Luck -- Good and Bad? Or Wisdom?


6 4 3
5 3
J 9 3
K J 10 6 5
K J 5 Q 10 7
A K Q J 10 9 8 6 4
5 A 8 6 4
9 8 7 3 A Q
A 9 8 2
7 2
K Q 10 7 2 Vul: N-S
4 2 Opening lead: 10 of hearts

South WestNorthEast
Pass 1 Pass 4
5 Dbl All pass

6 4
K Q 9 8 6
J 8
8 7 6 5
A K J 10 7 5 Q 8 3 2
J 10 7 3 2
K 10 9 7 A Q 4
9 2 A 10
9
A 5 4
6 5 3 2 Vul: No one
K Q J 4 3 Opening lead: A of spades

South WestNorthEast
Pass 1 Pass 4
5 5 6 All pass

These two hands caught my attention, in large measure because of some striking similarities leading to strikingly dissimilar results. The bidding is -- substantially -- the same through South's introduction of his five-card minor on his second chance to bid. The five-card minors differ only by a jack for a 10. And each has just one other honor in the hand, and that the ace of the unbid major. The upshot? One wound up with the absolute worst score for his direction, and the other the absolute best.
Was one wiser than the other? Or luckier? I'll start with the first instance where I have no ambiguous reservations about the answer to those questions. It was a plain and simple foolhardy bid. Coming in at the five level on a hand the wasn't good enough to open, opposite a passing partner. Unfavorable vulnerability? If I offered this bidding as a hypothesis, I dare say some would protest that this would never happen.
As for coming in at the five level after passing originally, I have winced when a partner did that a the three level. I'm wondering, what kind of hand would warrant coming in thus. A long suit? Well, if you're prepared to bid it at the 3 level, why not start with that bid rather than letting each opponent have a bid before you bid. And if it's not a long suit, how many hcp's does a hand have that isn't suitable for a one-level opener but is for coming in two levels higher?
But the worst offense is making such a bid at that vulnerability. I have referred to this before. You don't bid to sac at unfavorable vulnerability! It just doesn't pay. At the game level, you only have to lose two tricks (doubled, of course) to be worse off than if you'd just let 'em have their game. So you're calling it very close to go for a sac at that level: You've got to see those guys capable of making their game while you, not strong enough to beat that game, will be strong enough to be down only one! That's calling the potential in each direction awfully close, and that's looking at only 13 cards. Often you can't call your potential that close after dummy comes down and you're looking at 27! (Counting the opening lead.)
Indeed, I wouldn't recommend a game-level vul vs. non-vul sac even with a slam-dunk superfit! It's just too close a call. You bid to make at that vulnerability, which I suppose could include bidding on the supposition that it will probably make but might go down one. But you don't bid to sac, not at the game level. At the slam level, you actually have a little more leeway. Did you feel you ought to have game in your suit? But those guys would seem to have a lock on their slam (all your points being heavily in your superfit and your shortages). You might get by with a down two or down three. The result here was minus 1400, while the closest score was minus 980!
As for the other declarer, no, I don't think he was wise regardless of the outcome. He was lucky -- in two ways. First, he got rather better support in trump than the other guy did. The four-card support and the suit breaking 2-2 meant that declarer had two trump in dummy when all trump were out, while the above fellow had none on his 5-3 fit. And he was lucky in that his opponents were timid to the point of surrender. North-South both pass on their first opportunity to bid and E-W think they may have slam? They can't risk a double? It just doesn't make any sense. And that's with one defender holding two aces!
Indeed, a double of six clubs would have made the penalty higher than any game score for E-W, and not everybody was in slam, to be sure. Making the 6 club bid going undoubled a downright gift. I think somebody has to say, "These guys didn't think enough of their hands to bid the first time, and now they're going for slam? If they've got it, I'm going to be embarrassed for my double, but I'll be even more embarrassed if I don't double and they're down about 3."
Luck, just pure luck that this declarer didn't get his ears pinned back. He has only one factor putting him a level or two above the first declarer, and that's the vulnerability. The non-vulnerability not only makes the penalty considerably less if doubled, but because it would be less, opponents won't be so quick to come in with a double, which might not be lucrative enough in view of what they could make. But letting 6 clubs go by? These guys must have been comatose.

How many out of 56 bidders do you think were in slam on the first hand? Three! All the rest, save the diamond bidder above, were in a heart game . . . making that wild vulnerable bid all the more ridiculous. And how many in the spade slam? Ten. Five N-S pairs were in clubs. Incidentally, one unfortunate pair not only got doubled at the five level, but they were set three! So they got the worst score except for the pairs that saw their opps go to slam. The third undertrick comes from a heart ruff.
I think I might put it this way: the 5 club bid was unwise, even if it turned out well by grace of the opponents; the five diamond bid was extremely unwise.