[FelicityR]

Watching the Bermuda Bowl again last night - it's getting addictive - in the middle of the night in England and this board came up in the match against England and Italy.

---

Even though the hand benefitted England by 12 IMPs, it was sad to see two great Italian players end up in a small slam missing the AK of trumps. I would be interested in other players views on what went wrong. One of the commentators said at the time "Prediction there will be a director call", though from where I was sitting I thought that North/South's disaster was of their own making. Here is the (Vugraph operator's) explanation of the bids.

1NT 15-17
2♣ - M[ajor] (Or should that be ♣s and a major?)
2NT - by pen
4♦ - transfer
X of 5♣ by E - by pen

And, as always, thanks you for your replies.

[rmnka447]

If 4 ♦ was meant as a transfer by South, then North didn't catch it. I have a great deal of trouble understanding North's jump to 6 ♦ after 5 ♣x missing any controls in the red suits. The bid places a lot of cards in the South hand that North can't know if they are there or not.

As long as North thinks South's 4 ♦ bid was legit, a simple 5 ♦ would seem better. If South has the magic ♦ hand, then maybe South can carry on.

[pescetom]

Hard to say without more information. "M" is clearly a misleading explanation given that Robson seems to know it included clubs, but who knows what was actually explained at the table. We also have to know what is 2NT by Versace and again "by pen" makes little sense. If they weren't already off the rails before 5♣ by Lauria then they are now.

So they might well be victims of misleading explanation of the 2♣ bid - another pointer in this direction is that EW failed to find the spades fit and risked going down 4♣X-4, whereas at the other table Sementa-Bocchi were in 3♠X-3.

But yes it is sad to see Italy looking fragile in slam bidding which is one of their traditional strengths. Versace has been a bit ragged all tournament, maybe he has not recovered from the 27% we gave him in Galatina last month

See also this related topic

[johnu]

 pescetom, on 2019-September-19, 07:06, said:

Hard to say without more information. "M" is clearly a misleading explanation given that Robson seems to know it included clubs, but who knows what was actually explained at the table. We also have to know what is 2NT by Versace and again "by pen" makes little sense. If they weren't already off the rails before 5♣ by Lauria then they are now.

The Robson-Forrester convention card says 2♣ is clubs and a major (2♦ is diamonds and a major). My view is that the operator didn't report the actual description. Just like the operators don't always get the play correct.

[msjennifer]

Sir,I sincerely hope that no novice or beginner reads this column today.I wonder as to how Lauria and Versace ,a strong partnership, failed to rise to the occasion.What was the 2NT bid for? If Leb.then perhaps he meant to bid an invitational 3H later.It appears that such a position ( a raise to 4C ) left the pair totally unprepared . The six diamond bid after 5Cx is a mystery.A simple redouble to show the Club Ace may, perhaps ,have saved the deal.

[paulg]

I think novices and beginners should see that great players find this a difficult game too. The Scotland Women also bid the diamond slam on this hand and they would have been disappointed, but not suicidal.

Bridge is a game of mistakes and what the full BBO coverage of these world championships shows is that everyone makes a lot of them, even the best in the world. The difference is that the experts are better at getting on with the next board than most of us.

What is astounding is that the experts do not make more mistakes: it is a far easier game when we can all see 52 cards on Vugraph.

[pescetom]

 johnu, on 2019-September-19, 14:53, said:

The Robson-Forrester convention card says 2♣ is clubs and a major (2♦ is diamonds and a major). My view is that the operator didn't report the actual description.

Thanks. Unless I miss something it doesn't seem a very good agreement, a more common 2♠ showing 5-card spades and a minor would have worked better. At the other table EW found the spades fit which doesn't seem likely with this agreement (if the major can be 4-card as it appears) and indeed did not happen. And after 2♦ the situation will be even more precarious as there is no room to enquire for the major.

[msjennifer]

 paulg, on 2019-September-20, 04:59, said:

I think novices and beginners should see that great players find this a difficult game too. The Scotland Women also bid the diamond slam on this hand and they would have been disappointed, but not suicidal.

Bridge is a game of mistakes and what the full BBO coverage of these world championships shows is that everyone makes a lot of them, even the best in the world. The difference is that the experts are better at getting on with the next board than most of us.

What is astounding is that the experts do not make more mistakes: it is a far easier game when we can all see 52 cards on Vugraph.

Sir ,pardon me if I say, the pair did not make a mistake.There was only a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of particularly the 4D bid which followed the earlier 2NT bid.It is correct to say that the real experts are those who make less mistakes.I can think of only the Italian master FORQUET who is (95 yrs) reportedly an Expert who hardly made any mistake during his prime career

[johnu]

 pescetom, on 2019-September-20, 06:50, said:

Thanks. Unless I miss something it doesn't seem a very good agreement, a more common 2♠ showing 5-card spades and a minor would have worked better. At the other table EW found the spades fit which doesn't seem likely with this agreement (if the major can be 4-card as it appears) and indeed did not happen. And after 2♦ the situation will be even more precarious as there is no room to enquire for the major.

I'm not really defending the use of 2♣/2♦ to show that suit and a minor. In fact, I've been playing Multi-Landy which uses 2♠ as showing spades and a minor. But, if you don't have a spade fit, you have to go to the 3 level to find a minor suit fit while Robson-Forrester can find a minor suit at the 2 level. Every systems has strengths and weaknesses.

After 2♦, if advancer doesn't like diamonds and would like to play in overcaller's major instead of diamonds, they bid 2♥, pass or correct. Seems very straightforward to me.

I'm just speculating, but there was no attempt to find a major because a determination was made that

1) 4 of a major has no chance of making
2) Exploring for a major fit gives more bidding space for the opponents
3) How do you explore for a major? And if overcaller has hearts, do you want to sacrifice in hearts or clubs. If you sacrifice in spades, you will likely be doubled.
4) 4♣ is about as preemptive as you can afford (and maybe more), but gives opponents room to make a bidding mistake.

[johnu]

 msjennifer, on 2019-September-20, 11:45, said:

Sir ,pardon me if I say, the pair did not make a mistake.There was only a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of particularly the 4D bid which followed the earlier 2NT bid.It is correct to say that the real experts are those who make less mistakes.I can think of only the Italian master FORQUET who is (95 yrs) reportedly an Expert who hardly made any mistake during his prime career

Disagree 100%. One or both of them made a mistake. Was their agreement that 4♦ was a transfer? If there wasn't an agreement, or 4♦ was supposed to be something else, then the 4♦ bidder made a mistake (was 2NT supposed to possibly show this hand?). Same type of thing for the overcaller. If 4♦ was a transfer, then they should have accepted the transfer. I have no idea what the agreement was, but mistakes were made.

You can quibble and call them misunderstandings or misinterpretations, but whatever you call them, there was at least 1 mistake made in the bidding.

[pescetom]

I appreciate your attempt to play devil's advocate, but to me it just seems to confirm that the Multi-Landy we both play has more strengths and less weaknesses here.

 johnu, on 2019-September-20, 16:15, said:

I'm not really defending the use of 2♣/2♦ to show that suit and a minor. In fact, I've been playing Multi-Landy which uses 2♠ as showing spades and a minor. But, if you don't have a spade fit, you have to go to the 3 level to find a minor suit fit while Robson-Forrester can find a minor suit at the 2 level. Every systems has strengths and weaknesses.

Having to go to 3 level to find a minor suit fit is no great defect, opponents are unlikely to let us play in 2♣ anyway.
And a 2♣ interference does little to disrupt their bidding whereas 2♠ is a serious spanner in the works.
But above all, showing a 5-card major suit immediately is good bridge.

 johnu, on 2019-September-20, 16:15, said:

I'm just speculating, but there was no attempt to find a major because a determination was made that
1) 4 of a major has no chance of making
2) Exploring for a major fit gives more bidding space for the opponents
3) How do you explore for a major? And if overcaller has hearts, do you want to sacrifice in hearts or clubs. If you sacrifice in spades, you will likely be doubled.
4) 4♣ is about as preemptive as you can afford (and maybe more), but gives opponents room to make a bidding mistake.

They missed a 5-4 fit in the majors that was staring them in the face. And as you say, they couldn't see how to explore for a major after making a bid that promised one. And they ended up preempting in 4♣ which goes down like a ton of bricks if the opponents double. All this says to me that either the agreement is poor or they made mistakes, or both.