[Phil]

Pulled Fluffy into a JEC match tonight. I thought we played very solid, although we had a spectacular disaster on one hand.

Obviously the final contract is about four levels too high. Where did things go off the rails, and what could have been done differently to change the outcome?

---

[aguahombre]

I can't (won't) judge what agreements might have been mistaken in the partnership of someone else.

But I do have a question about the 2D G.F. bid which precipitated the torture. Was there something about the pair's style which prevented a simple 3NT bid instead of 2D? Might not make 3NT either, but that is where I would expect the opponents at the other table to end up.

[sfi]

It looks like the rails really went off with the 3S bid. Without knowing your system, I would expect that to show 4 card support in most circumstances. Why not bid 3D over 3C to explore? Now West can bid 3NT easily and East has no reason to disturb that. Without a high heart, West might bid 3H and then the auction could continue 3S-3NT-4S or something similar if you want to get to the Moysian.

3S seems to jam the auction just enough so that nobody knew quite where to stop.

[kfay]

IDK what the worst call was but:

E should just bid 3NT at his 2nd turn. He realized his grievous error over 3♣ and should just fix it at that point by bidding 3NT.

W should bid 3NT instead of 4♣.

W shouldn't bid 4♥... his side has no fit! This isn't a COG, son.

After 4♥ E gave up on grand too easily.

North or South definitely should have doubled.

[jjbrr]

1D 1H 1S 3NT imo

[kayin801]

What jjbrr said. 2♦ then 3♠ looks like a slam-going 4 card raise, though not sure how that differs for you from a direct 3♠ by agreement. I have some sympathy if a direct 3♠ bid shows 4 pieces and a slam try since there's no need this sequence to show the same thing, but I'm not real sure what 3♠ is meant to accomplish then. Maybe it's some sort of weird cuebid for clubs?

[Yu18772]

Like others - I think the worst one is 3♠, but also after - at 4♣ E should have realized what happened (4♣ is a q, W took 3♠ as slamish spade 4 card fit ....), E should sign off at 4♠.
Yu

[MrAce]

1♦-1♥
1♠-3NT

No doubt 3♠ is the worst call imo.

[quiddity]

As West I would bid 2NT instead of 3♣ (stiff honor, no 5-card suit, minimum points, clubs well-stopped, and I've already suggested an unbalanced hand).
After failing to do so I would try to slow things down after 3♠. Controls are nice but my trumps, shape, and values are going to be disappointing. 3NT or 4♠. It is not mandatory to cuebid here.

As East I would bid 3♦ instead of 3♠ so I don't have to do something insane on a later round (like jump to 6♦ with a 4X3 12-count). I do like the 2♦ bid though. There is no rush to bid 3NT with Jxxx of hearts opposite a stiff or void.

[ahydra]

Worst call = the final pass by the person holding the ♦A

Second worst call = 3S. WTF? Partner already denied a 5cM and you have a minimum balanced for your 2D.

ahydra

[Phil]

ahydra, on 2012-May-31, 09:12, said:

Worst call = the final pass by the person holding the ♦A

Second worst call = 3S. WTF? Partner already denied a 5cM and you have a minimum balanced for your 2D.

ahydra

Of course it was doubled (I left that out), but it doesn't feel particularly germane to the discussion.

[mikeh]

East is entirely to blame.

He could and probably should have bid 3N over 1♠. In fact, I think it was clear...he has zero slam interest opposite a normal opening hand, and while his hearts aren't great....if they can run hearts in 3N they still have to lead the suit, and what other game is going to be better?

3♠, however, was the real disaster and reflects either panic (ooops.....partner is 4054 or 4144 and they are leading hearts) and/or a basic misunderstanding of FSF auctions (I know, 2♦ wasn't FSF, but the meaning was the same as FSF).

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that one can usually think of a FSF bid as conveying the message that: We are going to at least game, but I won't tell you anything about my preferred strain until my next bid...please make an economical, descriptive call, and then I will tell you why and where I am excited'

In that context, West's 3♣ was clear......East may well need to know the shape...after all, while E will often have a strain in mind when bidding 2♦, that could change as a result of West's shape, etc.

Now 3♠ was a slam try in spades. Sure, we can see that East was by then scrambling, but he forgot the cardinal rule of these auctions: partner will always assume your bids mean what they sound like they mean, and in this sequence, 100% of good players would take 3♠ as agreeing spades.

Put another way: give East AQxx KQJxx Ax xx and his partner opens 1♦ and rebids 1♠. Don't we all do a wtp 2♦ then 3♠?

I can't explain East's actions after 4♣ except that somehow East convinced himself that his 4♦ set trump, which was impossible since he had already set trump via 3♠. I think by then confusion was reigning supreme.

[Phil]

Well, I was East, but I think some are going overboard on some of my actions, especially MikeH.

I agree that 3♦ is a lot better than 3♠.

However, here's my feeling on the auction.

1. Looking back, my hand screams for NT with minimal disclosure, and my initial thought was over 1♦ was 2N, which is on the card as 12-15. Maybe its because we are in a big match, but the last thing I wanted was to play 2N+ on this hand (even though we were actually NV). This would have led to a very simple auction to 3N. ♠Qxx was in the slot, so they can't threaten 9 tricks. To Fluffy's credit, he did have pretty good handle on the cc I threw at him 20 minutes before game time, and we didn't have any material disagreements, except on one hand that I will post later. But 1♥ isn't patently bad, but I regret making the bid.

2. 2♦. I'm surprised that this is coming under such fire. Frankly I think it is clear to get a handle on partner's shape before committing to 3N. If partner has short hearts, either 4♠ or 5♦ looks smarter. And, why should NT be played from my side? With something like AT, partner should play it.

3. 3♣. After the match, a top player who was kibbing came up to me and said, "can I offer a suggestion?" He said that with a 4144 in a 4th suit or GF xyz auction that contains a singleton honor, that you don't pattern out with the 4th suit (here, 3♣) but opt for 2N yourself. The hand with the short honor needs to play the NT, and partner won't be playing you for useful cards.

4. 3♠. A direct 3♠ over 1♠ is a slam try, so I am perplexed why anyone thinks 2♦ followed by 3♠ is. I've mentioned before that in one partnership we actually played this as denying four spades, but I think the standard agreement is that this is just a normal, GF hand with four spades which gives partner room in case opener has extras. I agree 3♦ is better and at the table, I said 3♦ would be a cleaner bid. I'm unclear how we would find spades after 3♦, but I don't want to sound like I am defending 3♠, because I'm not.

5. 4♣. Perhaps a disagreement about the strength of the 3♠ call.

6. 4♦ / 4♥.....and a disagreement about the strength of 4♣.

7. 4N...in spite of how bad things were going, I'm pretty sure you can make 4♠ on this hand. If I'm really strong, why does opener need to suddenly take control? I don't think there's anything beyond the two cue bids his hand contains to warrant a further move.

....6♦. A last ditch effort at trying to get to the right slam and avoid a bad one. I honestly thought the way he was bidding, that I could expect something like Qxxx A AKxxx Axxx. And why shouldn't have this?

[mikeh]

Phil, on 2012-May-31, 10:38, said:

Well, I was East, but I think some are going overboard on some of my actions, especially MikeH.

I agree that 3♦ is a lot better than 3♠.

However, here's my feeling on the auction.

1. Looking back, my hand screams for NT with minimal disclosure, and my initial thought was over 1♦ was 2N, which is on the card as 12-15. Maybe its because we are in a big match, but the last thing I wanted was to play 2N+ on this hand (even though we were actually NV). This would have led to a very simple auction to 3N. ♠Qxx was in the slot, so they can't threaten 9 tricks. To Fluffy's credit, he did have pretty good handle on the cc I threw at him 20 minutes before game time, and we didn't have any material disagreements, except on one hand that I will post later. But 1♥ isn't patently bad, but I regret making the bid.

2. 2♦. I'm surprised that this is coming under such fire. Frankly I think it is clear to get a handle on partner's shape before committing to 3N. If partner has short hearts, either 4♠ or 5♦ looks smarter. And, why should NT be played from my side? With something like AT, partner should play it.

3. 3♣. After the match, a top player who was kibbing came up to me and said, "can I offer a suggestion?" He said that with a 4144 in a 4th suit or GF xyz auction that contains a singleton honor, that you don't pattern out with the 4th suit (here, 3♣) but opt for 2N yourself. The hand with the short honor needs to play the NT, and partner won't be playing you for useful cards.

4. 3♠. A direct 3♠ over 1♠ is a slam try, so I am perplexed why anyone thinks 2♦ followed by 3♠ is. I've mentioned before that in one partnership we actually played this as denying four spades, but I think the standard agreement is that this is just a normal, GF hand with four spades which gives partner room in case opener has extras. I agree 3♦ is better and at the table, I said 3♦ would be a cleaner bid. I'm unclear how we would find spades after 3♦, but I don't want to sound like I am defending 3♠, because I'm not.

5. 4♣. Perhaps a disagreement about the strength of the 3♠ call.

6. 4♦ / 4♥.....and a disagreement about the strength of 4♣.

7. 4N...in spite of how bad things were going, I'm pretty sure you can make 4♠ on this hand. If I'm really strong, why does opener need to suddenly take control? I don't think there's anything beyond the two cue bids his hand contains to warrant a further move.

....6♦. A last ditch effort at trying to get to the right slam and avoid a bad one. I honestly thought the way he was bidding, that I could expect something like Qxxx A AKxxx Axxx. And why shouldn't have this?

Phil....had I known that a jump raise to 3♠ was a forcing raise, I wouldn't have written as I did....and given that I suppose the invite would go through 2♣ (I assume) then maybe I should have asked about this sequence...this is a difference between xzy and FSF that i hadn't considered in my post.

So this goes to show how dangerous it is for a poster (me) to make assumptions about methods.....tho I think it would have been helpful to have specified in the OP that 3♠ rather than 2♦ then spades showed the slam interest hand (or is that just me trying to backpedal from my post?).

As for your concern that 2N over 1♦ would fetch a pass....that is surely impossible if 2N shows 12-15? Were you concerned that Fluffy might have forgotten that part of the agreement?

As for the expert's suggestion about 2N rather than 3♣, it makes sense on this hand, and maybe it is best overall, but I don't think that bidding AKxx can be said to be a major reason for the end result. Indeed, if 3♠ meant what you say it meant (I am not arguing with you on that.....you know the methods you were playing and it is obvious that I don't) then surely West had the world's easiest 3N call...which suggests that he didn't see your 3♠ as you intended.

In which case, there is zero blame to go around.

The best news, to me, about this thread is that it shows that good players can logically get to absurd contracts without 'error'...just misunderstandings. Since I once played 6♠in a Rosenblum match with a trump suit of KQ9xx opposite void after a relay auction in which both partners bid in perfect accord with their system notes, it is nice to see others get results as silly (in our case, partner had emailed me a change to this one relay structure after I had left for Europe and I didn't get the email....so he showed me his 0=3=3=7 and I saw his 3=3=1=6)

[Phil]

Mike, isn't it obvious that when I explain 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ as GF that we are playing XYZ? If anyone gets that, they should also glom onto the inference that 3♠ would be a slam try.

Quote

In which case, there is zero blame to go around.

The backpedaling is nice of you, but I think there's plenty of blame to be distributed

[quiddity]

Phil, on 2012-May-31, 10:38, said:

7. 4N...in spite of how bad things were going, I'm pretty sure you can make 4♠ on this hand. If I'm really strong, why does opener need to suddenly take control? I don't think there's anything beyond the two cue bids his hand contains to warrant a further move.

....6♦. A last ditch effort at trying to get to the right slam and avoid a bad one. I honestly thought the way he was bidding, that I could expect something like Qxxx A AKxxx Axxx. And why shouldn't have this?

The OP auction has East jumping to 6♦ over 4♥. Did you leave out a round of bidding?

[Phil]

quiddity, on 2012-May-31, 11:35, said:

The OP auction has East jumping to 6♦ over 4♥. Did you leave out a round of bidding?

OP was right. Meaningless babble about not existent bids removed.

Hell, maybe if I bid 4♠ he would have passed

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2012-May-31, 10:38, said:

I honestly thought the way he was bidding, that I could expect something like Qxxx A AKxxx Axxx. And why shouldn't have this?

Law 6?

[Phil]

gnasher, on 2012-May-31, 11:40, said:

Law 6?

Sure. In rubber bridge, I pass a card under the table when I realize the hand's off the rails.

Remove a club please.

[mikeh]

Phil, on 2012-May-31, 11:11, said:

Mike, isn't it obvious that when I explain 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ as GF that we are playing XYZ? If anyone gets that, they should also glom onto the inference that 3♠ would be a slam try.



The backpedaling is nice of you, but I think there's plenty of blame to be distributed

I'm not an expert on xyz....I think I played it twice, and we had little discussion and I don't know that it even came up! Since I always play 3♠ as invitational, I just didn't think it through....and, now that I do, I'm not sold on the logic that it HAS to be a slam try....yes, I see the logic as to why it can be, and arguably should be, but it seems to me to be a matter for partnership agreement.....if I were sitting down with a player with whom I have few agreements, I'm not sure I'd risk bidding 3♠ with slam interest, lest it end the auction....akin to your desire not to bid a 12-15 2N with your 13 count.