BBO Discussion Forums: Assign blame, please - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Assign blame, please

#1 User is offline   jonottawa 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,025
  • Joined: 2003-March-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, ON

Posted 2003-March-26, 07:01

Had a couple of disasters yesterday and would be interested in hearing some ideas on where the blame primarily lies.  Assume casual expert partnership.

Hand 1:  

N held XX XXX Q AQJXXXX

S held AJTX AJTXX ATXX ---

Playing 2/1 with no in depth agreements, the following auction occurred (beginning with South.)

1H - P - 2C - P - 2D - P - 2H - P - 2S - P - 3C - P - 3N - P - P - P

3N was not a successful contract.

Hand 2:

N held KX QT ATX J98XXX

S held AJXXX XX KJ9X XX

With N/S vul, playing DONT, the following auction occurred: (beginning with West)

P - P - 1N (15-17) - 2D - 4H - 5C - Dbl - P - P - 5D - Dbl - P - P - P

5D doubled was not a successful contract
"Maybe we should all get together and buy Kaitlyn a box set of "All in the Family" for Chanukah. Archie didn't think he was a racist, the problem was with all the chinks, dagos, niggers, kikes, etc. ruining the country." ~ barmar
0

#2 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,566
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2003-March-26, 07:47

In general, I am not real fond of "assessing blame". Bridge is a partnership game, and if your bidding lands you in a bad spot, well it happens. However, I will point out what I would have done as either north or south on these hands, and try to come up with a percentage of blame.

First hand. If NORTH SOUTH is vulnerable, I rate all the blame on SOUTH. If N/S are not vul, I say the blame lays at about 80% on south. First, why the difference with vulnerabiity?

I don't think North's hand is quite up to 2/1 game force stregnth. But, if I was vul at imps, after partner opens 1H, I will not settle for less than game. Thus if I am vulnerable,  i will go ahead and bid 2C to set up a forcing auction. If not vul, I will bid 1NT forcing, and raise to 3H's I think, although a direct heart raise is also possible. The real problem is South's run to 3NT with a void in his partner's suit. How much easier this hand would have been if South had a few clubs? I would rebid 3S over 3C I think, or, maybe 3Hs. Thus the auction should have been VUL 1H-2C-2D-2H-2S-3C-3H-4H end, or 1H-2C-2D-2H-3C-3S-4H- end  Over the 3NT bid,  north has reason to expect a couple of clubs with south, maybe the king, and that south is thinking of running 6C's and 3 side suit winners... think south as Ax Axxxx Axxx Kx, so North can not pull.

Not vul, you still get to game if north responds 1NT (forcing)... Think 1H-1NT-2D-3H-4H-end

The second hand, has 60% of the blame on North. This one is clearer than the first.  North maybe the expert you suggest, and it clear he has heard of the DONT convention, but it seems that he may not to understand the theory that it is used to jostle the opponents out of their comfortable 1NT contract. He has little reason to suspect his side can come close to making 5D.

It is not 100% on north, only because North may reasonably assume that VUL, south would have a much better offensive hand for his 2D DONT bid. I mean if this is really Vul versus not Vul, I would not bid 2D with South's hand, and I am generally a very agreesive DONT bidder. But give me a stiff club or stiff heart, yes, I would risk it. Or give me the SAJT8x instead of AJxxx maybe yes too. So in one sense, the bid that got you into trouble was 2D vul and some people will, no doubt, assign 100% of the blame to south. And I would not argue too strongly against that logic, but even if South had the better hand, North's hand is no guarantee of succes in 5Ds. So I think assigning 100% to South is much too o harsh, as 2D is really not THAT bad of bid. I suspect 5Dx is down at least three, and on a bad day, 5 or 6 is not out of the question.

So there you go... first hand 100 or 80% blame to South
Second hand... 60% of blame to North.  Bridge is a partnership game, and you guys have shared the blame fairly equally(assume, north was the same player both times), although if this was a competition, South would carry the majority of the blame. And it is interesting to note, the bid that propelled  NS into trouble each time was South's (3NT and 2D).
--Ben--

#3 User is offline   bglover 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 2003-February-20

Posted 2003-March-26, 08:38

Lesson learned the hard way using DONT, CAPP, etc. If you bid bad hands vul over 1NT you get in trouble. White vs. red you can take a few chances...

The second hand is not, in my opinion, worth a DONT action vul. Bad distribution, bad suits, a modicum of working points. Partner will expect more than you have here. Hand appears to be better suited to defense in any case should opps play 3NT. Now, does not mean responder blameless... Bidding that suit (with partner quite possibly with a stiff or 1 piece) VUL is just nuts... So, assess blame 60% to the DONT bidder (I can't assign stupdity points here... DONT wasn't a stupid bid, just maybe shouldn't be made,  five clubs vul was).

As to 1st hand, I do not believe responder's hand is worth a 2/1 response at either vulnerability. 1N and bid clubs with it. But, f partner has no clubs or 1 its value is duious as a game force...If I'm playing SAYC and can bid a limit with 3 pieces MAYBE its a 3 bid there, but am assuming the heart spots are bad. For now, bid 1N, pray partner rebids 2C (in which case I bid 4hts on double fit. I certainly do not warrant that a 2/1 hand absent fitting cards.
0

#4 User is offline   Jstroke 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 2003-February-18

Posted 2003-March-26, 08:51

On the first hand I think the 3N bid is the major problem.  I don't quibble with the 2C bid because 4H is a reasonable goal.  

On the second hand, I don't like the 5C bid.  Clearly South has 9+ pointed suit cards.  Which suggests NS should defend on this deal.

Percentages maybe 75% for the 3N bid and 65% for the 5C.  
0

#5 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,566
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2003-March-26, 08:53

Quote

Lesson learned the hard way using DONT, CAPP, etc. If you bid bad hands vul over 1NT you get in trouble. White vs. red you can take a few chances...

The second hand is not, in my opinion, worth a DONT action vul. Bad distribution, bad suits, a modicum of working points. Partner will expect more than you have here. Hand appears to be better suited to defense in any case should opps play 3NT. Now, does not mean responder blameless... Bidding that suit (with partner quite possibly with a stiff or 1 piece) VUL is just nuts... So, assess blame 60% to the DONT bidder (I can't assign stupdity points here... DONT wasn't a stupid bid, just maybe shouldn't be made,  five clubs vul was).

As to 1st hand, I do not believe responder's hand is worth a 2/1 response at either vulnerability. 1N and bid clubs with it. But, f partner has no clubs or 1 its value is duious as a game force...If I'm playing SAYC and can bid a limit with 3 pieces MAYBE its a 3 bid there, but am assuming the heart spots are bad. For now, bid 1N, pray partner rebids 2C (in which case I bid 4hts on double fit. I certainly do not warrant that a 2/1 hand absent fitting cards.


Steve, let me get this straight. You mean to tell me a side suit AQJ, a singleton Q and three card support, and another side suit doubleton, that you are not going to force to game VUL at imps?  I mean, don't you think that you rate to make 4H's at least a minimum of 40% of the time opposite a 1H opening bid? At MP or at imps not vul, I would not FORCE[/] to game, but at imps, vul, I am going to 4H's for sure, and will apologize when it is wrong, EVEN THOUGH I know in my heart I made the right bid.

Also, are you [b]really suggesting that after a 1NT and if your partner bids 2D, you are going to bid a non-forcing 3CLUBS hidding your support?
Sure you will make 3C's, but you are not even going to support hearts? I suspect 4H's will make 4, although it could go down if they START a trump at trick one limiting your useful ruffs in the dummy.  And I bet the field is in 4H's, so you rate to lose a bunch of imps if 4H's is making.

On the DONT hand, yes maybe 60% on South for the 2D bid would be right, but (AND THIS IS IMPORTANT), we don't know his style. If his partner could expect something like this, even vul, then it is not that bad of a bid. I do overcall with yucky stuff, but vul, I am generally 5-5, not 5-4, and surely not 5-4-2-2 (occasssionally vul, with 5-4-3-1).
--Ben--

#6 User is offline   bglover 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 2003-February-20

Posted 2003-March-26, 08:59

Well, i did assume the hearts were bad and i said so.. So, over 2d I did say I would bid 3h.. part of my message got garbled when i edited it and I didn't preview it... But back to your basic premise... Ya, that hand isn't worth a 2/1 assuming the hearts don't have an honor... That side suit is nice but not as nice as you think.. likely to produce 2 trix and 1 ruff once opps get in.

Now, the suit improves immenesly of partner has 2 of them (1 is not enough) and I did say over 1n pray partner bids 2c... Then the hand's value goes way up (partner has minimum of 2 clubs) and if partrner rebids 2h, promising 6, the value also goes up because value of 3d heart goes way up now.

I should point out that i play that 2d guarantees 4 and 2c can be made on only 2... so therefore I have a 2s bid over 2d availabe.to show both hearts AND clubs... since 2s isnt natural... that, of course, is part of the reason i can bid 1n and wait for developments...

Alternatively, as a side thought, if I do bid 2c initially then I must insist on clubs...partner will get the message if I bid 2c, then 3c then 4c (over an attempted NT bailout). Then maybe we play 4c instead of 4hts and its not a disaster....
0

#7 User is offline   Yzerman 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 2003-March-25
  • Location:Garden City, MI

Posted 2003-March-27, 09:15

Who to blame?  These are difficult hands and bridge is a partnership game and the PARTNERSHIP is to blame.  

Problem (a) - Tough hand.  These types of hands are a matter of getting the best minus score.  

Only comments on this hand is that after a 2/1 in the club suit, you are living on the edge by bidding 2H and cooperating with 3C.  This hand type, you need to create plan for your bidding and stick with it, having bid 2C as game force you did not bid 2C with the intention of playing 3NT so I would avoid NT at all cost.  Having said that, the South hand should also try and avoid NT as well, tricks will be more difficult to come on this misfit in NT than in a suit contract.  Hence blame about equal - the judgement used both in BIDDING and ALLOWING TO PLAY 3N are questionable calls so blame is relatively equal.

Problem (B) - Once again I think blame is about equal.  The 2D bid sets the table for the future fiasco.  If I am not able to bid 2S with this hand to show longer spades and a shorter suit (typically a minor) than I am "system fixed" and would question bidding 2D.  Having said that, it is obvious from N perspective that suits are D + S, and despite having fitting cards I think there the risk of bidding and it being wrong heavily outweighs the reward for bidding.
MAL
0

#8 User is offline   jonottawa 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,025
  • Joined: 2003-March-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, ON

Posted 2003-March-27, 10:46

Thanks to everyone who replied.  I'll now weigh in with my (admittedly biased) two cents.

On the first hand, I don't see how North can pass 3N.  He knows that South has a stiff club (even if you rule out a void) and with no entry to those clubs, how can pass be right?

I was South (if you haven't guessed that already) and pictured a hand like XXX KX QJX AQXXX and thought that my fat 14 and great spots would make 3N laydown opposite almost any hand resembling a 2/1 response (barring a club lead if partner has bad spots, which is exceedingly unlikely on this auction) whereas a 4H contract might have problems if hearts don't break (I certainly have no reason to suspect that hearts will take 2 more tricks than NT if partner has that hand).  Simply put, 2H doesn't guarantee 3 card support and after showing a hand with 5 hearts, 4 diamonds, double spade stop and shortness in clubs, I expected partner to take it from there.

On the second hand, I was again South.  I don't dispute that I didn't have a textbook DONT bid at unfavorable, but we were playing an inexperienced partnership and I doubted that they had the tools to nail us even if it was right.  Yeah, I would have preferred to be 5-4-3-1 and usually the principle of 'first mistake gets all the blame' is valid, but when the 'first mistake' produces a great result and the second mistake is so hugely antipercentage, I think you have to make an exception.

For starters, my RHO might have taken the 4H bid as Texas and bid 4S if my partner had passed.  Regardless, they wrongsided the contract and got too high because of my bid.  The 4H bidder was a passed hand, after all.  Partner's 5C bid is criminal.  He has no fit for either of my suits and chose to bid 5/4 with a presumed 8 card fit into a nebulous auction where the opps might end up in the wrong suit or at worst, where he knows exactly what to lead.  

DONT is designed to interfere with the opponents' constructive NT auction.  It performed beautifully on this hand.  Then partner took a hugely antipercentage action and we went for 1400 (down 5, the diamonds were 4-2 offside (who would play the heart bidder for diamond length?) instead of taking our easy plus against 4H.

Doubt I changed any minds with my analysis, but what the hey ...   ;D
"Maybe we should all get together and buy Kaitlyn a box set of "All in the Family" for Chanukah. Archie didn't think he was a racist, the problem was with all the chinks, dagos, niggers, kikes, etc. ruining the country." ~ barmar
0

#9 User is offline   Jstroke 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 2003-February-18

Posted 2003-March-27, 15:36

Your pard made a (semi) GF bid, then agreed Hearts.  So the next question for me is usually how many.  In general I think a Major bid and raised is usually the trump suit.  But it isn't a 100% rule.

There are 10 bids between 2H and 4H and each should say something different.  But without agreementsthe meaning of some are much clearer than the meaning of others.  There is no confusion about 3H or 4H.

I have no problem with the 2S bid, even though I think it is an ambiguous force to at least 3H.  I don't think every 2/1 player would feel that game has been 100% forced by the 2C bid or the 2S bid.

Partners 2H bid does not promise extras.  The 2/1 suit usually shows a source of tricks.  They are wasted values this time.  And the Heart support can't be great.

IMHO, I think 3N offers to play in some number of NT.  I do not think it is forcing in this context.  

Without extras I think 4H was the bid.
0

#10 User is offline   JSilver 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 2003-March-23
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 2003-April-03, 20:28

To begin with, I'd say the point is not to assign blame but to determine what went wrong.

On the first hand, if North judged his hand was worth a game-forcing bid, then part of that evaluation had to be based on a trump fit and distibutional values.  Therefore, as North, I would not have considered 3NT as a possible contract, particulary in light of the lack of entries to the club suit.

I probably shouldn't offer an opinion on the second hand, since I'm not experienced with DONT.  But offhand, I'd say both players made dubious decisions.  What went worng, however, was apparently the lack of a shared understanding of what South should have for his 2D bid.
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent." --Isaac Asimov
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users