Right or Wrong? You Make the Call

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Post by Galt » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:19 pm

Jay, why would you give a damn whether you make your bid or not.

If you don't your odds of winning have still got to be like 95%.
Image

User avatar
grandmaS
Grand Master
Posts: 5705
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 4:23 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Post by grandmaS » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:37 pm

Well lets say, he tries to cover the nil and loses his chance to make his bid in the process, and the nil still gets set? Sometimes you have to try to do both as best as you can, and hope your pard is smart enough to only nil so late in the game if he/she has a perfect nil..............
Image

I am woman I am strong

player2376
Active Poster
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:09 am

Post by player2376 » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:06 pm

It was a nil doomed to failure.

He couldnt lead the 7 because he had the 8 9 10 Q and had no way
of knowing if his p had the Jack King or Ace. That's it in a nutshell.

He had no choice but to lead that 4 if hearts were his first choice.

Since he had the 7 through 10 hearts and would virtually be leading
the 10 if not the 4, there is no reason not to lead his 9 in his short
9-low suit. same diff except with a better chance of making his nil.
5 cards over the 9 ( 10 J Q K A ) where there were only 3 cards over his 10 in hearts.

Jay hit it on the head though. A long suit with no other low cards except
his lead was going to be set if they forced trump out then led their low
heart.

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Post by Galt » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:11 pm

for the nth time, it has nothing to do with what he LED...lol.
Image

User avatar
x MISSY x
Big Poster
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:00 pm
Contact:

Post by x MISSY x » Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:25 pm

All of us picking apart his lead doesnt change the fact that his pard had it covered...Does it matter if it was a good nil or a bad one??? All that matters is that the nil busted because his pard didnt cover..
Image

User avatar
Just_Ice
Grand Master
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:51 am
Location: Ozarks

Post by Just_Ice » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:46 pm

Interesting comments. I had no idea it would generate this much discusison.

Abc, the original question I wanted to know was, was my RHO's comment about not parding me for bidding Nil with the single K out of line. I didn't even have to give the background information of how we got there. However, I did, and after others made comments about the 7 lead being the best lead, I was curious, and that then became my next question.

And, by the way, my pard did not zap me when my nil busted, he zapped himself.

What made me Nil, seriously, was the previous 3 games. I explained those, so no need to again. That, together with the fact that I knew hearts were okay if my pard just played to cover me. Sure, my 3 low Spades (2,3,5) could have taken a cheap trick at the end, or maybe they drain his Spades and lead a low heart. But, more often than not, I think that hand makes Nil if we just clear 2 rounds of Hearts.

Just looking at this game and hand individually distorts what I was seeing. In football, if your kicker hits the upright and it bounces in on his first kick, and then misses his next 2, a coach is less likely to put the kicker in on 4th and 1 late in the game. This is what happened to me here. Normally, I would not Nil here, but I'll be darned if I was going to sit there and watch another lead melt away by the deal. I saw a pattern happening that appeared the same as my 3 previous games. I Nilled looking at all 4 games and not this 1. That may be a mistake, but it's hard to ignore what recently happens to you. The bad part of this, and what may have thrown this whole thing off is that my partner that covered the J did not see any of the previous 3 games. If he had, he may have been more likely to cover my Nil.

Again, thank you all for your comments.

TrashCanCharlie
Active Poster
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:23 am
Location: expert spades
Contact:

re

Post by TrashCanCharlie » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:30 pm

Anyone can see the nil can be covered Jack, that's not my argument. Mine instead was my own personal argument, which by the way would be supportive of rising with the king. By agreement in my partnerships I can and will rise with the king because "I trust the pard" I am sitting across from to "Not" nil in these scenarios lest they want to sever the partnership trust we have worked hard to form.

As far as Ices questions my own answers were merely supplied to allow some methodology behind plays that may or may not appear as madness to others, Such agreements do exist by implicitly and by agreements formed. Some would also say, "No agreement need exist because the actions taken are and were intuitive as well as intuitively obvious which line to take in regards to playing high or low with the king.

BTW..........................partnership trust is more important to me than covering a nil, winning a game, winning more than one game!!!!

Law 1, postulate 1.....................Do Not Break Partnership Trust!..............

Regards,
TheCanMan

User avatar
omni_555
Grand Master
Posts: 2946
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 11:32 pm
Location: South Carolina

Post by omni_555 » Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:10 am

Man!!! Just_Ice must be bangin' his head on his monitor screen about now!!!If I read his initial inquiry correctly, he was NOT looking to see if people thought that his initial nil was a GOOD bid, or even if people thought that his lead of the Heart 4 was a good lead. What transpired was basically THIS!!!

The score is 417 to 347 in your favor. You have first bid. You decide (for whatever reason) to bid nil, believing that there is at least a DECENT chance that it will succeed.

In this situation, I would expect my partner to tailor his bid in such a way that he could safely cover my nil while hopefully not taking 3 bags. Unless the opps had a HUGE bid (say a 10 or 11) trying to set them would not be a worthwhile risk here, especially if it might put the nil at risk.

OK, protecting the nil is the most important job for nil's partner at this point. Nil plays the Heart 4. West covers with the J. You are sitting there with the Heart 3 and K. Forget about conventions for the moment. You are not familiar with this partner. You do not KNOW if he uses conventions regularly, or even if he KNOWS all the same conventions YOU do. If he DOES, then MAYBE playing your K would be a safe play. But, WHAT HARM DOES IT DO TO PLAY THE 3???!!! And just MAYBE the 4 was a mis-click, and NO convention applies!

THIS is the question that is being asked. NOT whether the nil SHOULD have been bid in the first place. NOT which Heart SHOULD have been led. NOT whether some OTHER suit SHOULD have been led. But given that the nil WAS bid and the Heart 4 WAS played, what WOULD have been the SMARTEST play for the cover to make? 8)
Playing games should be FUN - seek out your own level! Don't frustrate others unnecessarily. 8)

abcba123
Active Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 7:50 pm

Full Circle

Post by abcba123 » Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:36 am

So now we have come full circle.

The example given was more than just a question of "was my 2nd desparation nil OK" ? The real question as the posters suggested was the predicament that got the team to that point of desparation which was the set of the first nil. Three options to what happened:

1. The play of the K was a misclik

2. The niller expected cover and it was there but the partner was as Justice suggests "messing around" or as Galt suggests "amaturish and clueless" and did not provide it.

3. The niller mis-communicated to their partner by bidding a risky nil, leading from their long heart suit and leading their low card in this long suit. This confused the partner who thought the nil was safe and hearts a safe suit. The partner made a competent play to not cover based on what the niller had communicated.

To solely blame the partner for not covering the nil in this case (#2) is not accurate and can't be proven at this point. Two other options exist (#1 and #3). The bottom line ? We're not sure which option above actually happened as we don't know the partner. Any may have been correct.

And that was my point all along.

So what is the lesson learned ? Are we to just blindly cover nils regardless of when a partner may bid such ? Are we to ignore our partners choice of suit lead or actual card value played ?

Despite what others have said, I would think not.

The niller did not know his partner which is even more a reason to perhaps be more conservative and not nil at this point of the game.

I am even more of the opinion that a team who uses nil conventions such as: timing of the nil during the game, size of lead, suit selection by the nil lead, and actual card selected will make far more nils and make both the team's bid and nil far more than a team that just expects nil cover without any thought to nil conventions.

Communication and signaling of bids and cards played is in the long run going to win more games.

I'll take a partner who does #3 over #1 or #2 anyday. (that sounds ugly ?)
Image

User avatar
Just_Ice
Grand Master
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:51 am
Location: Ozarks

Post by Just_Ice » Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:02 am

It's all good input, and I appreciate it.

User avatar
Cadienne
Active Poster
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:33 pm
Location: Louisiana

Post by Cadienne » Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:53 am

Always cover the nil! Cover should have saved his K for the next round.
If you want the rainbow, you have to pass through the rain.

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Post by Galt » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:22 am

If you want a pard who does number 3, you will be unnecessarily losing a whole lot of Spades games, which is exactly what characterizes the vast majority of Spaders.

It is just as Omni says. What possible harm is there to ducking the Jack... absolutely none.

What possible harm is there to playing the King.... a Nil set.

Spaders who take totally unnecessary risks make the best opps. Also, they rarely learn to stop doing it, not understanding why they are losing.

If you have some well understood convention with a pard (such as Jay does with his) it is a different story.
Image

abcba123
Active Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 7:50 pm

Post by abcba123 » Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:16 am

Galt wrote:If you want a pard who does number 3, you will be unnecessarily losing a whole lot of Spades games, which is exactly what characterizes the vast majority of Spaders.

It is just as Omni says. What possible harm is there to ducking the Jack... absolutely none.

What possible harm is there to playing the King.... a Nil set.

Spaders who take totally unnecessary risks make the best opps. Also, they rarely learn to stop doing it, not understanding why they are losing.

If you have some well understood convention with a pard (such as Jay does with his) it is a different story.
My guess is that players who go nil at this stage of the game and then lead from their long suit with the lowest card in that suit will get set more often than not. Thus losing more often than not.

In this example the partner luckily had the cover but did not play it for any of three reasons listed above.

The real risk rested with the un-necessary nil. Those who nil un-necessarily make the best opponents. As far as if they will ever stop; that's pure conjecture.
Image

User avatar
Cadienne
Active Poster
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:33 pm
Location: Louisiana

Post by Cadienne » Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:31 am

OK most of you think J made a bad choice going nil the first time. Risky or un-necessary or whatever, there still sits a nil before you. So... you adjust your bid and cover the nil.
What baffles me is it is OK to set a partner and loose the game because you don't agree with how they bid/play. :? :?
If you want the rainbow, you have to pass through the rain.

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Post by Galt » Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:19 pm

Apparently so.
Image

Post Reply