[phoenix214]

Last weekend there was an internation tournament in Latvia - Riga invites to Jurmala, during this tournament i got to play vs Billy Eisenberg. During the teams tournament we had one interesting board that shows good bidding judgement by him. Im sitting N

A decision between 1H and 2H and pass. I decided that i want to bid 1H, because i have 4♠

---

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

[PhilKing]

Why is this good judgment?

[ahydra]

On the expected heart lead it's a terrible grand slam... especially given that North rates to have some of the missing kings. I mean, consider the 5H bid which can't be to make, surely, so West's expected number of tricks outside of trumps is at most four, meaning he needs three or four ruffs in one hand or a set-up-able suit. Doesn't look promising with that 4045 shape.

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

[sathyab]

PhilKing, on 2013-August-28, 15:47, said:

Why is this good judgment?

What would you say to team mates who brought back 1440 and ask you expectantly "so did they get to the grand ?"

[PhilKing]

sathyab, on 2013-August-28, 15:55, said:

What would you say to team mates who brought back 1440 and ask you expectantly "so did they get to the grand ?"

My stock response would be "flat - well done."

[cherdano]

sathyab, on 2013-August-28, 15:55, said:

What would you say to team mates who brought back 1440 and ask you expectantly "so did they get to the grand ?"

Probably "Win 11" or "Win 14", assuming everyone at our table was sane.

[mikeh]

The OP is yet another in a long and never-ending supply of hands on which a contract happens to make on an improbable lie of the cards and the OP thinks that bidding the contract was a good idea or that missing it was a bad one.

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.

[aguahombre]

PhilKing, on 2013-August-28, 15:47, said:

Why is this good judgment?

Billy stayed away from 7NT.

[phoenix214]

Well if everybody seems to dislike the hand i wanted to show, then i apologize, and know not to post any hands like this on this forum, cause people seem not to need them

[gnasher]

I think West's judgement was reasonable, but East's was not. For his forcing pass after showing a limit raise, East should have something in one of the side suits. Given that EW are probably getting only 300 or 500 from 6♥, 7♦ would be right opposite xx xx Kxx KQxxxx or even xx xx J10x KQxxxx.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2013-August-29, 02:13, said:

7♦ would be right opposite xx xx Kxx KQxxxx or even xx xx J10x KQxxxx.

7♣ would be better.

[Codo]

phoenix214, on 2013-August-28, 18:20, said:

Well if everybody seems to dislike the hand i wanted to show, then i apologize, and know not to post any hands like this on this forum, cause people seem not to need them

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.

[PhilKing]

Codo, on 2013-August-29, 05:23, said:

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.

Looks like it's on the double diamond hook to me, so circa 1/4.

[gszes]

gnasher, on 2013-August-29, 02:13, said:

I think West's judgement was reasonable, but East's was not. For his forcing pass after showing a limit raise, East should have something in one of the side suits. Given that EW are probably getting only 300 or 500 from 6♥, 7♦ would be right opposite xx xx Kxx KQxxxx or even xx xx J10x KQxxxx.

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.

[aguahombre]

Of course, Gszes is correct. But we were having such fun.

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.

[PhilKing]

gszes, on 2013-August-29, 12:00, said:

a voice of reason trying to get heard over nattering nabobs of negativity--- I think Eisenberg displayed superb judgement in bidding 7.

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.

[sathyab]

gszes, on 2013-August-29, 12:00, 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.

If you preempt with KQJxxx you will be missing a lot of 3nts when partner has a good weak NT.

[PhilKing]

sathyab, on 2013-August-29, 15:11, said:

If you preempt with KQJxxx you will be missing a lot of 3nts when partner has a good weak NT.

How?

[sathyab]

PhilKing, on 2013-August-29, 15:22, said:

How?

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.

[PhilKing]

sathyab, on 2013-August-29, 15:42, 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.

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.