foo

I'm still cranking the math, but using the actual 4H hand and this hand, I can tell you that GOPs most likely shapes are =5314, =6313, =6214, =6304 in that order. Based on knowing 2 of the 4 hands, the most likely holdings for GOP are HHxxx.xxx.x.Qxxx or HHxxx.Kxx.x.Qxxx (60*10*3*20) HHxxx.xxx.x.xxxx or HHxxx.Kxx.x.xxxx (60*10*3*15) HHHxx.xxx.x.Qxxx or HHHxx.Kxx.x.Qxxx (40*10*3*20) HHHxxx.xxx.x.xxx or HHHxxx.Kxx.x.xxx (40*10*3*20) HHHxxx.xx.x.Qxxx (40*10*3*20) HHHxx.xxx.x.xxxx or HHHxx.Kxx.x.xxxx (40*10*3*15) HHxxxx.xxx.x.xxx or HHxxxx.Kxx.x.xxx (30*10*3*20) HHxxxx.xx.x.Qxxx (30*10*3*20) HHxxxx.xx.x.xxxx (30*10*3*15) Hxxxx.xxx.x.Qxxx or Hxxxx.Kxx.x.Qxxx (20*10*3*20) Hxxxx.xxx.x.xxxx or Hxxxx.Kxx.x.xxxx (20*10*3*15) where H is one of (A,K,Q,J) Note that for any pattern, (say HHxxx.xxx.x.xxxx) any specific suit honor holding (AK,AQ,AJ,KQ,KJ,or QJ in this case) is equally likely. THE ODDS FAVOR US BEING IN =4S=, not 5D; and if you look at the actual board you can see that 4S or even 5S is a far better place to be than 5D. In short, =on this board=, bidding 5D instead of passing loses because it keeps NS from considering or playing a S contract. I want to emphasize that these are =preliminary= results based on the simpler analysis (2 known hands). OTOH, the more complex analysis where I perturb the 4H hand across a few reasonable hand types (7-8 H's; 1-4 honors in H's; 3-S for sure and 2-S most of the time; 6-7 losers) is also returning the same result so far, THE BIG LOSE WHEN BIDDING 5D WITH OUR HAND IS THAT WE RATE TO HAVE A S CONTRACT THAT IS BETTER. More as I get more done. (1) It could be that 4♥ was making and 5♦ is down two or three. So I can go for 500 or 800 when passing would've been better. But the opponents have to find a double or else I've actually improved my result (-200 or -300 instead of -420). This is particularly problematic for opponents playing a "wide-ranging" 4♥ opening, because there are many situations where LHO has two tricks but doesn't double because opener could have zero, and opener also has two tricks (and doesn't double because partner could have anything) and I'm two off. X is =very= easy to find vs these sorts of auctions at these colors when playing IMPs. For one thing, the scoring table is in favor of X'ing on any hint that you think you can set 5D. If the red game scores up X, you rate to only lose 1 more IMP than otherwise (750 vs 600 means -13 vs -12 and that's assuming it's not bid or X'd at the other table). OTOH, if you set it X'd, your potential gain is +5 instead of +3 if 5D is down one or +11 instead of +5 if 5D is down 2. (Just don't X on utter trash since then "Big Blue" AKA "The Beaver" AKA XX will hit the table.) The profitable save is also relatively easy to find at Favorable... (2) It could be that neither 4♥ nor 5♦ was making. So I've just turned +50 into -100 or even worse when 5♦ gets doubled or goes down multiple tricks. But again, this situation may not be obvious to the opponents, and they might bid 5♥ and go down extras (possibly doubled by partner). ...and some of these are going to be problems for =everyone= ATT. OTOH, whichever side has better judgment and more discipline is going to have an advantage in decision making here. As an interesting point, change the actual set of four hands slightly, giving north the spade king. Will west even find a double now? He has two pretty sure tricks (♠A, ♦K) but he has so many hearts that he knows his side will score no heart tricks. If partner has a typical 4♥ preempt like AQJxxxxx of hearts and out, 5♦ could easily be making. It would not surprise me if LHO passed or bid 5♥ here, leading to a good result for the 5♦ bid even though it can still be set for 800 on best defense. Most of the time the X or bid 5H decision is going to be relatively easy at these colors when holding long H support for pard and short D's. And it's going to rate to be right. OTOH, If W doesn't like the prospect of 5H and thinks there's 2 defensive tricks in hand, they should X at these colors at IMPs almost automatically, As I said, most of the time you are potentially risking 1 IMP to potentially gain 2 or 6 under these circumstances.

So basically Dwayne, you are bidding out of fear. That's just as illogical as passing out of fear. Whether you bid or pass, the action you take should be based on nothing else other than that it has the best odds of being the correct action.

When someone who calls themselves "bid_em_up" thinks bidding is a bad idea... LOL

1= My 1st post on this topic, 2 days ago mentioned the dangers of bidding on this in front of GOP. IIRC, I was the 1st person in this thread to do so. 2= No one who is talking about passing here is saying to do it just because it might be disaster. We're saying it because it is =highly likely= to be a disaster. A direct 5D overcall of a 4H preempt with this hand at these colors is simply not the percentage action. IOW, it's a bad call and pass is a better call; not a "conservative" or "fearful" call. Good bidding is about taking the percentage call, and although I've posted multiple evidence and logic chains that passing here is the percentage call, I have yet to see anyone from the other camp post equivalent or similar analysis. Attempts at empty Arguments from Authority like claiming what would happen if this board was submitted to MSC are !not! evidence or logical arguments. If you are advocating a Direct overcall of 5D here, =POST SOME D@MN LOGIC OR ANALYSIS= already. 3= The Active Ethics question. Your opponents are entitled to know your systemic agreements. That means if you use a bid or sequence in a non-Standard manner, you have the obligation to Alert. For example, NFBs are Alertable. IMHO, if you =systemically= (not just by occasional judgment) overcall 4M with 5m this light in the Direct Seat when GOP is an unpassed hand, whether by implicit or explicit agreement, you are effectively playing a NFB style overcall here and should Alert. IANAL, and I'd want a National TD or the equivalent to weigh in here for an authoritative opinion (is D Stephenson around?), but that's my $.02 If my partnership was regularly making direct 5m overcalls of 4M in front of partner on hands this light, I'd be alerting. 4= To Josh and Justin: I will post my analysis in full when it is done. That means I will "show my work". At that time you can judge if I have shown bias in my analysis or not. To suggest or state a prejudice that I can not or will not do an objective analysis smacks of an Ad Hominem attack. You are both better people than that. Frankly, I won't learn anything from biased analysis or discussion, and my primary goal at bridge is to always get better. Situations like this are potentially great learning experiences for all involved.

I really can't be bothered to go through all your weird calculations in detail, but this is obviously wrong. If RHO has singleton CA you are off; and if the CK loses to the CA and RHO does not have singleton CQ you are off. So this line can never be better than 50% and is certainly worse. Why are you automatically down if C's are Qxx:A? 2nd hand wins the CA, They knock out the DK. You go to the board and you play Cx toward and win the DK (We now have 8 tricks and need only 1 more, but They don't know that.); but you get the bad news. ...So you play S's for HH onside by playing the S5 toward the S9 in Dummy to give LHO a reason not to split their honors. 5 -> AJ9xx, Are you always going to split your honors here as 2nd hand? Desperate yes, but it's better than 0% (it has a chance if S's are KQx, KQxx, or KQxxx onside, ~22% of the possible S holdings). Qxx:A is only 1/16 of the possible C holdings, so having to do this seems fairly unlikely.

OK, I feel stupid. Frances meant that you were off if and only if the CJ loses to the CQ, not the CA. She simply said "if it loses you are off", which I took to mean losing to =either= the CQ or the CA.

Hmmm, Works only when C's are AQ onside? 24% Since we have 1 more D stop, C to CK works as long as A is onside? 50% If RHO pops the CA and the CQ stays hidden, then C's had to be one of -:AQxx 4.78% x:AQx 12.43% xx:AQ 6.78% Qxx:A 6.22% Going back to dummy and finessing the C8 (we threw the C9 before to keep from blocking C's, natch) works in 23.99/30.21= 79.41% yes? For an overall chance of 39.71% Unfortunately, if the CK wins w/o the CQ being seen, C's were one of :AQxx 4.78% x:AQx 12.43% Qx:Ax 13.57% Since the odds are against C's 22, don't we then have to abandon C's and play on S's? OTOH, Since we now have 8 tricks and have not lost the lead yet, we will succeed playing on S's as long as S are not HH offside, yes? The good S positions are ~86% but we only play this ~31% of the time, so the overall odds are 26.66% ...and if CK loses but the CQ has been played in the process, aren't C's setup? That's 12.42% So playing towards the CK and doing the Right Thing afterward works ~79% of the time, yes? S's Hxx:Hxx is 21.32%. HH onside is 24% Total ~45% Thus the best line is the one I gave involving the CK at ~79%, and running the CJ is the worst line, yes? Or have I missed something here?

LOL you have made my day :) Give me a few days and I'll post the mathematical analysis and proof

*sigh* the fact that you espouse such unrestrained aggression as you are here is what makes it clear that you are not evaluating this situation optimally. Since logic doesn't seem to be working... IIRC, you are computer literate enough to program some? Go grab a decent simulation tool, put the two known hands in and let the other 2 be dealt randomly. Heck you can do it w/ GIB or Jack and not even have program at all. Then overcall 5D at unfavorable vulnerability on all of them and see what happens. EDIT: To heck with it. I'll do the math over the next few days and post the results.

Josh, 1= 5DX here was =supposed= to be -1100. A defensive error allowed NS to "escape" for "only" -800. 2= 4M may not make not just because NS are stronger, but also because the hand is a horrible misfit or because the values are in bad places for declarer (The HK offside, etc) despite NS's strength. No matter how you attempt to "bob and weave" or sugar coat it, overcalling 5D here is simply not likely to work out well and pass here is far more likely to work out well. 3= yep, despite our disagreements at times, I recognize you usually know what you are talking about bridge-wise. Don't let it go to your head. You aren't jlall or mikeh yet. Let alone any of the internationalists around here.

C's has 3.5 expected tricks. S's has 3.25+ expected tricks. This is IMPs. We play to make. We need 2 tricks. The C suit has marginally higher expectation, so T2: Hx to the HK T3: C6 or C7 from the board. The standard safety play here is T3a= If E plays Cx or CA insert C9. If E plays CQ, cover. Since we can't afford to let the opponents in more than once more, we can't afford the safety play, so T3b= If E plays Cx or CQ, insert CK. If E plays CA, insert C9. (This increases our odds of taking the 1st C trick by ~20%: Q+Axx, Qx+Ax) If the CK wins w/o the CQ being seen, then C's are one of - + AQxx (you will know this...) x + AQx Qx + Ax INFERENCE: abandon C's and play for split honors in S's If the CK wins and the CQ has been seen, then C's are one of xx + AQ Q + Axx (you will know this...) INFERENCE: drive out the CA and claim. If the CK loses and the CQ has been seen, claim. If the CK loses and the CQ has not been seen, you are in trouble. Abandon C's and pray for both S honors to be onside. Put the potentially deceptive S5 on the table, intending to hook the S9. If the S9 wins, run your H's, and then put the ST on the table. You are praying for W to have the S's and E to have the D's.

Source please. Don't know who Howard Vanderbilt was, but According to my copy of the Bridge Encyclopedia, =Harold Vanderbilt (1884-1970) is the inventor of Bridge and of the 1st Forcing Club system =Howard Schenken (1905-1979) is the inventor of Weak Two's, as well as a few other things regarding bidding and play, and is considered to be in the running as possibly the best player of all time.

This is quite theoretical, as the powers that be banned Forcing Pass systems before people got used to them. But the rest of your point is obviously valid, how can you explain the pathetic record of failure that Meckwell have accumulated playing their light opening system. Card players like these guys should be able to win a national championship or two, their failure to do so must be a result of their aggressive bidding... :P Peter Wise Guy :) Actually, =look= at Meckwell's opening's 1= They usually have their 2 defensive tricks. 2= They always have a hand with decent trick taking prospects or HCP. They are not opening 4333 10's or other such garbage unless they have a systemic bid for it like a Kamikaze 1N. 3= They are playing a Forcing Club system; which allows them to open lighter and still keep things under control because their 1 bids have less range. 4= They have, what? 700-800 pages of system notes? and have been playing together for 25+ years? I submit part of the cost of their aggressiveness is more system complexity and one of the requirements for their level of aggression is rock-solid familiarity with each other. ...and finally, 5= their most famous "aggressions" are when they are playing against top flight competition and =everyone= up there is pushing bidding and play to as close to the edge as they can. Put them in a room where people aren't pushing the edge as hard and neither do they. Oh, and let's not forget that Meckwell =have= "been caught speeding" on occasion and =have= had some bidding disasters due to the aggression of their system. TANSTAAFL. Even if you are one of the top pairs in the world and each of you is one of the top 10 players in the world.

Wow. What a thread. Some thoughts. 1= Weak Two bids. When Schenken invented Weak 2's, the 1st and 2nd chair requirements were =8-12 HCP. =You had to have a 5-6 playing tricks, especially Vul. =Your suit had to be headed by at least 2 honors if a 6carder, 3 honors if a 5carder, and 1 high honor if a 7carder (was only allowed in a 7222) =No side voids were allowed unless in S's IIRC. Most importantly, Schenken was explicit that 1st and 2nd chair Weak Two's were !not! "Preemptive Two's". The Weak Two as originally envisioned by its inventor was intended to be a descriptive bid, not a pure preempt. The concept of 2 level bids being purely preemptive is a reasonably modern fad which got its real "kick off" by Bergen in the 1980's. "Descriptive Two Bids" have a long and illustrious history within Bridge. More so than "Preemptive Two Bids" do. 2= 1 level Opening Bids. Regardless of how constructive or aggressive you want to be, you can't change the laws of probability nor the requirements of card play. =3N needs enough controls to either establish or run 9 tricks. =4M requires 7/12 of the controls or the equivalent to be odds on to make. =5m requires 8/12 of the controls or the equivalent to be odds on to make. =6foo requires 10/12 of the controls or the equivalent to be odds on to make. The "or the equivalent" caters to useful stiffs and voids when "playing with a 3 suit deck". If your constructive bidding is going to be anywhere near to successful enough ATT, your system must adequately deal with the above reality. In practice, this means that in order to "play the odds" 1st and 2nd chair 1 bids need =2 defensive tricks regardless of total HCP; and =Appropriate trick taking power to make them significantly better than the prototypical "average" bridge hand (10 HCP, 3 controls, 8-9 losers, ~3 expected tricks.) In addition, as Edgar Kaplan's once said "you can't fight tanks with pillows". A good score is far more likely when opening lighter, more shapely Major suit oriented hands than it is to open such minor suit oriented hands. IOW, 11- HCP hands with 8+ cards in tje Majors that are worth opening are far more likely than the same hand with 8+ cards in the minors. 3= I strongly agree that system unfamiliarity can and often does generate far more good scores than said system should if it was thoroughly analyzed and understood. Bergen and Cohen super aggressive Weak Twos are an excellent example. Once people had enough familiarity with them, they ceased being anywhere near as effective. Same can be said for just about any hyper-aggressive system or treatment, up to and including Forcing Pass systems.

Nice 5 loser, 6 control, 16 count. GOP has bid like they have a maximum pass (~10-11 HCP) with 5+S. My chunky H's and so-so D's suggest emphasizing H's more and D's less than usual when showing 46 in the Reds. I have enough to Reverse and bid my shape naturally, so I do. 3H from me.

That is very true :P but the point of the thread is to discuss the optimal methods. In that case, my vote based on experience is that reverses, or any other bid below 2N, do !not! require extras playing 2/1 GF. OTOH, Rebids past 2N, particularly new suits past 2N, should be explicitly discussed.

Stephen, As I stated in my earlier post, IMHO there is good reason to treat bids below 2N differently from bids that have to cross 2N when playing 2/1 GF. Thus reverses don't necessarily require extras; but bids past 2N are a different story. I've never gotten in trouble playing 2/1 GF and freely bidding 1D-2C;2M or 1H-2m;2S regardless of strength. Playing SA, these sequences would require medium+ opening hands. 1M-2m;3m or, worse, 1M-2D;3C or 1S-2H;3m are potentially a very different story. Nonetheless, I've played in 2/1 GF partnerships where I was expected to bid out my shape regardless of HCP and it worked out reasonably. I've also played in partnerships where I was expected to show more restraint than above but bid more freely than if playing SA. So for instance 5431's w/ 4 card support could freely raise 1M-2m;3m or bid 1M-2D;3C to show 5M+4C (or the equivalent 5S+4m after 1S-2H;3m) but 5422's could not raise or show their 4 carder w/o extras. ...and as long as we bid according to System, things worked out. The important lesson seems to be that having firm agreements and following them is more important than finding the optimal agreements.

Here's a system that allows everything you ask... ...even for Invitational Responders. 1N-Xfer;2M-3m;3M! misfit, min 1N-Xfer;2M-3m;3OM! minor fit, Max 1N-Xfer;2M-3m;3n! misfit, max 1N-Xfer;2M-3m;4m! minor fit, hole in one of Responder's unbid suits 1N-Xfer;2M-3m;4om! Major fit, Max 1N-Xfer;2M-3m;4M! Major fit, min

What ARE those reasons? 1 is a slogan, and 2 doesn't apply since the hand in question does have significant extras (and misquoted, as Fred posted less than a month ago a hand where when 3334 with a 13 count he responded 2♣ to the opening bid). Meanwhile if you agree with Foo's alternative auction so wholeheartedly, you should stand up for yourself and go to the poll I put up a few hours ago to become the very first vote for 2♠. Whoa! there are 2 different issues being discussed here. a= Whether the 18 count =as Responder= should start with 1S or 2C b= Whether the 18 =as Opener= should JS 2S as their rebid. "b" is an deep position I took based on a miscount of the hand. Even I've retracted it (see other thread). "a" OTOH is no where near as extreme and has plenty of people on either side of responding 1S vs 2C.

Responder's sequence here has the Standard meaning of being a 55 H+D GF hand with interest in slam. My comments are based on this and not valid if you have other meanings for what hand Responder is showing here. I like 1N-2D+;2H-3D;3H best here given that a= We are in a GF auction, so we have time to show the double fit in H+D. b= When both 6H and 6D make, 6H scores better. (you have not mentioned the conditions of contest.) 3S is also a good bid, but I prefer to 1= confirm we have a 53 fit in H's. Later I will confirm the double fit. 2= have an explicit agreement about what an immediate cue bid in a Black suit here. When I cooperate by bidding anything other than 3N or 4H, GOP should know that I'm interested in slam as well.

This is a 5 loser hand with 7 controls, more typical of an 19 count than an 18 count. GOPs 1H response has very likely removed 2 losers from my hand. (If CHO regularly bids on trash so that you can't assume 2 cover cards, then you have worse problems than those of this poll!) In front of GOP, I have no problem with a 2N rebid. We have NMF and other tools, and we are very likely to use them. Behind GOP, I'm far more worried about the auction stopping too soon. Nonetheless, I'd still probably rebid 2N under most circumstances. OTOH, with HHhx in S's and a hand that evaluates to a 19 count or very close to it, this is not "most circumstances" IMHO. If 1S is Forcing, that's my vote. If 1S is not Forcing, then I want to make a Forcing bid and neither 1S or 2N are it so... EDIT: I'm blind =6= controls, which is typical of a flat 18 count. That makes my reasoning about N's hand being close to a 19 count in terms of playing strength specious. My vote becomes 1S if it's Forcing, and 2N otherwise.

Why are we doubling? This looks like our ODR is enormously in favor of playing, not defending. The 4H preempt greatly increases the odds that GOP has 5+S. With a 5 loser hand (HHx in S's given the rest of the example hand), 4S is a reasonable shot. With a 6 loser hand, I'd X.

I seem to recall old folk wisdom that one should never preempt a preempter... While my D's are very nice, this is still a 11 HCP, 6 loser hand. =AT UNFAVORABLE VULNERABILITY= The only reason to bid here is if the odds favor us being in Game. If there is any question as to whether We are saccing or not, bidding is suicidal. GOP needs 4 cover cards for me to make 5D. We may belong in 4S. For which he needs 3 good cards opposite my hand. Worse, =I'm in front of GOP=. He may take me seriously and put me in 6. Being aggressive about finding red games at IMPs does not mean one should make "Marie Antoinette" bids (those that put our head in the guillotine.). There are too many minuses and too high a risk in bidding. Pass.

Josh, I see some things are not likely to change between us. That's life. Let the battle be rejoined ;-) If you think a JS to 2S with 4 S's and 18+ count is "laughable" when your partner is a passed hand, then you've obviously never been passed when you don't want to be after ...-pa;1m-foo;1S-?? I have no problems with 2N either, but prefer to describe my hand more directly in constructive auctions. In this case, suppressing AKT8 doesn't feel nearly as good as suppressing xxxx, Hxxx, or even HHxx. Suppressing HHhx seems a bit much. As for me, I rather be at the 3 level or in Game when I supposed to be rather than languishing at the 1 level. YMMV. ...and please do not claim I have a problem with making a 2m 2/1 on a 4cm in a 18 HCP hand when I specifically said otherwise. Nor have I said that I think your POV re: 1H-2C is unreasonable. Just that it is far from a silver bullet. I happen to prefer the problems of my way to the problems of yours. Again, YMMV.