Probably my decision of 6♥ is the one that allowed him to bid 7. I thought it would be a good save. I dont know who has to bid 7♥, but that is not too important. Hope you can enjoy the art
Bidding a grand
#1
Posted 2013-August-28, 15:21
Probably my decision of 6♥ is the one that allowed him to bid 7. I thought it would be a good save. I dont know who has to bid 7♥, but that is not too important. Hope you can enjoy the art
#3
Posted 2013-August-28, 15:47
Chances are, he thought the deal was a double-fit and East would be short in either diamonds or spades, whereupon he can take the ruffs. As it happens, he got very lucky indeed.
ahydra
#4
Posted 2013-August-28, 15:55
PhilKing, on 2013-August-28, 15:47, said:
What would you say to team mates who brought back 1440 and ask you expectantly "so did they get to the grand ?"
#6
Posted 2013-August-28, 16:17
sathyab, on 2013-August-28, 15:55, said:
Probably "Win 11" or "Win 14", assuming everyone at our table was sane.
#7
Posted 2013-August-28, 16:48
It's called 'resulting' and, if not recognized, leads to terrible bridge.
I don't know why Eisenberg bid grand. Maybe his partner's pass persuaded him that he could hope for the diamond K and some other luck. Or maybe he thought it would be fun to take a flyer.
#9
Posted 2013-August-28, 18:20
#10
Posted 2013-August-29, 02:13
#11
Posted 2013-August-29, 04:00
gnasher, on 2013-August-29, 02:13, said:
7♣ would be better.
#12
Posted 2013-August-29, 05:23
phoenix214, on 2013-August-28, 18:20, said:
Did you understood the sentiments?
Bidding the grand was a priori not good judgement, actually it was really bad judgement. You need both diamond honours with south and a place for the second spade- By the way of a finesse, which cannot win given the actual bidding, or by diamonds 3-3. So the grand has something around 12 % to succeed.
Maybe West was complete faultless, because his partner showed another hand with his bidding, but E/W had made a horrible descissionand got lucky. There is not much need to show hands like this, it had happened to all of us.
If you want to post really great performed hands, we all would like to join the cheering. But this hand is not one of them.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#14
Posted 2013-August-29, 12:00
gnasher, on 2013-August-29, 02:13, said:
a voice of reason trying to get heard over nattering nabobs of negativity--- I think Eisenberg displayed superb judgement in bidding 7.
The fact that the resulting contract was a 25% grand takes nothing away from his bidding. His bidding was based on partnership trust
and in this case the partner let him down badly with all sorts of disinformation. IMO the east hand is noting remotely in the ballpark of
a limit+ raise. The heart Q is of dubious value given the 1h overcall and surely and with nothing outside the club suit this hand looks
way more like a preemptive 3c bid than a limit raise. But that does not end there aside from overbidding in the first place by showing a
limit raise with this hand e failed again when passing 6h which should show extra values rather than the rag they actually held.
The fact that Eisenberg's team was rewarded for HIS good judgement was unfortunate for your side since they managed to arrive in a
very poor grand slam through no fault on Eisenberg's part. If this were an assign the blame I am pretty sure all would be in agreement
that 100% goes to east with an asterisk on the side saying btw the contract luckily made.
#15
Posted 2013-August-29, 12:10
BTW: Phoenix, it is indeed an interesting hand. I vote you continue to contribute and take a few pot shots along the way. We all get them.
#16
Posted 2013-August-29, 12:27
gszes, on 2013-August-29, 12:00, said:
Curious that Gnasher only got one upvote then ....
If it comes down to good judgment, then he erred by trusting his partner. And if East had (say) the spade king (which he has already denied), oppo go for 1100.
But as the lone upvoter, I agree that bidding on was reasonable. If East holds xxx x Kxxx KQxxx then it's just a cold deck.
#17
Posted 2013-August-29, 15:11
gszes, on 2013-August-29, 12:00, said:
The fact that the resulting contract was a 25% grand takes nothing away from his bidding. His bidding was based on partnership trust
and in this case the partner let him down badly with all sorts of disinformation. IMO the east hand is noting remotely in the ballpark of
a limit+ raise. The heart Q is of dubious value given the 1h overcall and surely and with nothing outside the club suit this hand looks
way more like a preemptive 3c bid than a limit raise. But that does not end there aside from overbidding in the first place by showing a
limit raise with this hand e failed again when passing 6h which should show extra values rather than the rag they actually held.
The fact that Eisenberg's team was rewarded for HIS good judgement was unfortunate for your side since they managed to arrive in a
very poor grand slam through no fault on Eisenberg's part. If this were an assign the blame I am pretty sure all would be in agreement
that 100% goes to east with an asterisk on the side saying btw the contract luckily made.
If you preempt with KQJxxx you will be missing a lot of 3nts when partner has a good weak NT.
#19
Posted 2013-August-29, 15:42
PhilKing, on 2013-August-29, 15:22, said:
Don't have time for a simulation, here're a few that seem reasonable.
If partner has:
♠JTxx ♥Kxx ♦AQx ♣Axx, it's nine tricks on a ♦ finesse.
♠AJx ♥JTxx ♦Axx ♣Axx you have 8 tricks on top with some chances for one more. I'd rather be playing 3nt than defending against it.
#20
Posted 2013-August-29, 16:00
sathyab, on 2013-August-29, 15:42, said:
If partner has:
♠JTxx ♥Kxx ♦AQx ♣Axx, it's nine tricks on a ♦ finesse.
♠AJx ♥JTxx ♦Axx ♣Axx you have 8 tricks on top with some chances for one more. I'd rather be playing 3nt than defending against it.
That's not a lot of missed 3NT. It's a few where it has play, plus you will get to a load more that have zero chance.