[AL78]

Yesterday evening I experienced one of the worst examples of biased hands on BBO (I'm not claiming the hands are generally biased, although it often feels that way). It was the EBU 12 board sessions, but it took until round 5 of 6 until I was able to make an opening bid, and I didn't declare a single hand. It was at least more enjoyable than past similar experiences because partner and I held hands where we could defend with a plan and get the opps down many times, thanks to their terrible bidding.

This hand was one of the freakiest I've come across in a while. I was East:

---

2♦ showed both black suits.

How often do you see someone open at the one level, then bid to the five level opposite a silent partner, to a cold contract doubled? Unfortunately partner misclicked and crashed the ♦AK on the same trick, but aside from that, the contract is cold, and 4♠ the other way comes close to making, it is one off I think.

[LBengtsson]

East must bid 4♦ after North bids 3♠. West bidding 5♦ alone is crazy.

[AL78]

LBengtsson, on 2020-November-28, 08:57, said:

East must bid 4♦ after North bids 3♠. West bidding 5♦ alone is crazy.

On a 4333 hand with 11 losers if partner has nothing in clubs and no ruffing potential? Where are the tricks coming from? If partner can make nine or ten tricks with just the diamond ace as contribution from me, she would have opened Benji 2♣ from my perspective at the time.

[LBengtsson]

AL78, on 2020-November-28, 10:45, said:

On a 4333 hand with 11 losers if partner has nothing in clubs and no ruffing potential? Where are the tricks coming from? If partner can make nine or ten tricks with just the diamond ace as contribution from me, she would have opened Benji 2♣ from my perspective at the time.

One dimensional analysis. You forgot that the opponents can make part score or game and its <10% that 4♦ will be X. Partner needs knowing that you have ♦ support. Without ♦ATx in his suit he must have tricks outside in ♥s??? Counting losers is losing bridge, not supporting partner is losing bridge and partner bidding 5♦ on his own is crazy bridge!!! Partner bidding 5♦ after you support is normal bridge...Yes?

[akwoo]

Yeah you have to bid 4♦. You're willing to go off 2 for -100 against their making 3♠ contract. They're not going to find the double.

Think of it this way - if your partner had opened 3♦, you wouldn't even think twice before raising to 4.

If your opponents are terrible and might not find their game unless you pushed them to it, then you might consider passing. Otherwise you have to bid.

[AL78]

akwoo, on 2020-November-28, 23:10, said:

Yeah you have to bid 4♦. You're willing to go off 2 for -100 against their making 3♠ contract. They're not going to find the double.

Think of it this way - if your partner had opened 3♦, you wouldn't even think twice before raising to 4.

If your opponents are terrible and might not find their game unless you pushed them to it, then you might consider passing. Otherwise you have to bid.

I would. I don't like raising pre-empts on 4333 hands with no ruffing potential, and who says they won't find a double when it is right? It wasn't that long ago someone passed a takeout double for penalties against me holding a Yarborough.

[Douglas43]

Thanks for posting AL78.


Not sure it affects the outcome, but should South bid 3S immediately as a competitive move rather than 2S? Admittedly on this hand it's probably counter-productive as more likely to push EW into 5D, but in principle, shouldn't South bid to the level of the fit?

[DavidKok]

Since 2♦ shows both black suits South should immediately bid 4♠ - 3♠ for the level of the fit, and one more because of the double fit with club length.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2020-November-29, 04:25, said:

Since 2♦ shows both black suits South should immediately bid 4♠ - 3♠ for the level of the fit, and one more because of the double fit with club length.

If he did bid 3♠ or 4♠ N might well bid 5♠ rather than double 5♦

[akwoo]

Yeah I would have bid 4♠ on my first turn as South. Part of the reason is that partner could show up with as good a hand as ♠Axxxxx ♥x ♦x ♣KQxxx and the opponents might still be cold for 7 of either red suit. (At this vulnerability, I think partner could have a much worse hand like ♠QJTxx ♥x ♦xx ♣Kxxxx.) Good opponents will have tools to find those grand slams if you give them room but will have to guess somewhat if you jam the bidding.

With all the defensive values the actual North has, I think they have to double after (1♦)-2♦-(P)-4♠-(5♦)-; this isn't purely for penalty but rather shows a good hand and asks partner to decide between 5♠ and 5♦X. It's clear pass is right for South; they don't have much distribution given their 4♠ bid.

One of the things about playing MPs (we are talking about MPs, right?) is that you have to be willing to laugh off the big number once in a while. The 0 you get for being spectacularly wrong is the same score as the 0 you get for being a little wrong. (Last week I managed -1050 twice in one session.)

[AL78]

Douglas43, on 2020-November-29, 03:36, said:

Thanks for posting AL78.


Not sure it affects the outcome, but should South bid 3S immediately as a competitive move rather than 2S? Admittedly on this hand it's probably counter-productive as more likely to push EW into 5D, but in principle, shouldn't South bid to the level of the fit?

With a double black suit fit opposite a distributional hand, I'd have bid 4♠.