[mich-b]

Scoring: IMP

P-P-1♥-3♦
3♥- ALL PASS

---

♣ 6-1 , but ♥ 2-2 , so 4♥ always makes.

Scoring: IMP

P-P-1♥-3♦
3♥- ALL PASS

---

East has ♥KT , West has the ♣A , so 4♥ makes if you guess both suits.

Who is at fault?

[whereagles]

Top: borderline decision for South. When in doubt... bid game.

Bottom: same thing, except that this time it's North who's borderline.

[se12sam]

I'm not convinced anyone is to blame in either contract.

1. 4♥ is good only because trumps are 2-2, South has a doubleton spade, north's ♣J is valuable etc. It's most likely anti-percentage to be in game. Also, impossible to reach scientifically after the 3♦ overcall.

2. Again, many guesses involved. Too many things were right to make 4♥.

[dicklont]

When you start blaming over these hands, someone might blame you for resulting.
There is only a problem for those who consider every invite to be gameforcing.

[MFA]

I we never play 3♥ 10, then we are regularly overbidding. I think the bidding was fine on both. If anything, south was slightly conservative on the first one. 4♥ is not always cold, since after a spade lead one would need the hearts to come in.

[gnasher]

On the first one I'd have bid 4♥ with responder's hand. 3♥ has to include competitive hands, so most normal limit raises have to bid game. After responder bidds 3♥, South has a normal pass.

On the second deal the auction looks normal, as does the final contract. Who would want to be in game?

[Fluffy]

Agree with Dicklont, 170 is not a capital sin

[whereagles]

gnasher, on May 25 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

On the first one I'd have bid 4♥ with responder's hand. 3♥ has to include competitive hands, so most normal limit raises have to bid game. After responder bidds 3♥, South has a normal pass.

Actually, if we do a "Fought the Law" analysis, South can expect North to have a doubleton diamond, thus bringing the short suit total to 0, meaning 19-21 working points are enough to make game. He has 12 WPs himself and it's normal to count pard for at least 7-8, so South might have a reason to move on.

In the 2nd hand, the FTL lore actually FAILS: the SST is +2, needing 25-27 WPs for game. Hands have only 24, including a count of 10 WPs on the heart suit (finesse is on, so the 7 hcp are 10 WPs).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 there was a thread on the forum, which suggested to use X
over 3D as the bid to show a limit raise.
This was an idea credited to Lawrence.
I have searched the forum, but was not able to find the thread.
Absent this agreement, I think it is close, but bidding 4H is an real
option, there is only one thing which speaks against this:
The 1H opening was in 3rd seat, if you regulary open light in 3rd
seat, than I dont think you should bid 4H.
#2 If you want to blame someone, blame the gods, North has a limit
raise, but not a particular good one, and South has a min. opener
with a wasted Queen.
The key to 4H is the fitting spade values, ... if you want to discover
those values, you could make a t/o, being prepared to bid hearts
later (not unreasonable), but it is usally a good idea to show the fit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

No one and no one, both auctions are utterly normal. And frankly if these are the two best games I ever miss then I am the best bridge player ever.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on May 25 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

No one and no one, both auctions are utterly normal. And frankly if these are the two best games I ever miss then I am the best bridge player ever.

I agree.... this thread is a bad idea. Neither game is good on a single-dummy basis, on the bidding.

To 'blame' anyone is extremely poor bridge. If I bid either game, I would take the imps but my concern would be that my partner and I were terrible bidders.

Put another way: construct auctions to reach game, and have them fail, as they rate to do... then try an ATB.

[Phil]

jdonn, on May 25 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

No one and no one, both auctions are utterly normal. And frankly if these are the two best games I ever miss then I am the best bridge player ever.

You are already the world's best bidder.

1. I think 4♥ is reasonable by responder, but its OK to have a max. Think what a minimum 3♥ call looks like and 4 isn't too far off the mark.

2. LOL I'd be worried about going down in 3.

[mtvesuvius]

The dealer is to blame.

Neither of these are great contracts, and on the second one, I'm already worried we're too high!

[EricK]

In the first hand, West is to blame for your not reaching game. He took away all your space, and made South devalue his ♦ suit. Game isn't great, but I expect most pairs would reach it unopposed.

In the second hand, good judgment is to blame. North merely invites, and South decides his hand is mediocre. They are both right.

[Cascade]

I blame:

1. 3♦

2. ♣J and some luck

[mich-b]

Thanks for all the responses.

Sorry if this thread was not meaningful - I guess it was partly caused by my frustration for losing IMPs on those 2 boards, so I thought I would check if we did anything wrong , since some other pairs in the field did reach those games.

[dicklont]

P_Marlowe, on May 25 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

#1 there was a thread on the forum, which suggested to use X
     over 3D as the bid to show a limit raise.
     This was an idea credited to Lawrence.

I know this idea from Lawrence in a different auction: 1♥ (2♦) 2♥ (3♦)
Now 3♥ is competitive and Dbl is an invite.

Without a know heart fit this double by responder would give up the negative double for just one specific hand.
Would that be a usefull agreement?

When there is more room: 1♥ (2♣ 2♥ (3♣)
Lawrence uses 3♦ as an artificial limit raise, 3♥ competitive, double is bussiness.

[P_Marlowe]

dicklont, on May 26 2009, 03:56 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on May 25 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

#1 there was a thread on the forum, which suggested to use X
     over 3D as the bid to show a limit raise.
     This was an idea credited to Lawrence.

I know this idea from Lawrence in a different auction: 1♥ (2♦) 2♥ (3♦)
Now 3♥ is competitive and Dbl is an invite.

Without a know heart fit this double by responder would give up the negative double for just one specific hand.
Would that be a usefull agreement?

When there is more room: 1♥ (2♣ 2♥ (3♣)
Lawrence uses 3♦ as an artificial limit raise, 3♥ competitive, double is bussiness.

yes, but this is a typical usage, the name of the double is "Maximimal
Double".

Over 3D, X is the general Game, over 3C, 3D is general game try,
Double is still a game try, but optional / penalty orientend.

But there was a thread involving the auction

1H - (3D ) - X

...

I found the idea sensible, and because of this wanted to reread it,
but was not able to retrieve it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[skjaeran]

The first one is, at best, a marginal game. I'd not be disappointed for missing it.... nor bidding it. The auction was fine by me.

The second one is a terrible game, even the 3-level might be too high. Better stay out of this one. Fine auction.

[neilkaz]

Phil, on May 25 2009, 11:53 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 25 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

No one and no one, both auctions are utterly normal. And frankly if these are the two best games I ever miss then I am the best bridge player ever.

You are already the world's best bidder.

1. I think 4♥ is reasonable by responder, but its OK to have a max. Think what a minimum 3♥ call looks like and 4 isn't too far off the mark.

2. LOL I'd be worried about going down in 3.

Agreeing with Phil here. Game is a reasonable shot on 1, noting the favorable ♦ positioning. Whether opener can think it is a good shot at IMPs may depend on how light the raise to 3♥ can be.

As for hand 2..LOL at bidding game here, this is a very odds against game.