[Free]

This may be trivial, but I also wanted to test the new hand generator

IMP scoring, 1♦ shows 4+♦

---

Obviously both black Kings were onside, ♥ were 4-0 (East holding 4) but game was still on. Who's to blame for missing game?

[mr1303]

South. He has a 2C opener and knows of 4 card heart support opposite. I guess you can conceive layouts where game might not make, but they are almost certainly odds against. I might bid game regardless as North, but South takes 99% of the blame here.

[BunnyGo]

Free, on 2010-October-23, 13:48, said:

This may be trivial, but I also wanted to test the new hand generator

IMP scoring, 1♦ shows 4+♦

---

Obviously both black Kings were onside, ♥ were 4-0 (East holding 4) but game was still on. Who's to blame for missing game?

80% North, 20% South. South has made a game forcing 2♦ cuebid (not necessarily showing heart support) and then followed by bidding 3♥ instead of blasting to 4; North should not pass this sequence but just bid 4♥ himself. I think that South should probably just bid 4 hearts himself, but it isn't completely unreasonable that north could have the K of hearts and spades and then 6 is a decent bet.

[straube]

A double followed by a cue followed by a raise of advancer's suit needs to show something like a 20 ct with 3 of that suit. How else could one sensibly bid AKxx AQx xx AKxx?

A double followed by a cue followed by a new suit is GF.

A double followed by a jump raise of partner's suit is highly invitational and confirms a fit. It's obviously stronger than a single raise of partner's suit. Had South bid this way, North should accept game.

South should drive to game over a 1H advance. The way he bid it, North should pass because he doesn't have a fifth heart (Kxxxx would be enough to accept game opposite this bidding).

So South gets 100% of the blame here.

[mfa1010]

It may be discussed if north has a raise to 4♥ or not, but south definitely has to eat 100% of the blame here. It is not reasonable not to force to game when partner responds 1♥, and 3♥ in this sequence is not forcing.

[kayin801]

South is a chikun. And a chicken.

[mtvesuvius]

Definitely South. 2♦ is not GF, but showed a big hand... Partner has 3+♥ and they have to lead something. Not bidding game gives South 100% of the blame IMO

(Post 2000 )

[Free]

straube, on 2010-October-23, 17:55, said:

A double followed by a cue followed by a raise of advancer's suit needs to show something like a 20 ct with 3 of that suit. How else could one sensibly bid AKxx AQx xx AKxx?

Dbl, followed by 2♦, followed by 3♦ perhaps?

South's reasoning for not blasting to game was that North could potentially have a 3 card ♥ suit with 0HCP (North never promissed anything, and what to do with a 3=3=4=3?), so 3♥ just asks to bid 4 if North has "something useful". Was he too pessimistic?

[rhm]

Free, on 2010-October-24, 01:46, said:

Dbl, followed by 2♦, followed by 3♦ perhaps?

South's reasoning for not blasting to game was that North could potentially have a 3 card ♥ suit with 0HCP (North never promissed anything, and what to do with a 3=3=4=3?), so 3♥ just asks to bid 4 if North has "something useful". Was he too pessimistic?

This is true, but I think it is too pessimistic to assume that partner is broke and also does not have a ♥ suit either. It happens but it is very infrequent. More frequent in Bidding Challenges than real life.
Much more likely that you will miss game than getting a disaster by bidding 4♥. Bridge is a game of incomplete information and requires judgment.
By the way I do not like the standard practice of rebidding a three card suit in response to a takeout double and a cue-bid. If you hold 3=3=4=3 and are too weak to bid notrump even in response to a cuebid you can anticipate what will happen if you respond in a 3 card major. I prefer to respond with a somewhat eccentric 2♣. This is not foolproof but much less likely to excite partner and if he still cuebids I will then bid 2♥. My second choice would be to respond 1♠ followed by 2♥ over the cuebid.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

straube, on 2010-October-23, 17:55, said:

A double followed by a cue followed by a raise of advancer's suit needs to show something like a 20 ct with 3 of that suit. How else could one sensibly bid AKxx AQx xx AKxx?

What about letting it go at 2♥?

With (substantially) more you can either continue with 2NT or cuebid again with 3 cards in ♥, so that partner can bid 4♥ with nothing but a 5 card ♥ suit.

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

The real question is if 2♥ shows 4 cards or not, should you bid 2NT with 3343 or maybe 2♠? what about 2353?.

IMO north has enough extras for raising 3♥. 1♥ is 0-7(8), 2♥ was minimum 0-4 maybe? now he is got a big card and partner is really insisting.

I also think south is worth 4♥ over 2♥. When 4 small cards in a suit rebid is enough to give a shot at game, you have to be in game.

[gwnn]

I hope I found the right thread now!

It is often the case - a super strong hand makes some super strong action that is almost forcing. Then the other guy holding a balanced 3 count doesn't "man up" and gets yelled at (I'm not saying that anyone at your table did this). It is just wrong to wait for the weak hand to always "appreciate how strong his hand is". Just bid game and don't expect the weak balanced hand to help you, sometimes he won't help you even if he's supposed to, it's just psychological. Just bid game and avoid the big blame game (the same goes for slam auctions a bit too but not so dramatically - bidding a no play slam when a good game was available is often very bad but bidding a no play game when a good partscore on the 3 level was available is very rarely bad).

[straube]

Free, on 2010-October-24, 01:46, said:

Dbl, followed by 2♦, followed by 3♦ perhaps?

South's reasoning for not blasting to game was that North could potentially have a 3 card ♥ suit with 0HCP (North never promissed anything, and what to do with a 3=3=4=3?), so 3♥ just asks to bid 4 if North has "something useful". Was he too pessimistic?

I don't think so because 3D would promise another bid, right (assuming that partner had not bid game)? And cue bidding and then raising partner's suit would show a good but limited hand with some doubt as to strain.

[OleBerg]

North 100%. 4♥ is automatic.

South is obviously insane, hence free from guilt. (4♥ is has some play facing ♠432/♥9754/♦432/♣432)

[Cascade]

I would bid more with south.

2♦ and then 3♥ will often only deliver three hearts.

I would never raise with this north hand.

[bucky]

Can I assign 100% for both?

The cuebid after double is often based on 3-card in partner's suit. But 3♥ should change this message. With only 3-card hearts and no clear direction (but too good to pass 2♥), South should've followed up with 3♦. Therefore North has a clear 4♥ bid. Of course that doesn't mean South is less guilty: had North not held ♥K, game is still good, so South should insist on game. And we arrive at a familiar pattern again: it takes two to reach the disaster.

[Free]

bucky, on 2010-October-25, 18:54, said:

Can I assign 100% for both?

No, that's statistically impossible.

[han]

Definitely both, I think Oleberg said it best.

[jdeegan]

OleBerg, on 2010-October-25, 14:39, said:

North 100%. 4♥ is automatic.

South is obviously insane, hence free from guilt. (4♥ is has some play facing ♠432/♥9754/♦432/♣432)

Well said. Actually North is a favorite to have 5♥ on the bidding. Finesses figure to be on, and the ♥ suit should provide an entry or two.

[ArtK78]

Free, on 2010-October-24, 01:46, said:

Dbl, followed by 2♦, followed by 3♦ perhaps?

South's reasoning for not blasting to game was that North could potentially have a 3 card ♥ suit with 0HCP (North never promissed anything, and what to do with a 3=3=4=3?), so 3♥ just asks to bid 4 if North has "something useful". Was he too pessimistic?

This post reminds me of one of the greatest at-the-table disasters I have ever heard about.

Playing in a Swiss qualifying for the district GNT, a couple of friends of mine who were very experienced players got into an auction after the opponents opened 1♠. One of them had an extremely strong hand. He doubled and, over his partner's response, bid 2♠. This was doubled and, after his partner passed, the take-out doubler redoubled. His partner bid something, and he bid 3♠. Again, this was doubled, and the take-out doubler redoubled again. Again, his partner bid something, and again the takeout doubler cue bid spades. Once again it was doubled and redoubled. Now, though, the partner of the takeout doubler got very confused and PASSED! This went for a huge number while they were cold for a vulnerable small slam.

At the other table, his teammates had succeeded in stealing the hand at 2♠ and MADE IT for +110 opposite a vulnerable slam!

The loss on this board (I think it wound up being 22 IMPs) cost them the match and qualification.

On a side note, one of the teammates who was +110 in 2♠ at the other table had recently given up smoking. After the score comparison, he left the table, bought some cigarettes and went outside to smoke!