[Al_U_Card]

Seems to me that the shape and values are soft. Pard expects some high cards outside of spades and certainly the Club ace-Q would be huge cards while the H ace, while stopping their suit once, does nothing to promote tricks in our hands. Pard may well be disappointed to find the H ace in your hand.

[Rebound]

I feel much less qualified to comment than those above, however, my opinion, fwiw, is that I have bid my values. The rest is up to partner. It has always been my experience that when once you have shown your hand, free bids will sink you.

I agree that this is far more of an issue with weaker players whose judgement is less well developed than that of the expert player, but I feel it is a marvellous method of developing trust in any partnership.

[the hog]

---

This was the full hand. Yes I agree that the 4H bid was excessive, but while this was a strong event, this was certainly one of the weaker pairs playing.

The full auction was:
(1D) P (P) 2S
(4H) 4S (5H)
all pass.

I must admit that I was a little surprised at partner's final pass. I might have doubled with his hand, and maybe I should bid 5S, but I felt that my 2S bid had expressed my values. Question - should my pass be a forcing pass?

The defence has some academic interest.
Declarer ruffed the opening C lead and played A of D and ruffed a D and played the Q!!of H off the board (I told you this was a weaker pair). I won the A and underlead AKQ of S, hoping that pd had the J so I could overruff dummy's on a D return. It was not to be - making 6. Partner suggested I should duck the HQ in the hope that declarer hooks the Ten of H. Faint hope....it looks like she was playing to drop Jx.
So they made 6 instead of 5. The datum was 370 our way! 5S can't make of course unless there is a defensive error, but at least it lessens the loss on the hand.

[Chamaco]

The_Hog, on Sep 2 2005, 12:38 AM, said:

5S can't make of course unless there is a defensive error, but at least it lessens the loss on the hand.

This seems to confirm my evaluation: even opposite partner's hand, which is not offensive, our hand (despite 6322 shape) is so ofensive that bidding 5S is still a winner.

What matters here IMO is not so much the shape distribution, but the HONORS fit: from the bidding we know that opps are in a very pure fit, and there will be many more tricks than usual for both sides.
In this case, the 6322 shape has MUCH more potential than usual.

If EAST does not bid 5S, he cannot expect west to bid it if west has a "normal" hand, yet, when east does have a normal hand, 5S is the par of the hand (if we are down, opps have game).

[mike777]

Chamaco, on Sep 2 2005, 02:53 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 2 2005, 12:38 AM, said:

5S can't make of course unless there is a defensive error, but at least it lessens the loss on the hand.

This seems to confirm my evaluation: even opposite partner's hand, which is not offensive, our hand (despite 6322 shape) is so ofensive that bidding 5S is still a winner.

What matters here IMO is not so much the shape distribution, but the HONORS fit: from the bidding we know that opps are in a very pure fit, and there will be many more tricks than usual for both sides.
In this case, the 6322 shape has MUCH more potential than usual.

If EAST does not bid 5S, he cannot expect west to bid it if west has a "normal" hand, yet, when east does have a normal hand, 5S is the par of the hand (if we are down, opps have game).

Strongly disagree with your wording here.
1) Shape does matter very much.
2) Let us just call honor fit " working hcp"
3) Combine one and two and you do NOT have more tricks than expected. In fact you do not have any more expected tricks.

See "fought the law".
13-4+1=10 tricks.

Will grant you the opp hand is much harder to count out in all fairness.

[the hog]

I'm inclined to agree with you Mauro. Note though that even if I bid 5S
-1, I still lose against the datum. Damn it! Why did this have to come up against a weak pair? It cost us 14 Imps.

Any comments about the defence anyone? And also whether this is a forcing pass situation at this vulnerability?

[whereagles]

From what I saw of these opps, there is a good chance you'd have made 5♠, Ron Still, it would be your best chance for a plus score, even if you hadn't made it.

As for the bidding, unless you clearly have a rule saying "forcing pass if we bid to a game at 'red'," I don't think pass should be forcing because even at this vulnerability, there can be good saves.

[helene_t]

In general, I don't hink this is a forcing pass situation, since the 4♠-bidder could either be saving or expecting to make - if he was saving he should be allowed to pass.

But maybe this is different at unfavorable when 4♠ was most likely to make. Without specific agreements I would assume that pass is not forcing but it's possible that this is not optimal.

[the hog]

whereagles, on Sep 2 2005, 07:29 PM, said:

From what I saw of these opps, there is a good chance you'd have made 5♠, Ron Still, it would be your best chance for a plus score, even if you hadn't made it.

As for the bidding, unless you clearly have a rule saying "forcing pass if we bid to a game at 'red'," I don't think pass should be forcing because even at this vulnerability, there can be good saves.

He he. Whereagles, I thought that too!

[the hog]

helene_t, on Sep 2 2005, 07:39 PM, said:

In general, I don't hink this is a forcing pass situation, since the 4♠-bidder could either be saving or expecting to make - if he was saving he should be allowed to pass.

But maybe this is different at unfavorable when 4♠ was most likely to make. Without specific agreements I would assume that pass is not forcing but it's possible that this is not optimal.

At favourable I would agree Helene, but here?


Incidentally, does anyone think I should duck the Q of H??

[Chamaco]

Quote

Strongly disagree with your wording here.
1) Shape does matter very much.

Mike, of course I agree that shape matters. :-)

The point I was trying to say is that:
- exactly because we know shape matters, opener has shown an extreme shape; we cannot ignore that;

- the "purity" of the hand matters: there are plenty of illustration in literature that show that, when the hands are very "pure", the combined hands take more tricks than usual, *even if they have the same shape*.

- our partner cannot know of this "purity" of the hands because he does not know we have the club Q; so if we pass "because" we aleady bid our hand, patner as a matter of fact will have a hard time figuring it out

Quote

See "fought the law".
13-4+1=10 tricks.

"Fought the law" (FTL) is a good method to estimate tye number of tricks we can indeed make: but it does not tell us which is a profitable sac.
I'll explain better:
sometimes, FTL will tell you "you can make 10 tricks", so do not bid 5.
But sometimes, bidding 5 is a god sacrifice, and you are bidding it as 2-way: either to make, or as a sac.

(BTW, this is why I consider it unfair to compare FTL vs the LOTT: the LOTT is not a method to estimate which contract you can make, it tells you how high to bid even if you go down profitably. Instead FTL will try to estimate only the contract you can indeed make, regardless of what alternative contract opps have. So FTL seems very good in constructive, uncontested auctions, when you do not care of sacrificing).

The given hand posted by Ron is a good example: FTL is right (we can make 10 tricks), but nonetheless, 5S(doubled, I assume), is the par of the hand.
Sometimes, the fact we cannot make the contract does not ncesarily mean we should not bid it.

[Fluffy]

The defence was as unlucky as the rest of the deal

[Al_U_Card]

Based on the auction, their 5H was as much to make as was your 4S so the forcing pass is off unless as previously stated "red vs wht pass is forcing" which in this case would lead you to pass (H ace=def and other cards=off) and pard will then have to guess and will likely bid 5S knowing that you have offensive cards too.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't think pass is forcing as it's not at all clear who was making what.

However, I am very surprised your partner passed out 5H as he knows he was bidding 4S to make (which we didn't know). Holding very little in diamonds, and seeing you not double, I think he had a 5S bid.

I note in passing this is a slightly strange hand, as your red suit holdings don't look conducive to bidding on and 5H needed an exceptionally favorable lie to make (try playing 5H with hearts 4-1).

[mike777]

Chamaco, on Sep 2 2005, 05:26 AM, said:

Quote

See "fought the law".
13-4+1=10 tricks.

"Fought the law" (FTL) is a good method to estimate tye number of tricks we can indeed make: but it does not tell us which is a profitable sac.
I'll explain better:
sometimes, FTL will tell you "you can make 10 tricks", so do not bid 5.
But sometimes, bidding 5 is a god sacrifice, and you are bidding it as 2-way: either to make, or as a sac.

(BTW, this is why I consider it unfair to compare FTL vs the LOTT: the LOTT is not a method to estimate which contract you can make, it tells you how high to bid even if you go down profitably. Instead FTL will try to estimate only the contract you can indeed make, regardless of what alternative contract opps have. So FTL seems very good in constructive, uncontested auctions, when you do not care of sacrificing).

The given hand posted by Ron is a good example: FTL is right (we can make 10 tricks), but nonetheless, 5S(doubled, I assume), is the par of the hand.
Sometimes, the fact we cannot make the contract does not ncesarily mean we should not bid it.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Here are some further thoughts.
1) My first FTL post guessed we had 10 tricks and the opp have 11 or 12. That seems to have been a good guess.
2) Based on the above you CAN decide now whether to bid 5s or not. You can decide whether to sac or not with FTL.
3) I am still trying to intergrate FTL into my game, work in progress.
4) Have not seen many comments from top level players on their experience with FTL, hopefully in the future we will.
5) On this actual hand, I would have passed 5H with both hands. I am afraid of pushing them to making slam. Willing to give up minus 450 for our minus 200. Others may make a different and more accurate judgement decision based on these same set of estimates.

[jdeegan]

I see this as an instructive hand.

Despite the actual hand, it really looks to me (given the information from the bidding) like I have the crucial information here at the critical time. It's my turn to bid, and I should take action. To wit, most likely I can see six spades, one heart, two heart ruffs and something in clubs. The most likely situation is that we have one club trick, the ace or king.

On offense this would mean that 5♠ is down one and 5♥ would be down one (assuming one spade cashes). At matchpoints, I might just gamble on this, but at IMPs??? Why not just bid 5♠, maybe its right, maybe the opponents will make a mistake, or maybe partner has FIVE spades and the opponents have a spade void and partner may bid again. Any way it slices, I think the percentages favor bidding 5♠.

[Winstonm]

Walddk, on Sep 1 2005, 09:10 AM, said:

Pass is clear to me. I showed my hand when i bid 2♠. Now it's up to partner to decide. Only he knows why he bid 4♠. There is nothing forcing about my pass now.

Roland

Exactly my thinking as well.

Winston

[whereagles]

Deresponsibilization is wrong when you hold a hand this good.

[cherdano]

whereagles, on Sep 3 2005, 10:17 AM, said:

Deresponsibilization is wrong when you hold a hand this good.

Wow, another new word for me to learn.. English is amazing..

[flytoox]

It is so funny to see some say pd should bid 5S over 5H with such a poor balanced 5332 hand, yet they think balancer should pass 5H. What a logic. I can understand comments that pd should consider dbl. After all he has sth for his 4S call. 5S? Never in a million year.

I would bid 5S after 5H for pretty much same reason as Mauro gave. Justin's argument is very instructive, but I will still bid 5S.


A side note. I really dont like comments such as "opps are a weak pair....". If they are weak, why dont you duck HA to give he a chance to error? Are you sure he will try to drop HJ? Actually, if you trust your pd, ducking HA has two ways to win. One is that declarer might finesse HJ. Another possibility is that if pd has xx , he may give you a suit preference signal. And it might avoid your embrassment of underleading from sapdes. I am not saying duck HA is necessary right play. I just think focusing on ourselves mistake is more productive.