bridge is no way to attract better partners. Also, playing bad bridge doesn’t help your partner get better either. It is a mistake to deliberately play badly in the hope that your errors may catch and offset an error by partner. That way madness lies

[StevenG]

mikeh, on 2020-February-16, 22:41, said:

Playing bad bridge is no way to attract better partners. Also, playing bad bridge doesn’t help your partner get better either. It is a mistake to deliberately play badly in the hope that your errors may catch and offset an error by partner. That way madness lies

I have no idea where you think these better partners are. Club bridge isn't full of expert players looking for someone to mentor. Locally to me, it's packed with elderly people staving off mental decline, with nobody coming through.

[pescetom]

StevenG, on 2020-February-17, 02:41, said:

I have no idea where you think these better partners are. Club bridge isn't full of expert players looking for someone to mentor. Locally to me, it's packed with elderly people staving off mental decline, with nobody coming through.

In our club there are some good (if not expert) partners up for grabs. We also have people coming through, even if 55 year olds pass as youngsters. Even mental decline of a player is not wholly negative for the community as it may cause his partner to split and share some experience with younger players instead. Long term prospects are dismal of course but I see no real obstacles to players trying to improve.

[mikestar13]

helene_t, on 2020-February-16, 21:57, said:

Btw if North passes, South should probably make a t/o double (assuming it is MP) and North will then bid 4♣. It will lift opps to 4♥, but probably E will bid 4♥ anyway if North doesn't double 3♥. I don't think South can realistically pass over 4♥.

I have to disagree. "The best sacrifice against four of a major is getting them to stop in three." -- author unknown. If North had passed 3♥ as he should, South should also pass. He has also showed his hand with 3♣, and as a passed hand he has pretty much what partner expects. There is much to be said in favor of "aggressively push them one level higher, then sell out."

[helene_t]

With ♠AK I think South has enough defense to be happy to lift opps to game.

But it is probably moot, if North passes then E will bid 4♥.

[neilkaz]

You have the most routine normal pass ever for your 2nd call. X is looking for the well deserved ZERO you got.