[Phil]

PhantomSac, on 2014-November-26, 20:48, said:

It is really strange to me to think that is what is important. Nothing about our hand or this auction suggests that we are beating 3N and 6C is down the same amount of tricks. There is a lot to suggest that they might be able to run effectively or make 6C X after our double and not without it. I do agree that the main cases are not when we double and they make it when they were always cold though. I would suggest that the chances of [they run effectively] + [they make when they otherwise wouldn't have] >>>>>>>> [we are beating 3N and 6C one trick.]

Edit: Also glad to see you back posting! Hope it does not come off like I am trying to start a fight immediately This is one of the first times in a long time I can remember strongly disagreeing with CHERDANO about anything. Probably it does not matter much what we do but the classical school of bridge would definitely find it unfathomable to be doubling in this kinda spot. I like evolving from that but I think in this case they're right.

Thanks man. Good to be back and hope I can contribute although I doubt it's going to be at my 2005 to 2011 volume.

Agree with many of your general points here but (obviously) not the conclusion. We all have our set of experience and one gap in my game is that I'm not capitalizing on when I'm presented an obvious gift.

[lrussell]

lrussell, on 2014-November-26, 18:13, said:

You pass for 3 reasons:
1. You don't want to tell them how to play the clubs. For example:
♣Q2
♣A1087654
There are two equally good (72%) ways to play clubs for one loser:
a) Low to ♣Q
b) ♣2 from dummy inserting the ♣10
There are other combinations where a double will help declarer play the suit.

2. A weird auction for sure. 6♣ down is likely the same MP as 6♣-X down. Why bother?

3. You don't want them to run to anything. Take your top.

I guess I forgot reason #4. They might bid 7♣. Silly me, I never considered that.

[whereagles]

akwoo, on 2014-November-26, 18:10, said:

Of course, if you're playing in a small weak field, anything goes, and you know your field better than I do.

Well, obviously I didn't know these "customers"

[redbird97]

Pass. I am not going to be to happy when they run to 6NT and make it.

[gordontd]

the hog, on 2014-November-26, 18:05, said:

" East very strong."
roflmao, yes sure!

It looks to me as though it was a professional playing with a client who he didn't trust to play the hand. If he thought his partner would play the hand a trick or two worse than the field, the only way he could get a good board would be to find a contract that he could play. 5C would be no good since 3NT would doubtless be making overtricks so 6C it had to be, hoping for a bit of luck. And he would indeed have had a good board if eagles123 had doubled it (or even thought for a while about doubling it), since then his partner wouldn't have raised and he would have been tipped off as to how to play it.

[PhilKing]

gordontd, on 2014-November-27, 04:27, said:

It looks to me as though it was a professional playing with a client who he didn't trust to play the hand.

There is a new description for the budget pros at the Acol - prolooka. You heard it here first!

[Cthulhu D]

That is brilliant.

[Fluffy]

cherdano, on 2014-November-25, 19:05, said:

Did the passers see it's Matchpoints? I would double. I mean, it's possible RHO bid 6♣ on Q-7th and dummy shows up with ♣AT. But most of the time I am turning +100 into +200, and EW may go down at other tables, too.

You missed the part where East is an Expert, we are not on par against the field most likelly, weak fields tend to play 3NT, 6NT or 5♣ on this hands.

Also... although quite rare, we will be having a fun time if we find ourselves with -1540 when several tables have -1440

[the hog]

Fluffy, on 2014-November-28, 03:19, said:

You missed the part where East is an Expert, we are not on par against the field most likelly, weak fields tend to play 3NT, 6NT or 5♣ on this hands.

Also... although quite rare, we will be having a fun time if we find ourselves with -1540 when several tables have -1440

So where does it say "expert"? The op said "very strong". That is a far cry from expert. No "very strong" or "expert" player I have ever come across bids this randomly unless he is pissed, after all, 6C could have been opposite xx in C.
Gordon, if it was a pro I would want my money back. Bidding like a total fool teaches a client nothing.

[gordontd]

the hog, on 2014-November-28, 03:57, said:

Gordon, if it was a pro I would want my money back. Bidding like a total fool teaches a client nothing.

I remember a theatre impressario, married to a star actress of the 1960s, who regularly employed pros, saying "other people pretend they hire pros because they want to learn; I do it because I want to win".

[Fluffy]

the hog, on 2014-November-28, 03:57, said:

So where does it say "expert"? The op said "very strong". That is a far cry from expert. No "very strong" or "expert" player I have ever come across bids this randomly unless he is pissed, after all, 6C could have been opposite xx in C.
Gordon, if it was a pro I would want my money back. Bidding like a total fool teaches a client nothing.

What money? you are the opponent Ron not the client, you didn't pay him.

[the hog]

Fluffy, on 2014-November-30, 03:23, said:

What money? you are the opponent Ron not the client, you didn't pay him.

Of course I realise I am the opponent. The qun is IF the 6C bidder was a pro and IF you were his pd, would you pay him?

[jogs]

eagles123, on 2014-November-25, 13:39, said:

West very weak East very strong. 2n is 20-22 scoring =MP

double or no double?
is it close?
thanks,

Eagles

Sounds like East is the pro and West is the client. It is possible no other pair is in 6♣. Little or no difference in mps between +100 and +200. If East makes 6♣ one time in ten because of the double, it is a big loser.

[billw55]

the hog, on 2014-November-28, 03:57, said:

So where does it say "expert"? The op said "very strong". That is a far cry from expert. No "very strong" or "expert" player I have ever come across bids this randomly unless he is pissed, after all, 6C could have been opposite xx in C.
Gordon, if it was a pro I would want my money back. Bidding like a total fool teaches a client nothing.

While I agree personally, people have widely varying expectations from a hired pro. Some just want to buy masterpoints, and are quite happy for the pro to hog the hands.

Also, we don't even know that this is a pro-client pair. It could be any pairing of a good player and a bad player. It could be spouses who are angry at each other and bidding badly for spite. Who knows?

On the actual hand linked by eagles, east is obviously shooting wildly. In fact I think the raise to 7♣ is much more reasonable than the jump to 6.

[Phil]

The actual hand is pretty funny. Even funnier with the boost. Nice pass of 6!c.

Once again I play my opponent to be semi rational to my demise.

[MrAce]

Phil, on 2014-December-01, 14:58, said:

Once again I play my opponent to be semi rational to my demise.

Thats the point. You are way too experienced to hide behind that excuse. The auction in hand may be funny, however you know very well that there are a lot of pairs or players who will bid 6♣ with bad clubs and a void, hoping their pd covers them, because...

a-they do not have an agreement on how to handle hands with void and a long minor after 2 NT opening. (don't tell me it is very easy for everyone)
b-they may have it but 6♣ bidder did not trust his pd to remember all of that.
c-
d-

the list goes on...and again you are way too experienced to ignore all of this which happens a lot, and then put the blame on them. you re way too experienced and know how big of an information/hint DBL gives to declarer. Because, after all, regardless of who is to blame for your decision, you are the one who will get zero. And since when is it a good strategy for a player in your calibre to shoot for top or zero in a situation where we do not even know if 6 ♣ is their best spot even if it is cold? Of course we should do our best to get a top when the opportunity arises, however I still strongly believe that this is not one of them.