[Fluffy]

---

With Bob Drijver at my right and Bart Nab on my left they seemed like bidding game on nothing, still I gave them more respect that I should and passed. After all West had 4+ spades so I expected him to have 5-5 blacks. Maybe if I think it carefully I would had realiced with 5-5 blacks he would invite with 3♣, and also partner would then have an unlikely 1281 shape. In any case I expected a much better dummy than a semibalanced 8 count.

Even if I doubled since I made the silly ♥K lead allowing declarer to score 2 heart tricks +50 or +100 would make little difference.

However it got me pissed for not doubing enough. Which takes me to the next match against New Zealand.

---

M. Whibley on my right, M. Brown on my left, seems liek they are hoping for a vulnerable game bonus, and indeed they might get it if the clubs are running, but then, if my partner controls them behind, wih the spades badly as well its gonna be nasty for them. This time I doubled.


Leading a heart and collecting easy +500 is not something I traveled 1000 km for. I tried a low diamond (attitude 2/4, low promises a honnor) to induce parter to play diamonds and give up on hearts.

This got Michael to tank for a couple of minutes, how should he tackle the club suit?. He decided that 3NT could make when I doubled with ♠K, ♦Q and perhaps ♣Jxxx to control dummy's suit. So he won ♦K in hand to run ♣10.

Rest of the play you can see it on the following diagram

---

[Tramticket]

Fun hand!

For we lesser mortals, the king of hearts lead on the first hand looks far from silly - very normal in fact?

[Fluffy]

Auction is calling for a trump lead, but with J109 I am making it so easy for declarer when partner has ♠Kx or ♠Ax so I wasn't happy with it.

[The_Badger]

hi Fluffy,

Both examples give the impression of a game or bust mentality that I have noticed more and more in the modern game. There seems to me a loathing to play any major suit at the three level, and 'sub-prime' 3NT hands are common nowadays too.

If I were playing at this level, against seasoned, experienced and expert partnerships, I wouldn't dream of disrespecting their knowledge, integrity and card play. The second example you give, board 9, is a classic example. Good X though

A skinny 22HCPs with one good 5 card suit, one bad 5 card suit and virtually non-existent intermediates is translated into a 3NT game. (ok, it might have been a state of the match bid.) But how many times these sort of hands actually make 9 tricks? 1 in 5, I guess? 1 in 6? To me, that's a bad percentage.

3NT is always an edgy bid with a combined 25. You have a slight advantage normally as the strong hand is usually concealed, and with the lead coming up to you that sometimes guarantees an extra trick.

Just in simple math. 13 (total tricks) x 25/40 (combined points over total points) = 8.125 potential tricks.

[mikestar13]

The_Badger, on 2016-September-07, 09:05, said:

Both examples given the impression of a game or bust mentality that I have noticed more and more in the modern game. There seems to me a loathing to play any major suit at the three level, and 'sub-prime' 3NT hands are common nowadays too....

Couldn't agree more:Just because Meckwell can steal 22-point 3NT's with heir incredibly good card play doesn't mean the rest of us can aspire to that. Too may players forget that even vulnerable at imps, 3♠ making 4 outscores 4♠ making 3 every time. Well-timed penalty doubles can be quite profitable against such pairs.

[WesleyC]

The_Badger, on 2016-September-07, 09:05, said:

Both examples give the impression of a game or bust mentality that I have noticed more and more in the modern game. There seems to me a loathing to play any major suit at the three level, and 'sub-prime' 3NT hands are common nowadays too.

If I were playing at this level, against seasoned, experienced and expert partnerships, I wouldn't dream of disrespecting their knowledge, integrity and card play. The second example you give, board 9, is a classic example. Good X though

A skinny 22HCPs with one good 5 card suit, one bad 5 card suit and virtually non-existent intermediates is translated into a 3NT game. (ok, it might have been a state of the match bid.) But how many times these sort of hands actually make 9 tricks? 1 in 5, I guess? 1 in 6? To me, that's a bad percentage.

3NT is always an edgy bid with a combined 25. You have a slight advantage normally as the strong hand is usually concealed, and with the lead coming up to you that sometimes guarantees an extra trick.

Just in simple math. 13 (total tricks) x 25/40 (combined points over total points) = 8.125 potential tricks.

The "Game or Bust" mentality exists at the high level of the modern bridge because it is the mathematically correct way to play. This is especially true against opponents who are hesitant to gamble with a speculative penalty double.

You need to look a little more closely at the Whibley/Brown 3NTx hand if you actually think 3NT is a poor contract. If declarer receives a heart lead and the ♣J is onside then he will score 1 spade, 2 hearts, 2 diamonds and 4 clubs. Given the auction I would estimate that the 3NT contract is very close to 50% and I would expect most top pairs to reach it. It took a speculative double and outstanding defense to generate the +1100.

Although Fluffy's double worked spectacularly on this deal, it wasn't without risk. On a different day partner might hold a normal minimum like: [Qx AJxxxx Jx Axx] and if the opponents manage to redouble they could easily be scoring up +1400 in 3NTxx +1!

Thanks for another great hand Fluffy. Although I wish you good luck in the NZ re-match, I have to admit that i'll be cheering for the Kiwis

[nige1]

Clever of North to duck ♣T !

---

[Fluffy]

Not North, Jordi Sabate, who at the end of the tournament will be a WBF World Master