[caradoc]

I'm often frustrated by partners who tell me how I should have bid a hand, based on how the cards happened to lie. "You should have raised to 4 spades because 4 spades was makeable." Here's my question. What's the best word to describe the person who follows this type of reasoning? What's the best word to describe this kind of thinking?

[the hog]

Result Merchant.

[CSGibson]

and the type of thinking is resulting.

To be fair, though, the result is a concrete data point, I don't think it should be entirely ignored.

[GreenMan]

You need lots of data points to draw conclusions. If you're consistently missing makeable games then maybe you need to re-examine your hand evaluations or whatnot. But one case proves squat.

[johnu]

Beginner? Intermediate? Pseudo expert?

[gnasher]

I could give you quite a long list of suitable words, but it would breach Rule 1 of the BBF Terms of Service.

[diana_eva]

CSGibson, on 2013-October-05, 22:34, said:

and the type of thinking is resulting.

To be fair, though, the result is a concrete data point, I don't think it should be entirely ignored.

I agree with this. If you look on the traveller and find that most of the field did reach game it's OK to try and figure out whether they just blasted it with no good reason (it can happen), or there was a reasonable way to get there. Even if your random partner states it as a given, even if your partner isn't really looking for constructive discussion, it's still a good exercise to think about possible bidding sequences or hand evaluation (should you stretch, should you make a game try, should you accept a game try if your partner made one, etc.) Sometimes it can be a partnership misunderstanding - for example, your random partner plays a raise of 1M - 2M as constructive and assumes it's "standard", therefore expects you to raise with extras, while you play it as a weak raise. Random games can be frustrating but not all "you should have raised to game"comments shd be dismissed as "resulting". In general it's good to strive to reach makeable games, and starting backwards - from result to the bidding, it's just as good as any.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2013-October-06, 02:51

[Cyberyeti]

diana_eva, on 2013-October-06, 02:03, said:

I agree with this. If you look on the traveller and find that most of the field did reach game it's OK to try and figure out whether they just blasted it with no good reason (it can happen), or there was a reasonable way to get there. Even if your random partner states it as a given, even if your partner isn't really looking for constructive discussion, it's still a good exercise to think about possible bidding sequences or hand evaluation (should you stretch, should you make a game try, should you accept a game try if your partner made one, etc.) Sometimes it can be a partnership misunderstanding - for example, your random partner plays a raise of 1M - 2M as constructive and assumes it's "standard", therefore expects you to raise with extras, while you play it as a weak raise. Random games can be frustrating but not all "you should have raised to game"comments shd be dismissed as "resulting". In general it's good to strive to reach makeable games, and starting backwards - from result to the bidding, it's just as good as any.

Also remember that your system may make a big difference. Say you play a 14-16 no trump, but most of the people around you play 12-14. The hands are actually 14 opposite a good 10. You will likely bid game, the weak no trumpers won't, and despite the hands being the same, both decisions are right regardless of whether 3N makes or not.

[Cascade]

CSGibson, on 2013-October-05, 22:34, said:

and the type of thinking is resulting.

To be fair, though, the result is a concrete data point, I don't think it should be entirely ignored.

As my statistics lecturer said "an unbiased sample of one"

[GreenMan]

Cascade, on 2013-October-06, 20:53, said:

As my statistics lecturer said "an unbiased sample of one"

The term these days is "artisanal data".

[lowerline]

Example:

I opened a 15-17 1nt with ♠Ax♥T9x♦K9x♣AQJxx. Partner responded Stayman and over my 2♦ response he bid 4nt with ♠Qx♥AKQx♦Qx♣KTxxx. Down one on a spade lead.

Post-mortem: Partner blamed me for opening 1nt with only 14. I blamed him for not bidding 3♣ over 2♦ so we would have reached 6♣ (that wins played in his hand). Who is resulting here?

Steven

[barmar]

lowerline, on 2013-October-07, 08:44, said:

Who is resulting here?

He is. Change your ♠Qx to QJ, so now you have a real 15 count. Unless the loss of the ♠J from LHO's hand would have dissuaded him from leading the suit, you're still down.

And 4NT is not a horrible contract with those cards. It makes if LHO has ♠K or hearts are 3-3 or the J falls.

[lowerline]

barmar, on 2013-October-07, 08:59, said:

He is. Change your ♠Qx to QJ, so now you have a real 15 count. Unless the loss of the ♠J from LHO's hand would have dissuaded him from leading the suit, you're still down.

And 4NT is not a horrible contract with those cards. It makes if LHO has ♠K or hearts are 3-3 or the J falls.

I had the other hand. With the ♠J or the ♥J 4nt would have made, only the ♦J makes no difference. Any of those jacks would have made 6♣ a better contract as well. For the post-mortem I rather go down in 6♣ than in 4nt...

Steven

[GreenMan]

lowerline, on 2013-October-07, 08:44, said:

Example:

I opened a 15-17 1nt with ♠Ax♥T9x♦K9x♣AQJxx. Partner responded Stayman and over my 2♦ response he bid 4nt with ♠Qx♥AKQx♦Qx♣KTxxx. Down one on a spade lead.

Post-mortem: Partner blamed me for opening 1nt with only 14. I blamed him for not bidding 3♣ over 2♦ so we would have reached 6♣ (that wins played in his hand). Who is resulting here?

Do you have agreements for upgrading 14-counts to 1NT? If not, you're definitely resulting.

Move the ♠K to the other defender's hand and 4NT makes. (And as barmar points out, the hearts could also come in.)

Also, it seems a bit strange to me for the player with ♣AQJxx to be berating the player with ♣KTxxx for not introducing the suit. Seems to me that 5♣ over 4NT would have shown the hand you hold.

[lowerline]

GreenMan, on 2013-October-07, 11:24, said:

Do you have agreements for upgrading 14-counts to 1NT? If not, you're definitely resulting.

Move the ♠K to the other defender's hand and 4NT makes. (And as barmar points out, the hearts could also come in.)

Also, it seems a bit strange to me for the player with ♣AQJxx to be berating the player with ♣KTxxx for not introducing the suit. Seems to me that 5♣ over 4NT would have shown the hand you hold.

I could not bid 5♣ over 4nt because that would have been an accept of the slamtry.
Our agreement is to open a 15-17 1nt. Doing it with 14 was a judgement call. Partner knows that I do that sometimes (in fact I did a few boards before).

Steven

[WellSpyder]

lowerline, on 2013-October-08, 02:35, said:

Our agreement is to open a 15-17 1nt. Doing it with 14 was a judgement call. Partner knows that I do that

What about opponents? Do they also know this?

[helene_t]

You don't have to disclose that you upgrade very good 14 counts. IMO it is normal to evaluate this hand as closer to 15 than to 14.

[WellSpyder]

helene_t, on 2013-October-08, 04:28, said:

You don't have to disclose that you upgrade very good 14 counts. IMO it is normal to evaluate this hand as closer to 15 than to 14.

I agree it is reasonable to treat this hand as closer to 15 than 14, and I wasn't trying to get at OP in particular. But I do think there is a risk of inadequate disclosure from some people who claim to be playing 15-17 but are actually more or less playing 14-17. What about this one ♠K105♥A632♦A54♣K103 that was opened 1N (1st in hand, imps, both vul)) by a pair claiming to play 15-17 with no disclosure of possible upgrades other than, implicitly, GBK?

[jdeegan]

caradoc, on 2013-October-05, 22:11, said:

I'm often frustrated by partners who tell me how I should have bid a hand, based on how the cards happened to lie. "You should have raised to 4 spades because 4 spades was makeable." Here's my question. What's the best word to describe the person who follows this type of reasoning? What's the best word to describe this kind of thinking?

I can think of quite a number: 'ex-partner', 'former partner', 'someone whose name I just can't quite remember'.

[mr1303]

---

A couple of days ago with a pick-up partner I bid 6D on these cards. LHO found the Q of hearts lead, which left the contract with no play at all, and the contract duly went 1 off.

Commentary: Him: You could and should have made that
Me: Go on then, enlighten me as to how?
Him: You call yourself an advanced player? Look at the score sheet which will tell you everything you need to know.

It did. Everyone who had let 6D through had led the A of clubs at trick 1.