I read Simon's famous book years ago and was reminded of the title when a couple of poorly judged actions cost us first place in the local duplicate. What action did I take that was wrong, but more importantly, why was it wrong? go ahead, beat me up.
why you lose at bridge
				
						#1
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-13, 20:54
I read Simon's famous book years ago and was reminded of the title when a couple of poorly judged actions cost us first place in the local duplicate. What action did I take that was wrong, but more importantly, why was it wrong? go ahead, beat me up.
				
						#3
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-13, 22:42
				
						#4
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-13, 22:48
				
						#5
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 00:57
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
				
						#6
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 01:06
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
				
						#7
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 02:09
Anyway, I like Mike Lawrence's treatments of competitive auctions, which are generally more natural than most modern bidding systems. I want to be able to double for blood in this spot. In particular, even both non-vul, 3♥X is going to be worth more than anything our side can make (unless 3NT happens to make in spite of rounded-suit voids facing each other, which I find highly improbable).
In specific reference to Simon's classic, I'm guessing you did bid 3NT and went down. I can even think of the example hand from that book that is similar to this one. The hand in question involves a void in partner's opening suit (spades) and the auction goes 1♠-3NT. He makes the argument that, essentially, "There is no reason why 3NT should make and there is equally no reason why 6♣ shouldn't. For you need more than just stoppers in each suit to make 3NT; you also need a source of tricks."
				
						#8
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 03:18
NO you miss the entire message of the book...
You dont lose based on your system.
				
						#9
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 03:31
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
				
						#10
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 04:18
				
						#11
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 04:20
But... since he must be void in hearts and have at most 2 spades (assuming 5cM), it sounds like partner has 6-5 in the minors :/ so I doubt a penalty X of hearts is the first thing on his mind? If this is the case with your partner, you might double anyway, hoping partner leaves it in holding a couple of aces or something - no other way are we getting to 3HX.
ahydra
				
						#12
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 06:28
Horse hockey.
Double here is for penalty. Partner already doubled for takeout over 2♥. You are not guaranteed a fit, so double here is not invitational in spades. Double here is for blood. Make them pay.
				
						#13
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 06:33
 ArtK78, on 2012-March-14, 06:28, said:
ArtK78, on 2012-March-14, 06:28, said:
A quote after my own heart

I love wielding the axe and am often frustrated by partners who insist on every conventional double in the book and/or who stubbornly pull all my doubles.
-gwnn
				
						#14
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 06:42
I have a penalty X, I can make the penalty X, I make the penalty X.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
				
						#15
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 07:14
Mr Smug would double loudly but his partner the Unlucky Expert "knowing" that this is a responsive double would take out into 4♣. Mr Smug going purple would bid 4NT to play. Where they end up I am not sure.
Mrs Guggenheim would stare at her hand not knowing what to do and eventually pass. If her partner was the Unlucky Expert he would want to make a take-out double but feel obliged to pass.
Futile Willy would bid 3NT and if his partner was Mr Smug, he would bid 5♣. If his partner was Mrs Guggenheim she would pass and Willy would misplay and go off 3.
Going to another book: Hideous Hog partnering Rueful Rabbit would bid 3NT and make with an end play after the Greek and Armenian misdefend not believing Hog would make such a bad bid.
Oct 2006: Mission impossible
Soon: Mission illegal
				
						#16
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 11:05
				
						#17
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 11:44
 the hog, on 2012-March-14, 04:18, said:
the hog, on 2012-March-14, 04:18, said:
Even the real Hog cannot get to dummy enough to pull this off.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
				
						#18
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 13:16
				
						#19
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 13:21
				
						#20
						
								 
							  
								
						
					
				
				Posted 2012-March-14, 20:36

 Help
 Help
 
			
		