[apollo1201]

---

Strong NT, 5cM, 2H "standard" weak 2, second X = values and virtually denies 4-cd♠

Actually I bid 5♣ as S, and was un-understanably left to play there! As in that case the blame would be quite easy to assign, I've given the other table sequence who finally gained IMPs as 500 was better than 440 (should be 800 w/ a ♠ruff they didn't get).

[wank]

North obviously. Double isn't penalties so why is he passing with a void?

[ggwhiz]

wank, on 2018-June-03, 09:14, said:

North obviously. Double isn't penalties so why is he passing with a void?

100%

[mikeh]

I'm not sure why the OP can't understand being passed in 5C. Why should North assume that South fills in the diamond suit for no losers?

I'm not saying that passing 5C is clearly correct and, as is usually the case, I cannot be objective as to what I would do were the problem presented as North's decision over 5C, with the South hand being concealed.

As it is, the auction is not easy after South doubled 4H. North should not pass it, but that's the easy part. It is far from clear what he should do, but my 'guess' (subject to the same concern about it being impossible to be objective once one knows the hand) is that North should pull to 5D.

North is expected to pass the double with all balanced hand, so this action shows shape, and it also shows at least a 2 card discrepancy between the minors. With 5-4 or such, North should bid 4N, two places to play. Note that this would NOT be a balanced hand too strong to bid 2 or 3N over 2H, since at equal one would pass and take one's 800-1400.

But what should South do over 5D? He has great diamonds and good clubs. However, might North have, for example, KQx x AJxxxx KQx? I'd argue that that particular hand is unlikely but that still doesn't make it clear for South to raise to slam.

I understand the desire to post these auctions revealing both hands, but truly believe that this rarely leads to informative discussions.

In many cases of ATB it is obvious who was at fault, and indeed there are times when I suspect that the OP was motivated by a desire to persuade partner which of them was wrong (and this attempt sometimes backfires). But when the decisions are in reality close, but the actual hands reveal the double-dummy result, then we usually end up with a lot of voices claiming that they would have got it right and assigning blame based on the outcome, not the bridge merits.

Indeed, assume North bid 5D and then one asked ATB for missing slam: I'd expect close to 100% to say 'South'. Yet had North bid this way with my example hand and had South bid to the hopeless slam, close to the same 100% would say South was at fault.

Giving the North hand as a bidding problem and then, perhaps changing the minors (in the hand and the auction) around and giving the South hand as a bidding problem a week or two later would likely generate a more objective analysis, but requires a lot of work and patience, and often has people recognizing the problem the second time, thus negating most of the utility of the approach anyway.

[Tramticket]

mikeh, on 2018-June-04, 16:18, said:

I understand the desire to post these auctions revealing both hands, but truly believe that this rarely leads to informative discussions.

In many cases of ATB it is obvious who was at fault, and indeed there are times when I suspect that the OP was motivated by a desire to persuade partner which of them was wrong (and this attempt sometimes backfires). But when the decisions are in reality close, but the actual hands reveal the double-dummy result, then we usually end up with a lot of voices claiming that they would have got it right and assigning blame based on the outcome, not the bridge merits.

Indeed, assume North bid 5D and then one asked ATB for missing slam: I'd expect close to 100% to say 'South'. Yet had North bid this way with my example hand and had South bid to the hopeless slam, close to the same 100% would say South was at fault.

Giving the North hand as a bidding problem and then, perhaps changing the minors (in the hand and the auction) around and giving the South hand as a bidding problem a week or two later would likely generate a more objective analysis, but requires a lot of work and patience, and often has people recognizing the problem the second time, thus negating most of the utility of the approach anyway.

I fully agree with this. I find it impossible to look at a decision objectively once I have seen both hands.

[NickRW]

The above discussion is not without merit. However the OP asked for ATB, in this case North

[nullve]

If North is unwilling to force to slam over the double of 4♥, then he should invite slam by first bidding 4N (two places to play) and then 5♦ (NF, but clearly slam invitational) over 5♣.

[rmnka447]

mikeh, on 2018-June-04, 16:18, said:

I'm not sure why the OP can't understand being passed in 5C. Why should North assume that South fills in the diamond suit for no losers?

I'm not saying that passing 5C is clearly correct and, as is usually the case, I cannot be objective as to what I would do were the problem presented as North's decision over 5C, with the South hand being concealed.

As it is, the auction is not easy after South doubled 4H. North should not pass it, but that's the easy part. It is far from clear what he should do, but my 'guess' (subject to the same concern about it being impossible to be objective once one knows the hand) is that North should pull to 5D.

North is expected to pass the double with all balanced hand, so this action shows shape, and it also shows at least a 2 card discrepancy between the minors. With 5-4 or such, North should bid 4N, two places to play. Note that this would NOT be a balanced hand too strong to bid 2 or 3N over 2H, since at equal one would pass and take one's 800-1400.

But what should South do over 5D? He has great diamonds and good clubs. However, might North have, for example, KQx x AJxxxx KQx? I'd argue that that particular hand is unlikely but that still doesn't make it clear for South to raise to slam.

I understand the desire to post these auctions revealing both hands, but truly believe that this rarely leads to informative discussions.

In many cases of ATB it is obvious who was at fault, and indeed there are times when I suspect that the OP was motivated by a desire to persuade partner which of them was wrong (and this attempt sometimes backfires). But when the decisions are in reality close, but the actual hands reveal the double-dummy result, then we usually end up with a lot of voices claiming that they would have got it right and assigning blame based on the outcome, not the bridge merits.

Indeed, assume North bid 5D and then one asked ATB for missing slam: I'd expect close to 100% to say 'South'. Yet had North bid this way with my example hand and had South bid to the hopeless slam, close to the same 100% would say South was at fault.

Giving the North hand as a bidding problem and then, perhaps changing the minors (in the hand and the auction) around and giving the South hand as a bidding problem a week or two later would likely generate a more objective analysis, but requires a lot of work and patience, and often has people recognizing the problem the second time, thus negating most of the utility of the approach anyway.

I strongly agree wit these sentiments.

What people forget is that bidding isn't a perfect science always leading to perfect results. There are times that you bid to good games when you bid to good games or slams and they go down because the cards lie wrong. Conversely, there are times when you don't bid game or slam and it makes because of the extremely fortuitous lie of the cards. All you can hope is to get to reasonably good spots.

Here, I think the take away is that North should act period. ATB for not reaching slam is a bridge too far on this hand.

[apollo1201]

Thanks all esp Mikey for that analysis. I’ll remember the « post later the other hand » part, a nicely cunning plan!

I’ve posted other table sequence on purpose as we have no direct interest neither partner nor myself for a « revenge I was right ». We never have this spirit as we always try to learn and discuss.

Maybe ATB was a bad title!

As for our table, she can’t indeed know I have everything covered but when I freely bid myself to 5C, I gotta have something (SK, some diamond goodies...). IMP favor risk taking anyway. She actually said tabling dummy I hope you don’t make 6, which I said probably not making 6 (LOL).

[MrAce]

% 101 North, Alex nailed it imo.

[cherdano]

I think North should bid 6♦ over the double. Partner being a passed hand actually helps somewhat - I find it very hard to construct *any* hand including heart wastage, even ♥A, that would double. So he will almost always have useful values, close to maximum pass, and can't have diamond shortage - 6♦ will always have play opposite that, and will often be cold.