procrastinator wins the declare-only with 55.47%, by 4.43%. I beat AA by 53. Both reissued.
Hard to believe I have a provisional 55% in the country vs country challenge when I made 3 horrendous blunders, twice failing to win a trick in fourth hand with absolutely no reason not to win (and costing a trick each time). In both cases, complete brain fart, once “sure” third hand would play high and win, not noticing that he hadn’t. Then played to ruff a club in dummy, when we were in no-trump.
I beat NN by 26. procrastinator didn’t start our match. Both reissued.
procrastinator wins the regular challenge with +9.75, by 0.25. Reissued
Lose by 1 to AA, with stupidity by CHO. He doubled 2D for penalty. I pulled it, then he doubled 3D for penalty. I sat, making 4. (AA passed the double of 2D, making exactly. I’m not sure whether we could have held it to 3, but when I pulled 2D there was no reason to double 3.). I win the declare-only with 64.06%, by 13.28%. Both reissued
In another interesting hand in this challenge, opponents had all the strength. I double Stayman to show some club strength and length. In my auction they ended going all the way to 6H, which they made. In yours where you stayed silent, they stopped at 3NT and made 6. 10 IMPs. I know staying silent can be better to not give away information, just surprised that me showing some strength resulted in them in a higher contract here.
Hard to say without seeing the hand, but what you describe does not sound too surprising to me. Doubling stayman does not show any strength beyond club honors: I would double with KQ10xx of clubs and out.
Responder knows within 2HCP how much high card strength opener has, and the double won’t really affect that. But, it might make the likelihood of those cards being working higher (for example if responder has club shortness).
Hmm, well, now that I think about it a bit more, the fact that they got to 3NT at Steve’s table, but not yours suggests the heart fit was not amazing, so perhaps it is more surprising than my first gut reaction.
Sorry, checking again - it was a 2C “fourth suit forcing” bid. So not stayman. But similar idea.
Almost all of this post had been composed before you posted the hand, so I’ll just post it now, even with some repetition.
Technically no. You doubled 2C fourth suit forcing, not 2C Stayman.
So, contrary to procrastinator’s assumption, the 2C bidder did not have a good idea of his partner’s strength and not a real good description of opener’s shape. And in fact they reached 6H only because opener made a horrible bid (IMO) later.
The complete auction at your table, none vulnerable, our side silent (passes not shown) except for the double of 2C. 1D was opened in second seat
1D - 1H
1S - 2C (Dbl)
P - 2H
3C - 4NT
5D - 5NT
6D - 6H
With the explanation of 3C, which is not what I would expect
If opener had that, then responder’s bidding looks fine. Note that the description of 5NT was
which is actually fine. No, he doesn’t have the heart queen, but with AKxxxxx opposite 3, his side figures no to have a trump loser.
Except, as you showed, his partner didn’t have 3 hearts. Or 18 total points.
It isn’t an easy hand for west, but I think he should definitely bid 2D over the double and 3H over 2H if (as happened) he had passed the double (3H OK since he should not be showing 3 trumps. With 3 trumps it would have been awful to pass over the double, IMO.
By similar reasoning (that W can’t have 3 hearts), the explanation of 3C as showing 3 hearts makes no sense. But with that actual hand 3C is awful with any reasonable meaning of 3C.
And with most human partners, the double of 2C is not necessary. With the opponents having bid the other three subs naturally, his normal lead is going to be a club.
Yes, he might decide not to lead a club if you had a chance to double them and didn’t.
With bots, it’s sort of a waste of breath. I don’t think he’s more likely to lead a club if you double.
Even opposite humans, there’s a pretty good chance you’re just giving away info since you will end up on lead. And there’s a slim chance that if you double you end up on lead against 2C redoubled, and if competent players redouble and play there, you aren’t going to set it.
1 Like
oirg wins the regular challenge with +10.25, by 5.00. Reissued.
You may think I made an absurdly bad call on this board, and four of you made a different call, but IMO CHO made a call magnitudes worth. Fortunately bots didn’t double.
Three of you reopened with 2C, certainly reasonable since it keeps the bidding low. I chose to show spades and a minor, then when doubled retreated to 3D. If doubled, I was almost certainly down 300, but CHO rescued to 3H. On J9xx, when I absolutely must have at least 5 diamonds and probably 6 to bid this way. Fortunately no one doubled, and they let him take 5 tricks.
Also won by 1 vs procrastinator and 5 vs NN. Both reissued
Two matches (by mistake, challenged twice) vs AA: win by 33, lose by 10. procrastinator wins the declare-only with 60.16%, by 4.69%.
NN gets the “Virtue is not rewarded” medal for being the only one to play this hand correctly.
Or did he? Maybe procrastinators play was better.
Obviously we all ruffed the opening lead. In fact, we all continued with the spade A, getting the 9 from RHO, and setting up the 8 as a potential dummy entry.
oirg, AA and I continued with the spade K (me at least realizing that maybe it wasn’t best even before seeing the other cards played, but by then I was committed). We were making 7 if clubs were 3-3 (against the odds) but only 5 if they were 4-2.
Instead NN took two top clubs, then ruffed a club high, entered dummy with the spade 8 to make 6. If clubs hadn’t been 3-3, he had a top.
Procrastinator played similarly, but more successfully. At tricks 3 and 4, he took the A and Q of clubs, like NN. Now he played the club K, and when both followed he pulled the last trump (with the 8) and had 13 tricks.
Compared to NN, he would make the same number of tricks if clubs were 4-2 with W having the 4 (since E couldn’t ruff). He would make an extra trick of clubs were 3-3. He would do worse if clubs were 4-2 with E having the 4.
Had there been no bidding, it’s very close, but my guess is that the odds favor NN’s line. With bidding, even closer. What I do know is that looking at all four hands, procrastinator’s is better. And gets more style points than oirg, AA and I, but no more matchpoints.
Both reissued.
oirg wins the regular challenge with +18.25, by 13.00. I lose to procrastinator by 7 in a match where, except for offsetting 6 imp swings, all other swings were for extra overtricks or undertricks. I did not start the match against NN. All three reissued.
AA wins the declare-only with 53.91%, by 0.78%. I beat AA by 12. Both reissued
I lose to NN by 10. We had a push on this board, where it seemed unlikely to me that East’s hand matched its description based on the 4H call.
Bidding was the same at both tables. East was supposed to have at least 2 hearts and at least 4 cards in each other suit, thus at least 14 cards. In fact, he had 4 in each black suit, 3 diamonds and 2 hearts. Why he bid 3D is beyond me. Down 1 at both tables.
I lose to procrastinator by 4. 3 of them were on this hand, where I had no idea how to interpret the “explanation” of partner’s bid.
Bidding was the same to that point at procrastinator’s table. I wonder if he looked at the explanation or just did the sensible thing over what 3NT should mean and passed. “Preference” to me should mean that partner is bidding the one of my suits (2NT was indeed unusual) that the preferred. Except he didn’t bid one of my suits. Maybe it means he wants me to pick the suit? And it’s really bananas to think that he would be proposing playing 3NT with as little as 3 HCP.
Anyway, I bid 4C, CHO raised to 5, and I made it. But I lost 3NT, since procrastinator made 12 tricks in NT (if he had been in 6, bots would have taken the AK of spades as the first 2 tricks.)
Both reissued
procrastinator wins the regular challenge with +15.00, by 11.25. Reissued
I win the declare-only with 61.72%, by 6.25%. I lose to AA by 8. Both reissued
Lose to NN by 8. I’ll claim it was because LHO bot was an idiot. Same competitive auction at both tables through the point that RHO bot bid 3S. I made what was admittedly a somewhat risky penalty double, but on the bright side I collected 500. Since NN passed 3S, I should have won enough imps to win the match. Except that over his pass, LHO bot raised to 4S, doubled down 800.
Lose to procrastinator by 6. (And speaking of poor choices by the bots, they doubled me in 4S and I made 6. So how did I lose the match by 6? Because they doubled him in 4S on the same auction, and he also made 6. Nothing to the play.)
Both reissued.