All News

The “Blame” Game…or “Blame” Game Missed!

+170 or +200 (making 10 or 11 tricks in a major) would be reasonable scores playing Pairs were it not for the fact that game was a 100% certainty. It was not a case of making more overtricks than other pairs. The partnership just had to be in game to get a good score. So, why were they not?

 

Game, an absolutely cold game, was missed. We are told not to overbid at Pairs but when there’s at least 10 tricks to be taken in 4, it is a shame only to be in part-score. Who was more to blame? Or do we give credit to our opponents for not pushing us there?

1NT was 12-14 (yes, we can count!) and 2 a single suited overcall, any suit.

 

The Panel are directing most of the blame in one direction…and if you happened to be sitting in the West seat, take cover!

Kris Wooles “West is all to blame. While I can understand not making a direct bid of 4 (I am tempted), West should certainly bid 4 after the vulnerable 3 bid by South given partner’s points are going to be in my suits.”

 

Stephen Blackstock “The reason why a good (but not cold) game was missed was that West didn’t bid enough. There are six important cards that West is missing: AQ of both black suits and AK. A vulnerable South will have most or all of the high diamonds, so East can be place with three, perhaps four of the missing cards. Game will always have a play, and will often be excellent. No compliments to N/S for not bidding 4 are warranted: as soon as South bids 3, West has the information necessary to know that the fit is promising for a game in hearts.”

Perhaps partnerships should know what 3 by West after the 2 bid would show. Michael Cornell gives some insight:

Michael Cornell “The main reason game was missed was West’s pessimism. (just give partner,Q, K and QC- 7 points to give 4 play).

Pretend you were playing Rubber. Who would not bid 4H immediately?

In these ‘scientific’ days, I would bid 2NT Lebensohl over 2 and then follow with 3, strong invitation. I play an immediate 3H as game- forcing.

On the actual auction, East did have a shot over 3 but he remembered partner was happy to bid just 2 originally and that he was playing Pairs.

The whole thing is a total no-brainer at Teams.

 

So, a little comment about what East might have done and West can take a temporary break from their critics:

 

Bruce Anderson “As much as it pains me to play the blame game, it seems East has misjudged the strength of his/ her hand, perhaps reflecting that they were ashamed of the fact they had opened 1NT first in hand with only 11 points when vulnerable. Feeling ashamed about bidding so recklessly is perhaps the reason that they then failed to bid 4 after hearing partner’s 3 over 3.

Yes, East has only 11 points but surely partner has at least six hearts to bid in this way and he/she has competed to the three level not knowing the strength of opener’s support. Also, unless South is unhinged, they will have a very strong suit to bid at the 3 level, meaning partner’s outside strength, and they must have outside strength to bid again, is likely to fit well.”

We will see below that South was well “hinged” and had a very decent suit to bid. One can add to Bruce’s comment that East alone in the partnership knew they had no wasted diamond honours. While East is minimum or sub-minimum for their opening bid, the bidding has improved their hand a lot and maybe enough to push the partnership higher.

However, it’s back to that West hand:

Nigel Kearney “No blame to East. Poor evaluation by West. Even a fairly unsuitable minimum such as Qxx Kx QJxx Axxx makes 4 close to 50%. A maximum for this auction might be Kxx Q10xxxxx Kxx and the actual hand is far better. An invite with the West hand is probably an underbid and it appears they weren't sure how to invite after interference which makes just bidding 4 over 2 even more attractive.”

Peter Newell “East is blameless, but West should certainly take what blame there is, but yes the opponents have made it hard to judge.  It does look to me that 5 will often be only 1 down, doubled being 200 so not much different.  While 5 will often make, it will go down on a club ruff at times. 

West is awkwardly placed first time around. 2 is a clear underbid. It would be preferable to be able to make a 3 invitational bid however one’s system allows (Double then 3 or via 2NT?). –

 I cannot fault East pass over 2 or 3 – absolutely clear cut to me. West also should have done more over 3. It looks like an easy double, 10hcp with shortage is a much better bid than 3 which sounds competitive and more like some kind of 6322 hand with about 8 hcp.”

So, some credit to the opponents and finally some more comfort for West:

Andy Braithwaite “Not a clear error but East had great cards on the bidding and should have worked out that partner had a reasonable hand when bidding 3 missing AK and 4 could have gone down had clubs been 3-1.

Clubs were 3-1 but 4 could not go down as South had both the shortage and the outside ace. It does seem that at either their first or second opportunities West could have bid game but since they did not, let’s give a little credit to North for not “pushing them there” by bidding 4 as these were the four hands:

 

Poor South held a 7-card suit headed by AQJ and an outside ace. It was hard for them to pass out 2!

North would need to be very inspired to lead A and a second club but there would only be the A to come. Meanwhile, South has a sacrifice available of down 2 (-500) in 5 but hardly a sacrifice over 3!

 

 

A “dog’s life”..someone to blame!

So, it looks like West should have done more while East only possibly, maybe, could have raised 3 to game. On to the next board!

  The two contracts are… on Jan’s Day?

 

Yes, it’s a Teams’ match and there’s a fair few imps about to be traded on this board. Have a stab at what the two contracts were. In today’s scoring, imps traded were 18. Perhaps even Jan would like to have a guess?A guess? Not really as she was present at one of the tables. 18 imps in..or out? Find out tomorrow!

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items