[The Casual]

I'm interested in what people think of my defense in this hand:
http://tinyurl.com/ktmejwe

Ignore all the bidding and the declarer play, I'm sure it's not what many people would consider optimal (was with randoms), I know the contract is going down regardless but what should I have played to increase our chances at maximum tricks and why?

[WesleyC]

West knows a lot about declarer's hand shape by trick 2 - 6205, 6106, 5116 and 5305 are all possible. However a more frequent shape like 5215 isn't really possible because of partner's 1D opening. The fact that declarer played the ♥J at trick 1 (an unlikely falsecard from Jx) combined with the auction, points fairly strongly towards his actual shape. Based on that West should definitely play a second heart in order to tap declarer as quickly as possible.

When you're in with the ♠K you know a lot less about declarer's shape, besides the fact that declarer probably has another heart (from partner's failure to make a negative double) which is likely to disappear on a diamond. So you should reward partner's inspired lead by cashing the ♥K. Imagine declarer's hand is [QTxxxx xx --- KQJxx] or [QTxxx xx x KQJxx] which is (from your perspective) consistent with everything.

However, given how poorly declarer played this hand, I'm not convinced that your defense mattered very much! At the point where he ruffed the ♥K, he could draw trumps and setup the diamonds. Or decline to ruff and maintain trump control. Either way he gets at least 7 tricks and might even end up with 8 or 9 if partner makes a mistake.

[mikeh]

The bidding and the play was extremely weak.

I know you asked us to ignore this, but in fact it might have influenced the defence to some degree

The opening is 'normal' enough...I use quotes because some players open 1♣ on 4=4=3=2 hands, but most don't.

The overcall is pretty normal.

West should negative double, rather than raise diamonds, and if he had done so then East would have known that by encouraging hearts at trick one he would be setting up a tap.

Whether East passed the mistaken 2♦ or bid the clear 2♥ after a double, S had the world's clearest pass. However, as S's play showed later, S is a beginner...I don't care how long he or she has played, he or she has the skill of a beginner, and not a promising one at that. Bidding 3♣ is egregious.

After that, it all becomes a sick joke.

Even absent the negative double, East should wonder about the heart lead, and seeing dummy's AK in diamonds should ask for hearts to be continued. Asking for a switch was not a smart thing to do. East should assume that S has a better hand, certainly KQ in clubs makes sense. By asking for a tap, East can be fairly sure of one heart, one club, the spade AK and a long spade.

The trump switch was bad, often doing declarer's work for him should East hold different spades, and of course blowing a tempo.

East's was now effectively endplayed, but a low club isn't a great 'solution'. It worked but that is because S not only lacked the club Q but also has no clue on play. East had doubled 3N and West had led the heart A. No way does West hold the club A, so declarer should rise the King and fire a low one back, forcing East to play another trump lest Declarer ruff away the Q. If East plays a top spade, he is then endplayed to exit a low spade or a red card. If he plays a low spade, best, then declarer is locked in dummy (although double dummy S squashes the spade 10/J under his Q, pulls trump and exits a club.

Anyway, the defence and especially the declarer play were weak all around.

If you posted this looking to improve, good on you, and I hope these comments helped. If you posted to show off a 'great' result, hoping to be praised for your defence, I also hope these comments help you, but from a different perspective

[The Casual]

mikeh, on 2015-March-20, 09:49, said:

If you posted this looking to improve, good on you, and I hope these comments helped. If you posted to show off a 'great' result, hoping to be praised for your defence, I also hope these comments help you, but from a different perspective

Thanks, I found your analysis on declarers options and WesleyC posting about declarer's shape to be quite infomative . You both picked up a lot more information than I did during the hand and it's helpful to see. I posted the hand because I felt that I blew a trick somewhere or that perhaps something slipped my mind. I know the overall play was sub par but I was interested in what the most forcing line was from my perspective.

[masonbarge]

mikeh, on 2015-March-20, 09:49, said:

The bidding and the play was extremely weak.

I know you asked us to ignore this, but in fact it might have influenced the defence to some degree

The opening is 'normal' enough...I use quotes because some players open 1♣ on 4=4=3=2 hands, but most don't.

The overcall is pretty normal.

West should negative double, rather than raise diamonds, and if he had done so then East would have known that by encouraging hearts at trick one he would be setting up a tap.

Whether East passed the mistaken 2♦ or bid the clear 2♥ after a double, S had the world's clearest pass. However, as S's play showed later, S is a beginner...I don't care how long he or she has played, he or she has the skill of a beginner, and not a promising one at that. Bidding 3♣ is egregious.

At matchpoints, not vul? I completely disagree -- not that I'd bid on the first round, but I think you are way too hard on the guy. Let the opponents play 2D (undoubled), looking at a 6-5 hand and a diamond singleton?

[PhilKing]

masonbarge, on 2015-March-20, 17:51, said:

At matchpoints, not vul? I completely disagree -- not that I'd bid on the first round, but I think you are way too hard on the guy. Let the opponents play 2D (undoubled), looking at a 6-5 hand and a diamond singleton?

I don't want to put words in Mike's mouth, but it is possible that he drew certain inferences from our singleton heart and the lack of a bid by partner over 2♦.

Could it possibly be that partner is marked with length in the red suits? He appears to have five hearts, decent values (yes we can see that is not the case) and yet chose not to act. Puzzling, isn't it? The warning signs are there for anyone above a certain level. It was entirely predictable that we would end in 3♠ doubled, even when we belong in clubs.

[masonbarge]

PhilKing, on 2015-March-20, 18:44, said:

I don't want to put words in Mike's mouth, but it is possible that he drew certain inferences from our singleton heart and the lack of a bid by partner over 2♦.

Could it possibly be that partner is marked with length in the red suits? He appears to have five hearts, decent values (yes we can see that is not the case) and yet chose not to act. Puzzling, isn't it? The warning signs are there for anyone above a certain level. It was entirely predictable that we would end in 3♠ doubled, even when we belong in clubs.

And so your "anybody above a certain level" is going to let them play in 2D undoubled on this hand? Good luck with that.

[mikeh]

masonbarge, on 2015-March-21, 22:19, said:

And so your "anybody above a certain level" is going to let them play in 2D undoubled on this hand? Good luck with that.

I've never played with PK, but I am willing to bet that if he and I played against you and your regular partner, we'd do ok. And both of us would have let the opps play in 2D on that hand. How do you think we would have scored?

[GrahamJson]

A pass of 2D looks automatic to me. If p can't drag up a bid the the omens look bad.

[masonbarge]

mikeh, on 2015-March-21, 23:09, said:

I've never played with PK, but I am willing to bet that if he and I played against you and your regular partner, we'd do ok.

I have no idea, LOL. I doubt it would be a mismatch in either direction. I would actually say "game on" and we could have some fun, except for that smug and patronizing tone in PK's post. I abandoned a reasonably promising bridge career in my 20s for the exact reason that I did not like spending so much time around unpleasant people, especially at regional/national events.

Quote

And both of us would have let the opps play in 2D on that hand. How do you think we would have scored?

It's hard to say. One of the problems with forum posts is that everybody's an expert and would have played perfectly. At the table on the specific hand, I think we would have gotten a better result, since I would have doubled and chances are we would be playing 2DX and you 2D.

Not that it's necessarily the correct theoretical bid to reopen with a double, but my partner has a very strong bias in favor of "protecting partner's hand". We don't yell at each other but I would get a chilly "I think you might have doubled there".

Other possibilities are 3Hx and 2S or 2Sx in the south. The doubled contracts are admittedly "tops and bottoms" depending on the play, but I think I make 2S. I'm certainly not misguessing the clubs!

[jdgalt]

I would certainly not have led back a low club at trick 3, since I can tell partner is going to lead more hearts and they will get ruffed -- and my trumps aren't good enough to profit by tapping declarer. I'd either continue with the AS to remove dummy's potential ruff, or lead back AC and another to get my own potential ruff. Maybe both in that order.

[masonbarge]

I did a poll on Bridgewinners, taking out the first spade overcall (1♦-p-2♦-p-p-?) and the answers (not counting mine) as of this evening:

2♠ - 9
3♣ - 5
X - 4
Pass - 4

I don't know if it means anything or not. 10 abstentions.

[mikeh]

masonbarge, on 2015-March-24, 21:50, said:

I did a poll on Bridgewinners, taking out the first spade overcall (1♦-p-2♦-p-p-?) and the answers (not counting mine) as of this evening:

2♠ - 9
3♣ - 5
X - 4
Pass - 4

I don't know if it means anything or not. 10 abstentions.

It means nothing. You are comparing apples and oranges, and the fact that you don't seem to be aware of it says nothing good about your game.

Btw, and this is far from the main problem with your approach, don't you think that had s passed 1D, then w would have bid 1H and e would have raised? Do you think many would now bid 2S or 3C?

[NickRW]

masonbarge, on 2015-March-24, 21:50, said:

I don't know if it means anything or not. 10 abstentions.

Probably the most meaningful number is the 10 abstentions. I'm guessing that, certainly at favourable vulnerability as here, they are saying they would have acted on the first round, possibly with a 2 suited overcall, rather than pass and also rather than come in now on the 2nd round when opps have exchanged more information. Partner is quite likely to hold 4 diamonds and could even hold 5 (as was in fact the case) after all, plus where have the hearts gone - presumably a fair few of those are also in partner's hand - which doesn't leave a great many black cards to match the South hand.

[masonbarge]

mikeh, on 2015-March-25, 00:28, said:

It means nothing. You are comparing apples and oranges, and the fact that you don't seem to be aware of it says nothing good about your game.

Why do feel the need to attack me personally or draw conclusions about my bridge game? This poll on Bridgewinners is just a FWIW.

Quote

Btw, and this is far from the main problem with your approach, don't you think that had s passed 1D, then w would have bid 1H and e would have raised? Do you think many would now bid 2S or 3C?

So now you approve of South's first overcall?

[mikeh]

masonbarge, on 2015-March-25, 07:35, said:

Why do feel the need to attack me personally or draw conclusions about my bridge game? This poll on Bridgewinners is just a FWIW.



So now you approve of South's first overcall?

Well, you're the one who was disdainful of my criticism of S's reopening and the one who called PK smug and patronizing

As for the overcall, it isn't my kind of bid, but I have seen worse, and when I first posted on the topic, it seemed the least egregious of the bids chosen, other than the opening itself.

Finally, you clearly feel a need to justify your posts on this thread, but doing so by posting an entirely different auction on BW and the telling us what your poll generated is weird. The discussion here was premised on the original overcall and the inferences available to S when 2D came back to him. If S had passed originally, those inferences would be far different. Your apparent failure to see this is what says to any objective reader that your bridge is not as good as you seem to think it is. Of course, I am drawing inferences, and those inferences may be mistaken.

[gwnn]

Mikeh started by saying that 1S is "pretty normal." What are you talking about?

[Zelandakh]

masonbarge, on 2015-March-22, 14:34, said:

It's hard to say. One of the problems with forum posts is that everybody's an expert and would have played perfectly. At the table on the specific hand, I think we would have gotten a better result, since I would have doubled and chances are we would be playing 2DX and you 2D.

I think the chances of your getting to play in 2♦X after an initial pass are precisely zero. More likely is 2♥X by West or some horrible contract from North such as 3♦X. Just look at the hand again and think through how it might go without thinking back to the OP.

Not everyone on BBF is an expert - I am certainly not - but it so happens that Mike and PK are. As an example, Mike has represented his country at the Bermuda Bowl. In the meantime, I do not know how many national and international titles you won as a junior in your promising career but it is clear that you still have some things to learn in the long trouser game. Your record marks you as an intermediate player perhaps very slightly above average. It would indeed not surprise me if you were a better card player than I am. But you are not as good as you think you are and bidding is also part of the game. My suggestion - when posetsrs like Mike and PK are ranged against you stop and think. Try to understand them and ask for extra clarification of their thoughts if you need it. It might be that you have a better approach but most of the time you will find you have made a mistake. This is what makes BBF such a good place to learn. I hope you use that opportunity.