[rmnka447]

Rather than worrying whose to blame, why not take it as a learning experience?

Everyone makes mistakes, but what really helps you get better is to be able to learn from them. The first step is to try to get dispassionate about the hand and try to figure out what went wrong.

Let's start with your 5 ♣ bid. Ask yourself this -- "Is your hand good enough to contract for 11 tricks opposite a run of the mill 12/13 point takeout double?". Consider that partner's takeout double has already purportedly shown shortness in the opponent's suit. Your singleton in ♠s then really doesn't carry much value. Based on the other values you have, you'd be very happy to settle in a partscore if RHO had passed. Game would not come into view unless partner shows some healthy extras. Despite the preemptive 4 ♠ bid, there's no reason to believe that that has changed. Indeed, if you bid on, it has to be on the basis of strength, distribution, or both to believe that 11 tricks are reasonably possible.

Let's move on to partner's take out double. I think previous comments by posters are very appropriate. They boil down to this -- when the bulk of your values are in the opponents suit, it's probably not a good idea to make a takeout double. Here partner has nothing but small cards in both red suits. If you as advancer, bid a red suit suit then whatever honor holdings you have in them are more likely to be under opener's honors whatever they are. With doubler's values in ♠, opener rates to have the bulk of his points in the outside suits. So in effect, doubler's holding devalues whatever values you as advancer hold. If the takeout double had been made on something like xx Axxx Kxxx Axx, then doubler's points can work with whatever advancer has to surround and neutralize opener's values.

Likely, after the 4 ♠ bid, you felt a bit taken advantage of. Well, vulnerable at IMPs, that's a feeling you just have to get used to. Often, the most prudent option is to just stay fixed by the opponent's preempt. Nobody likes it, but it's part of learning to play this form of the game well. I wish I could give some sage advice on when to compete and when to sit, but that's best learned by a process of experience as painful as it may be.

Playing the blame game never helped any partnership get better. It hurts sometimes to take responsibility when things don't go well. That pain will be useful next time you both find yourselves in a similar situation. You'll both remember and find it easier to take the right action.

[aguahombre]

The main reason I don't fault the original takeout double, even though it is ugly, is because I believe it caused the 4S response and put E/W in position for a nice doubled plus. Even if South bid 4S without the double by East, our side would not be doubling the contract.

There is a difference between a bad action and responsibility for a bad result. If West had just shown his stuff with a double, then we would be crediting East and blaming South.

[bsm20]

Thanks for all the responses, particularly the very helpful one from rmnka447.

I was a substitute in a Teams game. This was the first board. After partner’s outraged criticism, we chose to ignore each other, and subsequently played well. To be fair, my partner was a good player.

I never tried to defend my bid of 5C – hence the 50% comment. (It now appears to be bad, whereas I had only thought it was poor.) I think I tend to be too optimistic when bidding.

All I need to do now is learn from my mistakes...

[lalldonn]

 aguahombre, on 2013-March-11, 13:47, said:

The main reason I don't fault the original takeout double, even though it is ugly, is because I believe it caused the 4S response and put E/W in position for a nice doubled plus. Even if South bid 4S without the double by East, our side would not be doubling the contract.

There is a difference between a bad action and responsibility for a bad result. If West had just shown his stuff with a double, then we would be crediting East and blaming South.

So you are resulting? ...

Had west doubled and collected a penalty I would still not have liked the initial double!

[aguahombre]

 lalldonn, on 2013-March-11, 14:14, said:

So you are resulting? ...

Had west doubled and collected a penalty I would still not have liked the initial double!

Yes..for the question of blame vs credit, there was a result upon which to base that assessment. You don't have to like/dislike a bid or call in order to determine whether it is responsible for the outcome.

[rhm]

I ran a simulation with the West hand

North at least 5 spades, at least 10 HCP
South at least 4 spades
East at most 2 spades (so N-S have a ten card spade fit or better), exactly 4 cards in hearts, at least 3 cards in each minor, 12-14 HCP.

Result:

5♣ made double dummy 18% of the time, average number of tricks in ♣ for West was 9.5
At the same time
4♠ made 29% of the time, average number of tricks in ♠ for North was 8.8

I am standing firm: East takeout DBL is aggressive but not crazy. The critic is overblown. Many would open this hand.
The distribution is fine for a takeout double, the honor dispersion is bad, but the hand has still 3 quick tricks and 5 controls.
Note, East takeout DBL allows a sane West to double 4♠ for a top score.

The 5♣ bid is insane. This is simply a matter of hand evaluation and judgment!
If you are not sure that DBL shows cards in this sequence your option is still between Pass and DBL.
(Even without agreement any experienced tournament player should know that West, sitting below the opening bidder to boot, is unlikely to have spade tricks in this sequence)
5♣ is crazy, particularly at these colors!


Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

 rhm, on 2013-March-12, 05:04, said:

I ran a simulation with the West hand

North at least 5 spades, at least 10 HCP
South at least 4 spades
East at most 2 spades (so N-S have a ten card spade fit or better), exactly 4 cards in hearts, at least 3 cards in each minor, 12-14 HCP.

Rainer Herrmann

Was that the only constraint? I would expect 4♠ to make a lot more than that.

[helene_t]

Rainer, South would probably not bid 4♠ with a balanced hand with four spades. And E could have more than 14 HCPs. I think both factors make 5♣ a bit more attractive in practice. But of course some of those hands on which 5♣ is right, double would work also when East pulls the double.

[rhm]

 helene_t, on 2013-March-12, 05:25, said:

Rainer, South would probably not bid 4♠ with a balanced hand with four spades.

Not far from what the actual South had. He had a fifth trump, but only secondary honors and the flattest distribution you can have when you have a five card suit.

Quote

And E could have more than 14 HCPs. I think both factors make 5♣ a bit more attractive in practice. But of course some of those hands on which 5♣ is right, double would work also when East pulls the double.

Sure. I wanted to show what would happen opposite a minimum, but perfectly respectable takeout double, since the majority here seem to blame East takeout double.
5♣ could make or 5♣ could be one down with 4♠ making. But all this is heavily against the odds and it is not close.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

 PhilKing, on 2013-March-12, 05:19, said:

Was that the only constraint? I would expect 4♠ to make a lot more than that.

Yes.
I usually specify my constraints in full.
Total number of trumps is unlikely to be higher than 19. East-West have at least half the HCP. (West's ♥JT9 is often useful)
North/South need quite a lot of side suit distribution before 4♠ makes.

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

 rhm, on 2013-March-12, 06:27, said:

Not far from what the actual South had. He had a fifth trump, but only secondary honors and the flattest distribution you can have when you have a five card suit.

And many posters here suggested that South should be institutionalized for bidding 4♠ with that hand. Think what they would have said about raising to 4♠ on a balanced hand with 4 card support.

 rhm, on 2013-March-12, 06:27, said:

Sure. I wanted to show what would happen opposite a minimum, but perfectly respectable takeout double, since the majority here seem to blame East takeout double.

That is not the way to analyze West's 5♣ bid. West doesn't know that East has a "minimum, but perfectly respectable takeout double" (which he hasn't and your sim is not restricted to "minimum, but perfectly respectable takeout doubles" either). West has to decide what to do opposite "all possible takeout doubles that would pass a 5♣ bid" (baring in mind that he will also have to find a way out if partner does bid again). In this decision he should try to find the call that gives him the best expected value, integrating over all these hands East can have, not merely over the bad ones but also over the relatively good hands that will pass out 4♠ if West doesn't act. In this evaluation he should not include hands that East should hold (such as the actual hand or other minimums with 2 spades).

Now I think that a correct sim (i.e. including only hands that East can hold for his double, that will pass 4♠ and 5♣ and giving South the actual hand or better, not worse, for his raise to 4♠), will show that West's 5♣ bid was against the odds. Most people here, including the OP, seem to agree that 5♣ might not have been the best choice.

If you bias your sim in such a way that the 5♣ will yield a worse result than realistically should be expected, the expected outcome of the sim will be that 5♣ is bad, because the BFF crowd already agreed that 5♣ was already a poor bid under realistic and unbiased conditions.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 rhm, on 2013-March-12, 06:35, said:

North/South need quite a lot of side suit distribution before 4♠ makes.

Which is why most players require side suit distribution for a 4♠ bid. And, hence, you should have used this condition in your sim.

Rik

[lalldonn]

That is one of the worst constraints for a simulation i have ever seen. And east's double is still awful.

[wyman]

Is there a "how to run a sim" thread somewhere? What kind of software do you guys use? I'm a programmer so this should be easy if there's some off-the-shelf software (hopefully that runs on a linux platform, but I can emulate windows).

[rhm]

 lalldonn, on 2013-March-12, 08:20, said:

That is one of the worst constraints for a simulation i have ever seen. And east's double is still awful.

For sure.
What always happens when I do a simulation and publish my constraints on this forum.
If people like you do not like the results they blame the constraints.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

 Trinidad, on 2013-March-12, 07:07, said:

Which is why most players require side suit distribution for a 4♠ bid. And, hence, you should have used this condition in your sim.

Rik

I would accept your claim if the vulnerability would have been reversed.
Fact is South did not have any side distribution.

Rainer Herrmann

[lalldonn]

 rhm, on 2013-March-12, 11:20, said:

For sure.
What always happens when I do a simulation and publish my constraints on this forum.
If people like you do not like the results they blame the constraints.

Rainer Herrmann

It sounds like you aren't very good at setting constraints on your simulations if they get that many complaints. But if it makes you feel better I can most definitely assure you, had you published the constraints without any results I would have made the same comment. (I do appreciate your creativity in shielding yourself from any criticism though. If anyone criticizes the sim they must be resulting!)

[cherdano]

South made an awful 4♠ bid. Consequently, in his simulation rhm chooses an even more awful criterion for the 4♠ bid.
That's innovative logic, even by BBF standards.

[rhm]

 Trinidad, on 2013-March-12, 07:03, said:

And many posters here suggested that South should be institutionalized for bidding 4♠ with that hand. Think what they would have said about raising to 4♠ on a balanced hand with 4 card support.

That is not the way to analyze West's 5♣ bid. West doesn't know that East has a "minimum, but perfectly respectable takeout double" (which he hasn't and your sim is not restricted to "minimum, but perfectly respectable takeout doubles" either). West has to decide what to do opposite "all possible takeout doubles that would pass a 5♣ bid" (baring in mind that he will also have to find a way out if partner does bid again). In this decision he should try to find the call that gives him the best expected value, integrating over all these hands East can have, not merely over the bad ones but also over the relatively good hands that will pass out 4♠ if West doesn't act. In this evaluation he should not include hands that East should hold (such as the actual hand or other minimums with 2 spades).

Now I think that a correct sim (i.e. including only hands that East can hold for his double, that will pass 4♠ and 5♣ and giving South the actual hand or better, not worse, for his raise to 4♠), will show that West's 5♣ bid was against the odds. Most people here, including the OP, seem to agree that 5♣ might not have been the best choice.

If you bias your sim in such a way that the 5♣ will yield a worse result than realistically should be expected, the expected outcome of the sim will be that 5♣ is bad, because the BFF crowd already agreed that 5♣ was already a poor bid under realistic and unbiased conditions.

Rik

For you I modified the constraints:

North at least 5 spades, at least 10 HCP
South at least 4 spades, but if only 4 spades the hand is unbalanced (side singleton or void)
East at most 2 spades (so N-S have a ten card spade fit or better), exactly 4 cards in hearts, at least 3 cards in each minor, 12-17 HCP. The implication is that East is not likely to pass 4♠ with 18 HCP or more.

Result (1000 deals):

5♣ made double dummy 27% of the time, average number of tricks in ♣ for West was 9.7
At the same time
4♠ made 27% of the time, average number of tricks in ♠ for North was 8.8, exactly the same as in my last simulation.

5♣ makes slightly more often if East does not necessarily have a minimum takeout double, but is still a heavy underdog, because minimum hands for East are much more frequent.
Accordingly 4♠ did not even make more often, even though I specified that with 4 card support South would be unbalanced.
But I am sure you will not like my new constraints either, simply because you do not like the results.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

 rhm, on 2013-March-12, 11:20, said:

For sure.
What always happens when I do a simulation and publish my constraints on this forum.
If people like you do not like the results they blame the constraints.

Rainer Herrmann

I might be being a bit thick but if Josh voted for doubling 4♠, why would he not like the result of the sim?