[Antrax]

An ATB of sorts.

---

Worst bid, worst agreement, whatever you have. I *think* the play was okay.

[Bbradley62]

West looks like a textbook Texas xfer to me.

Isn't 3♥ a drop-dead "I have a yarb" bid? Clearly, neither of you thought so, so what is your agreement? (I'll reserve comment on 4N until after seeing that answer.) Edit: Unless you play re-transfers, I guess...

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2012-December-12, 23:31

[mikeh]

I really believe that super-accepts should require 4 trump. Responder could be extremely weak so forcing to the 3 level makes no sense. In addition, bidding a 3 card holding the same way as a 4 card suit makes hand valuation by partner more uncertain.

But this pales in comparison to the utterly absurd 4N. 4N reveals an abysmal lack of bridge understanding. I won't go further other than to suggest that opener THINK about what the auction should logically mean.

The double was almost as weird. While the bidding was so silly that the odds might be good that they should fail, there is nothing about S's hand that says that is so.

Oh..and 3♥is strange as well.

The only player who made no silly call was N.

I suggest to both E and W that they spend a little money on a basic bidding book.

[Antrax]

pull no punches.
About my decisions:
a) I didn't evaluate my hand as worth a game force opposite 15-17 NT, so no texas. If I had slightly better shape, I would have Texased.
b) 3♥ was "drop dead" (I'm not sure about the status of retransfers on this auction - I was afraid he'll take 3♦ to be natural). I expected xx in spades, not Hx, so my hand actually got worse. I expected two losers in spades, and expecting the other three suits to total at most one loser seems overly optimistic, even given that he's max.
I feel the same as mikeh about 4N, but didn't want to say anything until I got confirmation I'm not crazy.

[mikeh]

Antrax, on 2012-December-13, 00:03, said:

pull no punches.
About my decisions:
a) I didn't evaluate my hand as worth a game force opposite 15-17 NT, so no texas. If I had slightly better shape, I would have Texased.
b) 3♥ was "drop dead" (I'm not sure about the status of retransfers on this auction - I was afraid he'll take 3♦ to be natural). I expected xx in spades, not Hx, so my hand actually got worse. I expected two losers in spades, and expecting the other three suits to total at most one loser seems overly optimistic, even given that he's max.
I feel the same as mikeh about 4N, but didn't want to say anything until I got confirmation I'm not crazy.

I was a little harsh

I agree that responder's hand is borderline. I wouldn't Texas myself, nor would I have planned to rebid 3♥ over the transfer. I would have been more aggressive red. However, one reason I wouldn't invite is that I would have given opener a chance to show a super-accept. Were he to super-accept, then I would definitely bid game. So I think that the 3♥ bid was an mistake. Indeed, I strongly suspect that many here and quite a few in real life would have chosen either Texas or a plan to raise a simple acceptance 1 level. And very, very few would not bid game after a super-accept.

[Antrax]

Interesting. Assuming 2♠ shows ♠xx, could you give some example hands for opener where game is good? I'm terrible at visualization, my attempt told me there's no chance it'll make

[the hog]

This is poor by both E and W. 2S is silly. Imo a super accept should show 4 cards. Treating Kx as shortage is just wrong. 3H is bad evaluation. I would have forced to game. 4NT is unbelievable.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

3H is at most inv., breaking the transfer does not generate a game force, hence 4NT is ...

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

I think north made the biggest mistake. He played with these three guys.

Okay, serious: 4 NT was not bridge. Nor was the double of 5 ♥. The superaccept with his hand was really bad, 3 ♥ was bad. 2 ♦ was questionable, the passes and 1 NT had been fine.

I think that it is superior to superaccept in NT or in second suits. I think it is as often usefull to show a second suit then a shortage. But they cannot double your second suit as easy as a shortage. And I think you must play retransfers...

[Antrax]

Not sure how useful it is to show a second suit with a balanced hand. Assuming super-accepts show four cards (which I think they should), what good is knowing about another 4-card suit?

[Codo]

Both the knowledge of the shortness and of the second length gives partner the possibility to re-evaluate his hand. If you tell him the shortage, the value for small honours in that suit wll decrease. The small honours in the other suits are better placed. If you tell him your second suit, he can use the same principle: Small honours in your second suit are of full value, in the other suits they are doubtful.

You have two small advantages while naming the length:
1. You sometimes play a superior 4-4 fit. Imagine hands like AKQxx,xx,AKxx,xx opposite Jxxx,Ax,QJxx,AK. 6 Spade is the limit, but 7 diamond is cold on a 4-1 diamond break. This does not happen too foten, but is a nice extra.
2. As mentioned before: Lead directing/sacrifice suggesting doubles are even rarer then over bidding your shortness.

[PhilKing]

Why the hate for South's double?

It looks like a rather good effort to me and is based on sound logic and a healthy disrespect for the auction.

[f0rdy]

Antrax, on 2012-December-13, 00:22, said:

Interesting. Assuming 2♠ shows ♠xx, could you give some example hands for opener where game is good? I'm terrible at visualization, my attempt told me there's no chance it'll make

I think the point is that a long weakish suit gets a lot better if partner shows 4 card support. The best scenario is that partner has
♠xx
♥Kxxx

and then has 12-14 points in the minors to provide 4 tricks for at most one loser; that's extremely unlikely to fail.
A bit worse is when partner has "wasted" heart honours:
♠xx
♥KQJx
leaving him with fewer points in the minors to cover your losers.

I think the worst possible major holding consistent with the auction is
♠Jx
♥KQJx
and even that still has a few minor holdings with play for game, eg
♦AQTx
♣Axx

[MrAce]

I think W does not have a textbook texas, not even close imo. So he did well by starting xfer. 3♥ was a bad bid, he should have bid 4♥. 4NT is ....whatever it is i guess.

[Hanoi5]

QT in partner's shortness, 7HCP's, only one Ace... What was 3♥? I think west has to sign-off in game.

[billw55]

PhilKing, on 2012-December-13, 05:22, said:

Why the hate for South's double?

It looks like a rather good effort to me and is based on sound logic and a healthy disrespect for the auction.

Because his hand is a defensive dungpile.

OK, maybe I can give him credit for believing that west actually holds the bust he presumably showed by bidding 3♥, and then inferring values in partner's hand. It's risky business though, with more to lose than to gain.

[PhilKing]

billw55, on 2012-December-13, 07:41, said:

Because his hand is a defensive dungpile.

OK, maybe I can give him credit for believing that west actually holds the bust he presumably showed by bidding 3♥, and then inferring values in partner's hand. It's risky business though, with more to lose than to gain.

The hand is an open book.

1) West tried to sign off in three, and the lunatic in the East chair has driven to five. At best 3♥ shows a game try playing retransfers.

2) East signed off in five, so there are (at least) two aces missing. With partner marked with a stiff trump, they strongly rate to be outside trumps.

3) Since we have the KQ of clubs, we can infer that East has the ace, so even if partner lacks the diamond ace, he will get in with the ace of trumps. If partner has the stiff heart king, that is genuinely unlucky.

4) We strongly suspect GAME will go off. After all, we have four tricks if partner has the diamond ace. Not doubling means we rate to gain only two imps when teammates bid game. To punish them we have to double.

5) Partner is on lead. We need to wake him up to get him to find our shortage (yes, I know the supposedly blameless ox in the North seat led the wrong ace). Give West ♠xxx ♥Axxxxx ♦xxx ♣x and this could be the most important reason of all. The nightmare scenario is that we concede 5♥ on a club lead yet four is defeated in the other room with the singleton on lead.

[billw55]

Phil, yes it all makes sense, if we trust in the ops bidding.

But one op has already shown that he has no idea what he is doing. Perhaps the other op does not either? Or maybe opener found an extra ace in his hand? Or maybe west knows how east overbids, and underbids to compensate? Lots of things could be going on.

Anyway, my own experience with doubling bad players solely on the bidding eventually made me stop it. All in all, I prefer to let partner (who actually holds the alleged aces) infer my values and make the double.

[Codo]

Phil stop dreaming.

Partner did not find the diamond lead. So you turn +50 into + 100, which you compare to -420. If Antrax had played the ten of spades on trick one, he may even had switched to a spade to reduce spade ruffs from dummy.

And if you have a partner at your level, you may find opps at your level, where you do not need to double either, because they had not reached 5 ♥ without a reason....

[PhilKing]

Codo, on 2012-December-13, 08:27, said:

Phil stop dreaming.

Partner did not find the diamond lead. So you turn +50 into + 100, which you compare to -420.

In the other room the stiff diamond will be on lead, so teamates will be down 50.

And South should play the spade jack at trick one.