We got thrashed (i)

[wackojack]

In a recent team match the team I was in got comprehensively thrashed.  I will present our losses as a series of problems for you.  When I say (you) here it may or may not be me at the table.  No names will be mentioned.   

You are dealer at love all with:    AJ10632,  5,  AJ,  A1052.  1 -(p)-1NT-(4 ); your bid? 

[Masse24]

Pass.

[jcreech]

Double. 

With the opponents pressure, I think of this as a cooperative take-out.  Not a pure penalty situation with the pressure from the opponents.

I likely have the opponents booked in hand (though the A is iffy) and partner has some values.  I do not expect overtricks and they are already in game, so those arguments don't hold.  If partner has a weak hand and intended to bid their own suit or give me a 2-card raise, I am prepared.  I wish I were better prepared in diamonds, but at least I have good ones for partner.

Note:  I may be prejudiced in this series, but I will try to remain dispassionate in how I would respond in the given situation and explain my thinking (right or wrong).

[kenberg]

I had the other hand, and it was one of those days when whatever I did, I should have done the other thing. I don't mind at all being identified. I'll give you my hand:


5
void
T975
KQ987643

I considered passing 1 , and maybe I should have bid 3 which I suppose is eak (in NWS it isn't, 3 would show a decent but non-forcing hand with long clubs, the sort of hand that in SAYC you would first bid 2 and then, at your second turn, bid a non-forcing 3 )  At any rate, I bid 1NT (frcing). Then 4 on my left, back to me. I figure I have absolutely noting of use in defending against hearts and it's not out of the question that they can make 6. So I passed. Well, pard has the ace in and , both cashing, so 5 !h is their limit. And we can make 6 .

The hand on my right has 4=5=4=0 shape including the K. If you interchange the K and A the bidding would go the same, and then they are cold for 6 . So passing does not seem completely nuts, but wrong here.

They have a 12 card heart fit, we have a 12 card club fit, they can take 11 tricks, we can take 12. Surely if I bid 5 my rho, with four hearts and a club void, and some decent values, will bid 5 . Of course then pard, with his clubs, will go on to 6 as a sac and voila, it comes home.

I have somewhere to go, but ler me repeat, I do not at all mind being identified here. Some of my choices I believe were things I should have done differently.  This one? I am not so sure.

[wackojack]

OK Ken has pre-empted my next question.  So we will go on to a further one:  You have at love all:    K9874,  J1083,  K832,  void.  RHO opens with 1  :
1  - (p) - 1NT - 4
4  - ?
Do you (a) pass?, (b) double? or (c) other?

My intention in raising these questions was not for the purpose of making a personal confession or a witch hunt to accuse others.  It is for me and/or other iac players to learn.   

[Masse24]

I probably just nudge it up a level. 5

[jcreech]

I DO NOT DOUBLE.  Clubs has no champion at this point, so it may prove to be a safe haven for the opponents.  Although it should be no surprise that spades may break badly, I do not want to encourage a move away from the contract if I choose to pass.

I have 4-card support for a suit that partner was willing to preempt at the game level opposite a silent partner - partner has to have at least 7 and maybe 8 hearts.  There will be spade shortness in partner's hand and I bring club shortness, so 5 may make, but even if it doesn't, if will not go down much.  Although my first inclination was to pass, I think I have convinced myself that 5 is the better call. 

In the long run, it preempts clubs, if it is indeed a safe haven, the contract may make, and if they bid 5 , I am happy to defend that contract and they will be less likely to run having bid the suit three times.

Bid 5 .

[kenberg]

I would not have bid 4 with Jack's hand and really I would not have doubled either. Suppose he doubles. I of course will bid 5 . Now they go on to 5 . Would we go on to 6 ? I hardly need an eight card suit for my 5 call. Would I go on to 6 ? I doubt it.

Of course maybe they won't go on to 5 but with a void and four card support, plus the K,  it seems likely that they would. In fact, a 5 call directly over the X seems right to me. Would I then bid 6 ? I doubt it, but perhaps.

Had I bid 3 on the first round, 1 - Pass - 3 ,  I can see that we might then compete to 6 over their 5 . Once I don't do that, I don't see much hope.

Often, with an 8 card suit, it's right to just keep bidding that suit until you buy the contract. That would have been right here. But here my lho also has an 8 card suit and he might follow the same route. Who gives up first? I guess par is 6 X off 1.

[jcreech]

All you can really do is make the best decision you can with the information you have and the understandings you have in place.

You may disagree with a partner or opponent on how they bid, and maybe even convince them that your opinion is more sound than theirs in the heat of battle play.

But in the end, you live with your decisions, and continue to do your best.  Over 4 , I may prefer action to pass, but I would never chastise a partner for choosing to pass.  I may have preferred a more cooperative choice of action by doubling, but at the table, I thought it reasonable when my partner bid 4 , and found it easier to pull to 5 when RHO doubled.  Who knows, maybe 4 X could have made when 5 goes down.  If it did, I would hope that partner would look at my 8-card suit and understand that while my decision was wrong in practice, it was a reasonable decision to make.

[kenberg]

I after 4 X, I imagine I would pull to 5 . Whether I would pull w/o the X is another question. Probably not. I expect 4 !h to make, and my thinking would be that if they want to let us play 4 undoubled that's fine by me. And if my rho had bid 5 over 4 , which is what I would have dome with his hand, I would not have bid 6 over that. If he had bid 5 over h , and then if partner has doubled 5 !h after I had passed 5 , I would have had a real problem. I hope I would pull, but I never said I had anything much. Still, I might pull.

Anyway, I think it's a hand with a lot of opportunities for wrong choices. I think the most likely way to get it right is for me to bid 3 over 1 - Pass. In fact I like the BWS way of laying that call as an invitational bid with good clubs and maybe a 10 or 11 count, but I assume w/o discussion it would have been taken as a weak jump shift. I have a lot of clubs and not much of anything else, so 3 is the way to show that. And it would have worked great here, although four card support is not to be expected.

[wackojack]

Anyway, I think it's a hand with a lot of opportunities for wrong choices. I think the most likely way to get it right is for me to bid 3 over 1 - Pass. In fact I like the BWS way of laying that call as an invitational bid with good clubs and maybe a 10 or 11 count, but I assume w/o discussion it would have been taken as a weak jump shift. I have a lot of clubs and not much of anything else, so 3 is the way to show that. And it would have worked great here, although four card support is not to be expected.

I have to say, Ken, that the last meaning I would give to a 3  response would be invitational long suit.  My initial thought would be a Bergen type response.  So next I would search your profile and find nothing.  Then the Solway strong jump shift as played by GIB would spring to mind. Perhaps if I could find BWS easily on my computer, I would take a look at it since I was aware that you make many references it.  Note: I was not aware of the existence of BWS until about 1 month ago.  So I would likely take it as a Bergen type response since so many Iacers have it on their profile.  Next I would assume reverse Bergen since this is the more modern meaning.  So for me a 1NT response is eminently understandable.

So having thought about the analysis given in your post and those of the other learned posters, this is what I would have bid in each position with 3 clones of myself. 

1         Pass         1NT         4
pass       5  (i)    Pass (ii)    pass
dbl (iii)   pass         6  ? (iv)  6  ? (v)

(i) Assume partner has 7 hearts and likely singleton in spades.  That leaves 3 or 4 cards in the minors.  So an 11 card  club  fit is quite likely.  Time to obey the LAW and apply maximum pressure with 5  .

(ii) I would have bid 5  had RHO passed 4  .  Now she has done that in with 5  .  I have no choice but to pass.  (and of course in tempo)

(iii) I have 3 aces and little reason to expect voids opposite them.  Even if this were to be so I would expect partner to have a singleton spade and so get a ruff.  So double for penalties. 

(iv)  Wow! What a choice to make.  The pressure bid of 5  has entirely randomised my choice of bid.  Say on the toss of a coin I run to 6 . 

(v)  The ante is upped again.  There are those that play 6  is a transfer to 6 .  I can't say I am one of them.  Maybe the toss of the coin on (iv) should have come down on pass.  Now we have to toss the coin again and see.   

 
Conclusion:  Good bidding allows maximum opportunity for the opps to make wrong choices and partner correct choices.   

   

[Masse24]

1         Pass         1NT         4
pass       5  (i)    Pass (ii)    pass
dbl (iii)   pass         6  ? (iv)  6  ? (v)

Jack, an observation about your "clone" auction: the 5 bid seems unnecessary. At least, not knowing of the rest of the hand. Whether partner's 4 is preemptive or partner thinks it can make is unknown. And although the suit has not been mentioned, there is no indication that further "preemption" is needed.

My thought process would be to pass and assume I'll soon be putting down dummy while wishing partner "good luck."

[kenberg]

Todd gives a link for BWS: https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwscompletesystem.html
I usually just Google to Bridge World Standard, I have done it often enough so that typing in Brid usually suffices. 

2/1 has merit, but there are downsides. The auction 1 - 2 - 2NT - 3 - Pass is no longer available. This creates two related problems. The obvious one is that responder can have a hand where he wants to show a decent but not game forcing hand, as he could do in SAYC. The other problem occurs when the auction goes, for example, 1 - 1NT - 2 - 3 .  How strong is that?  If I would bid that way with six good clubs and a ten count, and also bid that way with six fairly decent clubs and a six count, or maybe even a five count,, what is opener to do? If the hand with six clubs and a ten count (or maybe make that an 11 count, but anyway a hand that is a bit under the strength needed for a GF 2 on the first round) would have started with 1 - 3 , then this takes a lot of pressure off opener on the auction 1 -1NT -2 -3 .   

As to Bergen, it has its uses, no doubt about that, but I see Bergen as offering a refinement to bidding (three card support versus four card support) while I see the BWS agreement as offering a way to solve a problem that is simply unsolvable without it. I checked with the bots and they use this agreement by a passed hand: Pass- 1 - 3 is an invit with long clubs.

There are other interesting options in the auction. After 1 -Pass - 1NT - 4 - Pass I think that  I, if I held my Rho's hand, would either pass or bid 5 . He has passed the 1 , he cannot suddenly have discovered a club suit to bid at the five level. So 5 is a slam try. Is the hand worth it? Oh, I don't know. These 4 bids are sometimes on pretty decent strength. So let's see.  With his holding and partner's 4 call he can reasonably assume his partner is short in spades. If the 4 bidder has no and the A surely 6 has a good play, and it might have a decent play if the 4 bidder has either one spade and the A, or no and the Q.  I am not so sure I would bid 5 but I don't think it's crazy.


Here is a problem with my coming in with 5 on the auction we had: 1 - Pass - 1NT - 4 - Pass - Pass -5 . What are you to make of 5 given that the auction did not begin 1 - Pass - 3 . Let's say we trust that to be weak. I don't think it should be Bergen unless we have explicitly agreed to play Bergen. If 1 - Pass - 3 is weak, then presumably 1 - Pass - 1NT - 4 - Pass - Pass -5 is not entirely weak. They will go on to 5 , at least so I would expect. You have three aces, you expect some values in my had, you might well double for penalties. Would I pull? I dunno. I can see myself thinking that after I bid 5 and partner doubled rather than bid 6 , then I should let it be.  If I bid 5 then I think bidding 6 , with or without them contesting 5 with 5 , is apt to be up to your hand. Reasoning by opener: Pard bid 5 not knowing whether I have any, I have ATxx, a stiff in their suit, and aces in the other suits. Maybe this is enough for 6 , maybe not, but I might try. if it goes 1 - Pass - 1NT - 4 - Pass - Pass -5 pass - Pass -5 - Pass - Pass  -X, I am far from sure I would overrule the X with a 6 call. I certainly would not expect opener to have Axxx in clubs.


so I still think that the problem began with me not making a weak jump shift 1 - Pass - 3 . But if that would have been taken as Bergen, it's just as well! It's an ongoing iac problem. I rarely bid 1 - Pass - 3 for exactly that reason. There are various "standard" treatments of various auctions but the key word is "various". One solution would be to use Bot standard as a default. It doesn't cover everything but it resolves ambiguity in a number of cases. If something more elaborate is wanted, BWS is pretty elaborate. Neither would be untouchable writ. What's needed is something so that in undiscussed autions playing it "the bot way" or "the BWS way" would avoid ambiguity for the moment, but then later discussion in a regular partnership could be used to overrule a feature that does not appeal to them. Bot standard and BWS have this in common: They are explicitly written down, they have been devised by high level players, they have been thoughtfully revised over the years in response to comments. In the case of BWS there is also the extended list of comments that Todd links to: 
https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwspolls2017.html

Understandably this might be more that many want to digest. I have not read it all.

https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwspolls2017.html
is already a lot.


And so the problem: We choose something that is written down, or else we (meaning all of us on iac and bbo more generally) have different understandings of sequences. In Midnight in Paris, the hero Gil sees an unsolvable problem. Salvador Dali sees a rhinoceros. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BEf2nRwKX8
Different views.

PS I have to put up a couple of play disasters from the same session, both clearly my errors.  Later!

[kenberg]

Here is one of the later hands. I chose the wrong defense and I at first thought it was a clear error. Looking back, I am less certain. I chose wrong, but was it clear?

My hand:


5
Q5
AQ64
Q87643

After a Pass on my left, partner opened 1 . The full auction is:

Pass - 1 - 1 - 2
 4    All Pass

The Q looked reasonable and so I led it.  Dummy comes down:



JT972
43
972
A92


                                    5
                                    Q5
                                    AQ64
                                    Q87643



Pard wins with the A and switches to the K -  5 - 2 - A. Declarer now leads the from the board, cashing the A and then the king, as partner's Q falls. Now declarer plays the J, I take my Q, partner's T falls. Oops. The 9 on the board is now good.

Crunch time. Declarer started with five spades and two clubs. 5=4=2=2 and 5=3=2=3 seem to both be consistent with the bidding. If declarer started 5=4=2=2 a diamond is about to go away on the club so, if partner has the K, now is the time to take our diamonds. If declarer started 5=3=2=3, then no problem, he can throw a diamond on the clubs. I still get my AQ for down 1.

So: If declare's diamonds are Jx, we need to cash the diamonds now. If declarer's diamonds are Kxx, I need to get out safely with a club. I chose. I chose wrong. Is it clear? Usually when I choose wrong, I can go back later and find a point that I had overlooked. I am still looking for it.

As mentioned earlier, it was one of those days when whatever I did, I should have done the other thing.

[jcreech]

Ken,

The defense went differently at the other table, so the situation in my (your) seat was different.  I never had the opportunity to go wrong. 

I started the Q as you did, but after winning the A, he exited with the J.  Now declarer pulled two round of trump and ruffed the third .  In dummy, what should declarer do?  Right or wrong, she led A and then small,  Partner won the K, and had a choice of giving a ruff sluff or switch to the J.  Duh!  He made the switch, and made my double of 4 very sweet.

It is hard to go wrong when you don't get the chance.

My question is for Jack on this hand.  Why switch to the K?  I cannot quite get my head around that switch.  I'm not sure I like any continuation from the North hand after winning the A (just looking at dummy and the North hand, but the K is toward the end of the list for me.