[VM1973]

You all mean well with your hands and advice and all of that, but most hands that come up for us at the beginner or intermediate level are not of the type you are posting.

Just the other day I had this auction:

1♥-DBL-pass-??

Holding:

♠5432
♥x
♦AKJxx
♣Qxx

I bid 2♠ and everyone passed. A small heart was led and my partner tabled the dummy:

♠x
♥AQxxx
♦xx
♣AJ10xx

...and asked if I had misclicked 2♠ when I meant to bid 2♦.

I put in the ♥Q which held. Then I played small to the ♦Ace, ♣Q which held and then tried the ♠2 and in the end I was down 4 undoubled for -200. Maybe I should have tried to ruff a diamond on the board first?

People end up in hopeless contracts all the time - and those who pair with people on BBO more often than not. Why not focus on those?

[TylerE]

Both X and 2♠ are gross misbids. I like pass and then a balancing 2♦, assuming RHO passes.

[kayin801]

Your partner made a X no one who posts here regularly would have made, since we all play takeout doubles in your partner's position. That's what got you to an insane contract.

RE: the play, I would have been trying to cash as many tricks as possible and take spade ruffs since my trumps are so small. Aiming for 2 tricks in each side suit, plus a diamond ruff would get you to 7 tricks, and maybe leading a 3rd ♥ toward your hand to try to score a small ♠ will get you 8, but you will need some luck since if they switch to spades you are dead.

[mtvesuvius]

Your partner has the exact opposite of a takeout double. Once he doubles on this hand, you could go around pitching aces and kings but it would still be his fault. Double is a horrifically bad bid, and the main cause of your troubles here.

With your hand, you have an interesting problem. I think 2♠ is reasonable, as is 3♦. The solution here is to cuebid, which I think is best played as INV+ with the other major, or any GF. If I had this hand, I'd bid 2♥. To do anything less is a major underbid.

[jmcw]

A take out DBL shows opening bid values and support for the unbid suits, especially any unbid Major suit(s). Here your partner should have 4 ♠ not a stiff.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would score DBL as a 1....it's about as bad as it gets.

Your 2♠ is a bit of and underbid IMO but not terrible. Typically, a jump responses to a T.O DBL show a good 9/11 points pretty close to what you have, but, with a 5 card side suit, a stiff ♥ and a guaranteed fit in ♠, I would have cuebid 2♥ and raised partner to game.

[matmat]

We are not mind-readers. If we were we'd probably never lose at this game.


It is impossible to cater to all B/I levels of players when answering a question on these forums. You would pretty much need to write a book that would include all the fundamentals to ensure that players of all backgrounds could understand.


The hands that get posted are either considered difficult or unclear by the original posters, or thought to be good educational material when posted by more advanced players.

If we are dealing with the first case, a B/I player asking the question, we try to infer what their knowledge base is and what needs to be filled in. The answers are obviously tailored to a particular case.

In the event of an advanced player posting something, it's really easy to misjudge what makes a good B/I problem, and what fraction of the B/I population it is aimed at. Getting no feedback about suitability of a problem is not helpful, by the way.

[Trumpace]

VM1973, on 2011-July-07, 15:15, said:

You all mean well with your hands and advice and all of that, but most hands that come up for us at the beginner or intermediate level are not of the type you are posting.

<snip hand>

People end up in hopeless contracts all the time - and those who pair with people on BBO more often than not. Why not focus on those?

So your aim is to make IMPs/MPs playing with random people on BBO?

In real life, hopeless contracts do occur. Even Adv/Exp can be clueless when it comes to playing hopeless contracts well, but there is a reason for that: they are not as frequent as you think they are. At least, not enough for people to shift their focus to that. (Besides, how would one try to come up with practice hopeless hands which one can expect to occur at the table?)

If hopeless contracts are frequent for you, your focus should be on bidding properly to avoid them, rather than trying to learn to play them well.

In any case, you can always post the hands and you will get advice...

[nige1]

VM1973, on 2011-July-07, 15:15, said:

You all mean well with your hands and advice and all of that, but most hands that come up for us at the beginner or intermediate level are not of the type you are posting.
Just the other day I had this auction: 1♥-DBL-pass-??
Holding: ♠ 5432 ♥ x ♦ AKJxx ♣ Qxx
I bid 2♠ and everyone passed. A small heart was led and my partner tabled the dummy:
♠ x ♥ AQxxx ♦ xx ♣ AJ10xx
...and asked if I had misclicked 2♠ when I meant to bid 2♦.
I put in the ♥Q which held. Then I played small to the ♦Ace, ♣Q which held and then tried the ♠2 and in the end I was down 4 undoubled for -200. Maybe I should have tried to ruff a diamond on the board first?People end up in hopeless contracts all the time - and those who pair with people on BBO more often than not. Why not focus on those?

• Over 1♥, modern players double for takeout, rather than penalties, so partner should have passed.
• After partner doubled, your choice of call is more controversial. Some would agree with your invitational jump to 2♠. I would prefer a similar jump to 3♦. Pessimists might bid 2♦. Optimists would cue-bid the opponent's suit 2♥, virtually forcing to game. This is where advice from the likes of JLOGIC is especially valuable.
• The play in 2♠ is challenging. After your successful finesse of ♥Q, ruffing a diamond might work but but my inclination would be to lead trumps immediately; and after that lead them whenever the lead is in your hand. After the first round, you would remove two enemy trumps for each one of yours -- usually a good strategy.

[Bbradley62]

VM1973, on 2011-July-07, 15:15, said:

You all mean well with your hands and advice and all of that, but most hands that come up for us at the beginner or intermediate level are not of the type you are posting.

When the new forums were created, there was a suggestion made that there should be three, not two, level-based sections that corresponded with pairs of the six self-rating levels in BBO: Beginner/Novice, Intermediate/Advanced, and Expert/World Class. I think we should consider this to be a repeat of that request, so that there would be more real beginner-level questions and answers.

In another thread, there was a discussion as to whether GIB plays better than "the average BBOer". Most frequent Forum posters don't play with "the average BBOer"; they're high-level tournament players who would probably be surprised to hear that probably 10% (yes, that's a guesstimate) of players in the Free Express Fun games, for example, think that OP's partner made a perfectly reasonable double and would do it themselves. It would be nice for there to be a really beginner section.

[Bbradley62]

TylerE, on 2011-July-07, 15:22, said:

Both X and 2♠ are gross misbids.

matmat, on 2011-July-07, 16:11, said:

We are not mind-readers.

Trumpace, on 2011-July-07, 17:13, said:

So your aim is to make IMPs/MPs playing with random people on BBO?

Nice attitudes in the B/I Forum. And then we wonder why there aren't more beginner-types asking questions?

[the hog]

I agree with the other posters. Your partner made a very poor call. This is not a double, but a clear cut pass. or perhaps a 2C bid.
Your 2S bid is ok, though I would actually have bid more

[Trumpace]

Bbradley62, on 2011-July-07, 19:42, said:

Nice attitudes in the B/I Forum. And then we wonder why there aren't more beginner-types asking questions?

Do you really think VM1973 is a beginner-type?


And do you really think there is a problem and the reason for the problem is 'attitude'?

I don't see any problem with the three statements you quoted. Posts (from people who know better) in B/I forum which bring up strange bidding scenarios with random BBO partners are pointless (and might even be harmful to beginner-types) and really deserve some stern responses. Posts (from people who know better) in B/I which advocate focusing on losing bridge deserve worse. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Sorry, if that sounds harsh.

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2011-July-07, 19:39, said:

who would probably be surprised to hear that probably 10% (yes, that's a guesstimate) of players in the Free Express Fun games, for example, think that OP's partner made a perfectly reasonable double and would do it themselves.

Surely not, Bill. I think that nearly everyone comes to their first session of competitive bridge, even if it is only online, armed with the takeout double and probably even Stayman.

Quote

It would be nice for there to be a really beginner section.

There are real beginners and then there are people who don't know what a takeout double is. I think that there is a big difference. It is quite possible that some people come on to BBO and their only knowledge of bidding is that the software disallows certain bids to be made as the auction goes on. I don't think these are "beginners"; they haven't really "begun" anything. They are non-players.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-07, 21:03, said:

Bbradley62, on 2011-July-07, 19:39, said:

who would probably be surprised to hear that probably 10% (yes, that's a guesstimate) of players in the Free Express Fun games, for example, think that OP's partner made a perfectly reasonable double and would do it themselves.

Surely not, Bill. I think that nearly everyone comes to their first session of competitive bridge, even if it is only online, armed with the takeout double and probably even Stayman.

The first similar hand I found was not actually from FEF, but rather from one of those "private clubs" called BBO Fans.

---

53 of the 54 Wests opened 1♠. Of the 53 Norths calling after 1♠, 43 passed, 7 doubled, 2 bid 1N and 1 bid 2♦. Small sample size, but not surprising.
http://online.bridge...name=bbradley62

[KamalK]

VM1973, on 2011-July-07, 15:15, said:

You all mean well with your hands and advice and all of that, but most hands that come up for us at the beginner or intermediate level are not of the type you are posting.

People end up in hopeless contracts all the time - and those who pair with people on BBO more often than not. Why not focus on those?

Hello

I have been posting my queries at this forum and get excellent responses. And very prompt too. Great to learn and improve.

I usually post a specific problem/hand with full details of my own as well as as pd's and opps' skill level, vul (Red/White), scoring (IMPs/MPs), Leads, etc.

This helps the Experts here to respond to the query in specific terms. And I have found this Forum extremely useful. I would feel its very difficult for them to be able to generalise their comments/answers that fit every problem or specific situations that we Beg/Int often find ourselves in.

Sometimes I feel my queries are so basic that it would seem silly to even post them here, but the responses are so detailed in every case, its really heartening.

Just keep posting

Regards

Kamal

[Antrax]

Not sure why 2♠ would require a five-card suit here. I can see why you'd want to treat four small as a three-card suit and hide them maybe, but why don't you want to be in a 4-4 fit on the 2-level with 22+ HCP? (assuming normal X on partner's part)

[han]

VM1973, what do you think that should be done with hands like this? There are excellent beginner books out there that explain what a takeout double is, and if you google "takeout double bridge" you probably find many useful links. Do you think that the B/I forum should be geared towards people who do not know what a takeout double is? Or do you think this forum should be geared towards getting the most tricks out of the impossible contracts you get to when playing with a partner who doesn't know what a takeout double is?

It is not clear to me what you are asking for.

I would guess that the beginning players that come here often quickly learn what a takeout double is.

[VM1973]

Well, I'm not going to reply to anyone specifically since most posts were either rude or unhelpful. As Bbradley62 has documented some 13 percent of the people will double with the hand in question. As such the chances of that happening are rougly equal to getting a 4-1 break in a trump suit. I guess that's something that doesn't merit any discussion. Forgive me for bringing it up.

As for the actual advice on how to play the hand, one person suggested pulling trumps and the other suggested that if the opponents pulled trumps I'd be dead. Could anyone tell me which of the two pieces of advice is more accurate? Feel free to reply privately since we've obviously wasted enough of the experts' time in this thread.

[matmat]

VM1973, on 2011-July-08, 11:47, said:

Well, I'm not going to reply to anyone specifically since most posts were either rude or unhelpful. As Bbradley62 has documented some 13 percent of the people will double with the hand in question. As such the chances of that happening are rougly equal to getting a 4-1 break in a trump suit. I guess that's something that doesn't merit any discussion. Forgive me for bringing it up.

As for the actual advice on how to play the hand, one person suggested pulling trumps and the other suggested that if the opponents pulled trumps I'd be dead. Could anyone tell me which of the two pieces of advice is more accurate? Feel free to reply privately since we've obviously wasted enough of the experts' time in this thread.

so, let's see. you start off by telling us that we are not helpful. then you present a ridiculous problem without a clear question about the hand, and finish with a very generally stated question:

Quote

People end up in hopeless contracts all the time - and those who pair with people on BBO more often than not. Why not focus on those?

People then tell you that the problem is not the play, but the poor bidding and that is the aspect that needs to be improved on this particular hand. After this you snap back at everyone?
Gee. Why would anyone want to actually help you with you being an aggressive ingrate?

Incidentally, I just checked your self-stated level on BBO, and you claim to be advanced there, so I really don't know what your agenda making this post was. Anyone who thinks they are advanced really should be able to see what the issue with this hand is.

To answer your general question:
we do not like to focus on such contracts because bridge with random clueless partners on BBO is not the way to try to improve or enjoy your game. The best advice anyone can give in that situation is to tell you to find a proper partner and stop moaning about hopeless contracts when you choose to play with clueless and lazy people.

[ArtK78]

VM1973, on 2011-July-08, 11:47, said:

As Bbradley62 has documented some 13 percent of the people will double with the hand in question. As such the chances of that happening are roughly equal to getting a 4-1 break in a trump suit. I guess that's something that doesn't merit any discussion. Forgive me for bringing it up.

What Bbradley62 documented was that on one particular hand in BBO Fans, a private club, 7 out of 53 players, given the opportunity, doubled with a similar type of hand to the one that you posted.

I don't know for sure what the experience level of the players in BBO Fans might be in general, but I would take a guess that they are predominantly newcomers to bridge. A serious player with any experience would know not to make a takeout double with length in the suit being doubled.

As stated on the Forum main page, the B/I Forum is a place "For our novice to intermediate members to discuss issues and share advice (and for more skilled players to answer questions ." So, posting your hand as a problem in the B/I Forum is not inappropriate. Having said that, there is very little to discuss. The hand is an example of a clear error rather than a point of discussion. If you had posted the hand and asked posters to assign the blame for reaching the disastrous final contract you would have gotten a quick answer.

You state: "People end up in hopeless contracts all the time - and those who pair with people on BBO more often than not. Why not focus on those?" We do. There are many threads focusing on good contracts that were missed and who is to blame and why. But the reason that those hands are interesting to discuss is that there can be a genuine disagreement on the reasons why the pair suffered a disaster - bidding judgment, opponents interference, lack of methods, etc. In the hand that you posted, there is no disagreement as to the lack of merit of the initial double.

So, if you are looking for an answer to the question "What went wrong on this hand and why?" we can answer that. But if you are looking for a bridge bidding primer, this is not the place.