bid_em_up

I have never heard of Anne Lund, but given that the OP states that "This is a "Level 2" problem, meaning Intermediates, not beginners.", I get the impression that this problem is posed as part of some sort of teaching class or book that teaches beginners (Level 1 problems) and then progresses. For players of this level, I think the recommended bid should be 1N (as it is). The 1N bid describes in one bid: 1) balanced hand 2) point count 3) stopper in openers suit This particular hand also happens to be 3-3 in the majors so after partners likely transfer, either major will play well, which is another plus for the 1N bid. And it contains a likely source of tricks, which is another plus. Players at this level are likely to have problems in the auction after overcalling 1D. They will have not described their HCP so they are prone to overbidding later in the auction. One way to help alleviate this is to allow them to get the HCP range off of their chest first via the 1N call. So I can agree with the 1N recommendation, but only for players of the beginner to intermediate level. As one progresses further, one will begin to realize that 1N is not necessarily the BEST call. 1N also has some serious flaws, such as: 1) Ax in openers suit. You will only be able to hold up once, if needed. 2) Ax is also a decent shortness for a suit contract (ruffing value). 3) the hcp contained in the hand are all "prime" values or quick tricks. These are better for suit play, not NT 4) there are zero tenaces in the hand (outside of your diamond suit) 5) usually with hands like this, if the final contract is to be some level of NT, it is best if partner declares it so that the opening bidder is leading away from his hand, and the lead is running up to any tenaces partner may have. I think you would find that most higher level players will double with this hand, since it is more suit oriented for play, and it can withstand whatever partner bids. And if the hand is to be played in NT, it really needs to be right sided so that partner plays it, not you.

I don't know why you bother to ask me - I am not the expert. If you were interested enough, you would have already known that information from experts in physics is available that explains how this comparison is invalid. You seem to indicate knowledge of physics that compares the bridge collapse to the fires and collapse in the WTC towers - I would be interested in seeing your credentials and reading any peer-reviewed articles you have published. I am not closed to seeing both sides of the argument. However, if you are not an expert, and if you won't accept that men of reason, science, and logic, professionals in their fields, true experts, have serious, scientific doubts and valid, peer-reviewed expression of doubt about the explanation of 9-11, whatever I say will not matter. Comtempt prior to investigation does not yield a valid answer. You have to either find your own answers or ignore the questions. If you want answers about physics, ask a phisicist. If you don't really want to know the answer, don't ask. Really Winston, I said no such thing. I have read the articles you have listed, and while certainly interesting for the most part, even though I did find some parts of them uncomforting, I am not "willing" to accept at this point their hypothesis'. That's just my own layman's opinion. I offered no "knowledge" of physics, beyond what the "media" is currently stating is the cause of the SF bridge collapse. That the truck caught fire and melted the steel bolts supporting the bridge......since many of the articles *you* have provided have stated that fires cannot reach temperatures capable of melting steel, I just found it to be interesting, and asked if you had any comment regarding this. The last statement was simply a smart remark. That said, are physicists also civil engineers? Let me think for a minute, just babblings in writing. Say that I am a civil engineer, I have to design two large buildings to build in the middle of a highly populated area. Am I going to design these buildings in such a manner that at some point in time they can be demolished, if needed? Entirely possible. If so, they would have to fall top-down, would they not? (obviously they cannot collapse sideways in a highly populated area.) Am I going to account for the possibilities of the buildings being struck by a missile? Probably not, at least not at the time they were designed. So the buildings themselves had already been designed to collapse. The planes/jet fuel simply triggered this inherent design. Possibility? Sure. Probability? More so than if it was a covert operation as means of justification to start a war, imo. Was there a design flaw in the buildings themselves? Entirely possible. Given the earlier attempted bombings of the twin towers, it would be reasonable to believe that al-Queda had access to the building plans and had discovered such a weakness. Possibility? Sure. Probability? See above. Third option. Follow the money. It is my understanding that a certain person or group of persons had recently (in 2001) either financed or refinanced the twin towers. It is also my understanding that this person or persons were facing huge uninsured losses on the buildings themselves, and I think it was because of "known" structural defects in the buildings. I believe I heard that the number was upwards of 1 billion US dollars. It was already a given that the buildings were going to have to be demolished anyway. It is also my recollection that the then owner(s) of the Trade Center either is Israeli or has Israeli ties. Now, if one were deviant enough, they certainly could go to a group such as al-queda and say "I have a win-win proposition for us". Your group gets to make a strike against the American infidels and the Isreali's as well since we own them and destroy the twin towers. I will ensure that they are wired with thermite to effectively facilitate the destruction of the buildings and my insurance will be forced to pay for the destruction and rebuilding of them. I am willing to pay you X amount of dollars to do this (X = name your price), in addition to financing the costs of the operation. While you are at it, go ahead and hit a couple of key US targets as a diversion to the real reason for the attacks on the Trade Centers. Would the terrorist groups do this? Probably. Would the owners of the Trade Center do this? Well, it is amazing what some people will do for money. Especially large sums of money. Sick, isn't it? All three could be "probable" or "possible" scenarios, in addition to the one being claimed by the "conspiracy" theorists. Or it could just be a bunch of lunatics with nothing but hatred in their hearts or misled ideas regarding the US got lucky via freak occurences, which in the end, had results beyond what even they could have imagined. Personally, I try to believe the most likely scenario (the latter, imo). And for all the "scientific" evidence the people you cite are claiming, that scenario simply would require the cooperation of too many people to effectively coordinate what essentially amounts to having an order to commit the atrocious murders of 3,000 people or an attack on the U.S. as a justification to commit to war with Iraq, for all of them to remain silent. I just don't see how it can be a "likely" scenario.

Umm, shubi....I never did ask. Just exactly what is it that you smoke when you step outside? ;)

I'm interested to see how far out (in context) even a simulation of 1 million hands is: The real answer is 21.5512% and 1.6996% The standard deviation of the binomial distribution is sqrt( N p (1-p)) To get the stard deviation of the estimated proportion, you must devide by N, i.e. sqrt( p (1-p) / N) Here, N= 1000000 and p=0.02. For a quick calculation without a pocket calculator you can assume (1-p) = 1 so the stardard deviation on the estimated proportion of 1000000 hands, when the true proportion is 0.02, is sqrt ( 0.02 /1000000) = 0.00014 A popular confidence bound is +/- 2 SE (sorry for confusing SE with SD but in this case it doesn't matter), i.e. 0.02 +/- 2*0.00014 or [ 0.01972 ; 0.02028 ] You mean, some people actually know this stuff? Makes my head hurt just looking at it. ;)

Arend, I swear I am seeking info here. I know you are probably better in math than I am from some of your other posts. I freely admit that I'm not a math whiz. But I don't see how are the chances of all six going "your" way equal to 60%? Is this a typo? Assume that the odds of a contract are exactly 50%. Say there is a finesse to take, and there are 8 tricks if it loses, 9 if it wins. Since each board was originally 50%, you would expect to make 9 tricks on three of them and 8 tricks on the other three, on overall averages. But, aren't the odds of all 6 being right consecutively calculated as: 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 1.56% of actually being right 6 times in a row. Or have I totally forgotten my statistic/probabilites calculations?

I don't think its a relative scatter of the actual table results either. It's just some numbers I made up as a response to kenrexford's comments regarding his home game. ;) Of course they could easily go in a different direction, but in the context of the original post, combined with kens post, seem to be a reasonable approximation of what "could" happen, especially at ken's home game. What probably "did" happen was: 1N+2 (one or two times) +150 1N+1 or 2N= (10-11 times) +120 3N -1 (one or two times). -50 Still the same zero or almost zero, where by just being in 1N+2 you would tie for top, and at least average for 1N+1. That was all I was trying to point out.

If I had to guess, 2S would be construed by most as a weak jump shift.

4H. 3N if my methods allow for it. Sorry Josh, I disagree with you. For every hand you may lose in your scenario, you may also gain when you: 1) double your chances of the bid actually occuring (a serious flaw with gambling 3N, imo, is that it does not occur very often) 2) slightly improve your chances of 3N actually making, 3) make it slightly more difficult for the opponents to enter the auction since they do not know if you hold a major or a minor. or 4) many pairs will have no discussed agreements after a 3N opening that can contain a major, but they will usually have some over a normal gambling 3N. And are they really going to desire to come in with 4 of a minor (not game) if they think they may beat 3N? They will either pass or double in this scenario. They will not bid 4m. If they double, you can run and have lost nothing. If they pass expecting to beat, you will usually win big. If you open 4H, your suit is known, and it makes their auctions/decisions easier. Yes, it is a tradeoff. Its one I can live with.

Phil, this is all well and good, and I can even agree with you. But...you "know" you are swinging when you take this approach and that it is pretty much a top or bottom approach (in respect to this particular board). However, the original poster leaves me with the impression that he is attempting to justify his bid on the basis of "well, I know I overbid but it might make" and "It is still possible that we can get a good score even if it goes down". This doesn't strike me as someone who is taking a swinging approach during a session, but instead as someone who made a bad bid, and he knows he has made a bad bid, his partner knows it, and everyone else knows it, and instead of simply saying "I made a bad bid, sorry", he is now is looking for sympathy, solace, support, justifications or rationalizations for his bid. I won't provide him with any.

Under the scenario given by the OP, he "knows" that the majority of the field will likely be in 1N. This, to me, precludes such silly contracts as 4D xx'd -2 or 1H x'd making 6. But even assuming those two results on a 12 top, you would likely have something similar to the following. 3N=......400 1N+2....150 3S=......140 1N+1....120 1N+1....120 1N+1....120 1N+1....120 1N+1....120 3D=......110 1N=......90 3N-1.....................50 4Dxx -2................600 1Hx'd+5...............?? whatever number it is. Now score it. Pair 1 gets 12.........100% Pair 2 gets 11.........91.6% Pair 3 gets 10.........83.33% Pairs 4-8 gets 7......58.33% Pairs 9 gets 4.........33.33% Pair 10 gets 3.........25.0% Our pair gets 2.......16.67% Pair 12 gets 1.........8.33% Pair 13 gets 0.........0% Clearly, it cannot be right to bid 3N, when 1N+2 would have resulted in 87.5% (10-). If we make three NT, we are getting the majority of the matchpoints, even without bidding it. We have turned a win/win situation (1N+2 or 1N+1 for an above average score in either case) into either an absolute but unlikely good result vs. a probable poor result by bidding 3N.

Ok, I get the points about the first two. But what does the bit about the altimeter showing the plane was 400 feet too high to have actually struck the building have to do with anything? Surely these people aren't blind, and I dont think David Copperfield was around to make the plane dissappear just as it was about to impact the building. In other words, it wasn't an illusion, you can clearly see the plane hit the building. It doesn't matter what the danged altimeter says. And just another curiousity, if a jet-fueled fire cannot reach temperatures capable of melting steel, as you have referenced in other articles, can you offer an explanation of the recent bridge collapse in San Francisco where a tanker truck burst into flames and "melted the steel bolts" supporting the bridge, resulting in its collapse? Or at least that's what they are saying occured, maybe it was really a government plot designed to invade Alcatraz. :) EDIT: I later reread this and noted that you were referring to the plane that struck the Pentagon, and not the twin towers. I missed that the first time. Makes a little more sense now, although I still say it wasn't an illusion.

I think 5♠ rates to be cold, and 6♠ is heavily favored. My heart void, and the lack of a 5H bid by RHO tends to indicate that partner has three or 4 hearts along with his 6-8 spades. This doesnt leave him with many minor suit cards, and any minor suit losers go away on the diamonds after a non-club lead. If I just bid 6S directly, the odds are against RHO finding the club lead, but if I try cuebidding 5H (to show the control/void) or 5D to show the suit, I think I improve their chances to find the club lead. I'll bid 6♠ and pray that we don't have two trump losers. Who knows, they may even decide to sac in 7H. :)

Ok, so you know you have overbid. You evidently know that you are in an anti-field contract. Somewhat of a point? What part of being plus +120 is always better than being -50 are you failing to comprehend? Yes, you would have had either a top or close to top had 3N made but..... You don't have a snowballs chance in hell of receiving a good board anyway. You have already acknowledged that the majority of the field will be +120. You are -50. How many people do you expect to outscore? Very few. It isn't possible to receive a good board. Statements like this make no sense. Your partner is. And you should expect a terrible score for the result.

Not necessarily. Why shouldn't he just bid the normal Lebenshol sequence of 2NT + 3NT to show he's got a stop? Besides, it's easy to construct hands consistent with 2NT that have 3 spades and 10+ hcp. Because, by bidding 3D directly, you create a forcing auction immediately, but if you bid 2N and the opponents bid 3H, partner does know which hand you have. Are you broke with a minor? Or do you have g/f values with a stop? In the first case (as it is here), bidding 3S got what it deserved. Bidding 3D now, does not preclude you from bidding 3N later. 1N-(2H)-3D-(3H)-? Now partner can bid 3S knowing that you are on g/f values. 3S-p-3N or 3S-p-4S or 3S-4D. Unilaterally bidding 2N followed by 3N everytime you have a heart stop and ignoring your 6 card suit will lead to many subsequent problems further down the road.

Wow. So what do we hope to find out with 3D? Anything? No. Does it help partner evaluate their hand any better? No. What do we tell partner about our hand with 3D? Nothing. We tell him that we have a decent hand, and trumps, but I don't think it gives partner a very good technique for evaluating his hand any further. What is wrong with 3C? This must imply a good suit w/heart support or a hand that is willing to play at least 4C. Otherwise, we would pass 2H. It also may help our defense when we end up defending. The downside, of course, is that 3C makes it slightly easier for the opponents to bid 3/4♠. But at least now, we are better prepared to defend it. I won't argue with a direct 4H bid, it at least leaves the opponents guessing. But 3D? I don't think so.

Why did you not lead a trump? (I'm guessing that you didnt). I am also guessing that it goes down on a trump lead. While leading a trump from KQx seems counterintuitive, you will normally gain the trick back with interest by being able to subsequently draw 2 more rounds later (if declarer wins it). If declarer ducks it, you havent lost the trump trick and get to see the board. jmoo.

This thinking is backwards, imo. Partner has made a takeout double and I have both majors. It is usually right to take the weaker suit (in my hand) as trumps where the small cards may potentially win tricks via ruffs, and save the stronger suit for top tricks.

Part 1: Partner has forced (without the 4H bid) me to either bid 3S or 4m. He is void in hearts and cannot have more than the spade KJ. 4S is likely making, but 4H should be a bloodbath after forcing declarer to ruff a spade in hand. I'll double. And we are not in the wrong seat for this, as we are over the 1H bidder, not in front of him. Part 2: If I bid 4S instead of doubling, I would XX if I trust my partner. 3H should not be a weak bid, imo. Partner is void in hearts, so no likely losers there, and I have a stiff club, so there should be no more than 1 loser there either. The opponents are likely to run and I am reasonably certain of beating any 5 level contract that they run too.

My question is.....is if you bid 2S or 3S and either opp bids 4H, aren't you going to bid/want to bid/wish you had bid 4S anyway? If you are, you may as well bid it immediately. I would expect 4S to make more than 50% of the time, which is good enough for me. The 4 trumps, the stiff heart, and a decent (not great, but decent) 5 card club suit (give partner the A or K clubs) for a source of tricks tell me that 4S rates to make.

Not vul. vs. vul., I would bid 4S immediately. I also tend to play a partnership style where we have sound openings in 1st/2nd seats. I see no point in letting either opponent describe his hand further at the 3 or 4 level. Let them decide what to do at the 5 level.

I guess the dumbest thing I did recently was accepting a bid out of turn using bidding boxes. I was dealer, and my RHO pulls the 1H bid out of his box and plops it on the table, I had a preemptive opening and just made my bid without even noticing (thereby accepting the call) that RHO had bid out of turn. They find 6H, it makes for a cold zero, and it cost us several places. Funniest story is on my partner, however. 1st board, 1 session, we sit down at table against a little old lady and her young partner. She is repeatedly telling her partner, cuebid of opening bid is ALWAYS michaels. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. So, I pick up my hand and am pleasantly surprised to be able to open 2C on the first board of the session, LOL bids 3C, partner is looking at good hand with clubs, he doubles. Pass Pass, she runs to 3H, he doubles, all pass. Of course, we are cold for 6C, and she goes off 2 or 3 in 3H. Yup, it is ALWAYS michaels, and evidently even when the opening is 2C. Partner can't believe it. Gets very upset, starts calling director. Director won't do anything......so much for this session. I ask him. Didn't you hear the woman say "cuebid is ALWAYS michaels?" <_<

You have to pass your ♠J to declarer for your spade underlead to make any sense at all. :) I was already adjusting my post. :) But it is not necessarily true. I would prefer to not have the spade J. It wouldn't have to be in declarers hand, it could be in dummy. Declarer can also take the view that his best shot is to hope for a stiff A in partner's hand via leading a small spade. (It does happen occasionally.) But ty 4 your astute observations.

Tad short of entries to do what? If declarer has something like this hand, then doesn't dummy have to hold: xx(xx) QJxx x AQxx(x) as a bare minimum for the splinter? I don't see your point.

Well, my thoughts were: Diamond is out. Would likely help declarer too much in that suit and give him extra timing on the hand. A trump is certainly possible, but we are likely only able to prevent one ruff which wont be that much help. (If I held the diamond Ace instead of the spade Ace, I would be much more likely to lead a trump). That leaves a spade or club. A club wins if partner holds the K and dummy has either the Ace or the Q. It could lose if declarer has AQx clubs and dummy has K9xx(x) or any similar holdings. Dummy may easily have this type of holding, since we know dummy is short in diamonds. This may allow declarer to pitch spade losers on the club suit. I won't rule a club out yet, but I won't decide thats the best lead just yet. This leaves a spade. Now, the spade Ace gives us the best chance of either 1) holding 6H to 6, 2) beating 6H if partner holds the spade K, or 3) beating 6H when partner has a stiff spade. But is it the best lead? We know dummy has a stiff diamond, and only 1 keycard. Where are the other his other points? He is a passed hand, so we can expect approximately 10-12 in dummy along with his 4 trump. So dummies likely hand may well be something like: K10x Kxxx x KQxxx or Kxx Qxxx x AQxxx Given that declarer is likely able to pitch spades from his hand on either of these holdings, leading the spade Ace seems right. It appears declarer likely has 13 tricks if we don't cash. But at IMP, I would seriously consider leading a small spade......since putting declarer to the test at trick one may be our only shot at beating it. He is unlikely to go wrong later in the hand, even if he has to play a spade towards the K. (I also would prefer not to hold the spade J, if attempting this, but oh well.)

3H. Nothing else even comes close.