4 Suit Transfers & Minor Suit Stayman

[hotShot]

based on a very small sample (200 deals) DD-analysis gives:

 

opener 15-17 HCP, no 5card major, 2+ cards in any suit

(chances are: 15: 44% 16:33% 17:23%)

responder 8-10 HCP, any shape

HCP    8- tricks  9+ tricks
23         78%        22%
24         75%        25%
25         42%        58%
26         25%        75%
27 *       14-%      86+%   
*insignificant number of deals

This indicates that somewhere between combined 24-25 HCP there is the break even point to bid 3NT.

Vul.@imps you can risk 35% contract to break even, non vul it should be around 43%. Playing MP you should be better than 50%.

So responder should bid game with good 9+.

If responder holds bad 8 the chances are less than 23% to have combined 25HCP and 55% to have less than 24.

So as Hannie recalled, only on a small range around 8+ and 9 an invitation makes sence.

[Finch]

While I am usually hugely wary of drawing any conclusions from this sort of analysis, if these figures are indicative of real life, then adding just one extra HCP from 24-25 makes a huge difference in whether 3NT is making or not....

 

This reflects my belief that for balanced hands rather than source-of-tricks hands a count-your-HCP invitation is a useful tool (where, of course, A109 K10 K109 AJ109x is a maximum and KQ AKJ J432 K432 isn't)

 

It's not difficult to come up with hands where that one extra jack makes all the difference. Axx opposite Kxxx is 36% for 3 tricks; Axx opposite KJxx is over 75%. Jxx opposite Qx is a stop, xxx opposite Qx usually isn't.

 

This also posts up an advantage of using Stayman to promise a 4-card major. After 1NT - 2C - 2any - 2NT, opener knows that responder has a least one 4-card major (exactly which one if opener responded in the major) which will help him evaluate his holding.

[david_c]

While I am usually hugely wary of drawing any conclusions from this sort of analysis, if these figures are indicative of real life, then adding just one extra HCP from 24-25 makes a huge difference in whether 3NT is making or not....

hotshot did say that the sample size was very small. I believe that the results are correct in that the break even point is somewhere "between" 24 and 25 HCP, but the difference between 24 and 25 is much bigger than it should be.

[fred]

We have actually made a change so that:

 

1NT-2NT=natural invitation

Fred, I'm wondering how often you use this sequence. What would you say, once every two sessions, more, less? Would it be possible to post some recent hands where you or Brad decided to bid 2NT? Would you have done worse if you had to choose between pass or blast?

 

I realise that I'm asking for quite a lot, so please ignore me if you don't have the time to answer (also, the last question seems quite hard to answer objectively).

 

 

I find this subject very interesting. I recall reading a double dummy simulation that said that the natural invite is only useful with hands in a very small range, something like 8.5-9 points (how these points were counted I don't remember, and is not so relevant imo). With less, it is better to pass, with more, it is better to blast. I wonder if the results of this double dummy simulation correspond to your (and other's) real-life experience.

Once every 2 sessions sounds about right. I don't keep any kind of record of our results so it is really impossible for me to give you a more accurate assessment of this or to let you know how well this bid works in practice. My sense is that whether or not we include the 2NT invitation in our methods is not a big deal one way or the other.

 

Brad and I do open 1NT more than any other (strong notrump) pair I know. So having a 2NT invitation available is likely more useful for us than it would be for most other pairs.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

based on a very small sample (200 deals) DD-analysis gives:

Couple comments about this analysis:

 

1. There has been a fair amount work trying to characterize the extent to which double-dummy hand analysis can be generalized towards actual declarer play. I don't think that there is any real consensus in this area, however, a lot of folks believe that double dummy analysis is biased in favor of the defense.

 

Note: this doesn't (necessarily) negate the basic point that there is some quantitative break point at which the chances of making 3NT increase substantially. However, this point might be a bit lower than this chart suggests.

 

2. A lot of this discussion has focused on characterizing the difference between slow informative auctions and simply blasting to the right contract. One would expect that the differences between single dummy and double dummy results would be most significant when studying this very problem.

 

I posted a couple threads on rec.games.bridge studying these topics. When I looked at the work that Bob Richardson was doing I was most interested in his efforts to calculate whether the difference between the double-dummy versus the single dummy spread can be correlated with auction length.

[dogsbreath]

re fred's post above..

'But you are right that I feel pretty strongly that, if you have to go through Stayman to invite in notrump with no 4-card major, that you should never use that sequence (just guess between passing 1NT and bidding 3NT).' ....

 

Is/should your approach be affected by who your partner is? I ask this because one of my 'live' partners routinely accepts ALL invites :) ..as this makes 'invitational' sequences somewhat redundant it seems sensible to find some other use for the bid.

 

Rgds Dog

[kfgauss]

I'm confused by what's special about this.

 

Most people who play 2C as 'Stayman', even if not promising a 4-card major, still play that 1NT - 2C - 2M - 3NT promises 4 of the other major (what other reason can responder have had for bidding 2C?).

 

Whether or not you can afford for opener to show one 4-card major or the other 'at random' depends on the rest of your methods. In particular, you will find slam bidding harder. Maybe it's worthwhile for the extra 'confusion' generated when playing in 3NT, but nothing in life is free..

I think this is just another typo and 1NT - 2C - 2M - 2NT was the intended sequence. Then with 4 of the other major too you can freely bid 3/4oM when playing that stayman promises a 4 card major.

 

Andy

[fred]

re fred's post above..

'But you are right that I feel pretty strongly that, if you have to go through Stayman to invite in notrump with no 4-card major, that you should never use that sequence (just guess between passing 1NT and bidding 3NT).' ....

 

Is/should your approach be affected by who your partner is? I ask this because one of my 'live' partners routinely accepts ALL invites :) ..as this makes 'invitational' sequences somewhat redundant it seems sensible to find some other use for the bid.

 

Rgds Dog

I would suggest instead that you either have a talk with your partner or find someone else to play with. Accepting every invitational bid you make shows a lack of respect for your judgment.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[foo]

I repeat: if 3NT makes much more frequently than it goes down (at IMPs) then you aren't bidding 3NT enough.  (and saying 'no offense' before making an offensive comment doesn't stop it being offensive.)

Is this true?

 

We should certainly be bidding 3NT contracts that are considerably more likely to fail than to make. But we should also be bidding our 100% 3NT contracts. I haven't done any calculations, but my guess is that I'd expect over half of 3NT contracts to make. Of course, it also depends on what 'much more frequently' means.

Frances is 100% correct. At IMPs =bid your games=.

 

A game that makes > 3/8 is a win in the long run Red at IMPs.

A game that makes > 5/11 is a win in the long run White at IMPs.

 

Assuming your choices are -1 or make, making > 2/5 of your X'ed games is a win in the long run at IMPs regardless of the colors.

 

The flip side of this is that if you are not going minus more often than you are going plus, then you are not bidding game enough at IMPs.

[foo]

Side note on using 1N-2S! as mss.

 

The "old fashioned" way of using mss to only show strong D+C two suited hands interested in slam does not come up frequently enough for it to be batter than 4 suit xfers.

 

If your choices are "Strong only" mss vs. 4 way xfers, play 4 way sfers.

 

The "modern" way of using mss is to use it for both very weak hands where playing 3m is likely to be much better than 1N =and= very strong minor two suiters interested in slam.

 

1N-2S!; Opener now picks a minor or bids 2N if they can't choose.

If Opener picks a minor, =any= subsequent bid by Responder shows slam interest.

If Opener bids 2N, then 3m by Responder is To Play and 3M by Responder shows slam interest.

 

The simple way to play 1N-2S!;any-3M is as showing shortness in the Major. This has the pro of being easy to remember but the con of making it easy for Them to know what to lead, or X to show the suit to suggest a sacrifice, or etc.

Thus the better way to play 1N-2S!;any-3M is that it shows shortness in the =other= Major. This makes it much harder for Them to enter Our auction safely. OTOH, this "better" way can be harder on partnership memory.

 

In any event, I suggest examining "weak or strong" mss if you are looking for 1N response structure suggestions.

[david_c]

The flip side of this is that if you are not going minus more often than you are going plus, then you are not bidding game enough at IMPs.

That doesn't follow, even when vul at IMPs. If you were able to bid perfectly - that is, bid all games with a greater than 3/8 chance of success and none of the others - then you would expect to make much more than half of your games.

[hotShot]

The flip side of this is that if you are not going minus more often than you are going plus, then you are not bidding game enough at IMPs.

That doesn't follow, even when vul at IMPs. If you were able to bid perfectly - that is, bid all games with a greater than 3/8 chance of success and none of the others - then you would expect to make much more than half of your games.

I think you are wrong David.

 

If i bid all games that have a 40% chance to make, i'll loose 60% of these games.

If i win more than 40%, either my estimate is wrong or most of my opps belong in a lower league.

[david_c]

If i bid all games that have a 40% chance to make, i'll loose 60% of these games.

Let's say that on ten hands your chances of making game are:

 

hand 1: 10%

hand 2: 20%

hand 3: 30%

...

hand 10: 100%.

 

Then your best strategy when vul at IMPs is to bid game on hands 4 to 10, right? So that's seven game contracts, and, of those seven contracts, on average you expect 70% of them to make.

 

OK? :unsure:

[hotShot]

You imply hat 100% games have the same frequency as 40% games. If this would be the case you are right.

This bridgebrowser query result says that 50+% of the boards at least one side can bid and make game. (Double dummy results say 60% game can be made, so the difference can't be bid.)

 

I guess that means that looking at all games one has bid, there should be more games made, than down.

While looking only at the close games, going down slightly more often than making is best.

[foo]

Let's do a thought experiment. I give you a board where you are in 3N Red at IMPs and have 8 top tricks and a suit combination that has 3/8 of giving you your 9th trick. There's nothing else to the play.

 

If you make, you get $10. If you go -1, you lose $6 .

 

Now let's say you play 8 such boards in a row: You make 3 and go down in 5:

3*$10 - 5*$6= 0

You have broken even despite the fact that you went down far more often than you made.

 

A analogous thought experiment will show that White at IMPS you only have to make 5 of every 11 games bid to break even.

 

 

QED: If you make most games you bid at IMPs, then you are not bidding enough games.

[david_c]

You imply hat 100% games have the same frequency as 40% games. If this would be the case you are right.

I just made the numbers up, I don't claim to know what the exact distribution of probabilities is. You could do a simulation to get a better idea. I think that an average of about 70% sounds about right though, and is possibly even a little conservative - note that there are a lot of hands where game is laydown.

 

While looking only at the close games, going down slightly more often than making is best.

This is vacuously true: if you restrict your attention to hands which have a chance of about 3/8 of making, then it should not surprise you that about 3/8 of them turn out to make!

[bid_em_up]

If i bid all games that have a 40% chance to make, i'll loose 60% of these games.

Let's say that on ten hands your chances of making game are:

 

hand 1: 10%

hand 2: 20%

hand 3: 30%

...

hand 10: 100%.

 

Then your best strategy when vul at IMPs is to bid game on hands 4 to 10, right? So that's seven game contracts, and, of those seven contracts, on average you expect 70% of them to make.

 

OK? :unsure:

This logic is somewhat flawed as the discussion pertains to when to bid game with borderline hands.

 

In other words, 10 hands:

 

Hand 1: 40%

Hand 2: 40%

Hand 3: 40%

...

...

Hand 10: 40%.

 

By bidding these games, you should win approximately 40% of them, and lose 60%. It is my belief that the actual ratio of bidding a 40% and it actually making is slightly higher, since these numbers usually fail to take into account any defensive errors that might occur.

[bid_em_up]

This is vacuously true: if you restrict your attention to hands which have a chance of about 3/8 of making, then it should not surprise you that about 3/8 of them turn out to make!

David, that is all you expect them to make, and all you need them to make in order for it to be profitable to bid these games.

[david_c]

Oh, this is just getting silly. :unsure:

 

All I am saying is that foo's statement,

 

"If you make most games you bid at IMPs, then you are not bidding enough games."

 

is false. I'm afraid I can't explain this any better without repeating myself. I will now have to stop posting in this thread before it drives me insane.

[jdonn]

Let's do a thought experiment.  I give you a board where you are in 3N Red at IMPs and have 8 top tricks and a suit combination that has 3/8 of giving you your 9th trick.  There's nothing else to the play.

 

If you make, you get $10.  If you go -1, you lose $6 .

 

Now let's say you play 8 such boards in a row:  You make 3 and go down in 5:

3*$10 - 5*$6= 0

You have broken even despite the fact that you went down far more often than you made.

 

A analogous thought experiment will show that White at IMPS you only have to make 5 of every 11 games bid to break even. 

 

 

QED: If you make most games you bid at IMPs, then you are not bidding enough games.

Your percentages are essentially right, but that experiment makes NO SENSE. I'll reproduce it and show why.

 

Let's do a thought experiment. I give you a board where you are in 3N Red at IMPs and have 8 top tricks and a suit combination that has 1/100 of giving you your 9th trick. There's nothing else to the play.

 

If you make, you get $99. If you go -1, you lose $1.

 

Now let's say you play 100 such boards in a row: You make 1 and go down in 99:

1*$99 - 99*$1= 0

You have broken even despite the fact that you went down far more often than you made.

 

QED: If you make more than 1% of games you bid at IMPs, then you are not bidding enough games.

 

 

Pretty ridiculous, right?

 

 

Even though your percentages are not far off, your QED is completely 100% false.

 

EDIT 1: What I'm calling percentages were not actually percentages but you know what I mean, the 3/8 and 5/11.

EDIT 2: I wouldn't blame David for going insane reading some of the posts in this thread, especially your repeated incorrect assertion that you should go down in more games than you make.

[MickyB]

Oh, this is just getting silly. :unsure:

 

All I am saying is that foo's statement,

 

"If you make most games you bid at IMPs, then you are not bidding enough games."

 

is false. I'm afraid I can't explain this any better without repeating myself. I will now have to stop posting in this thread before it drives me insane.

You lasted longer than I would have done.

[bid_em_up]

Oh, this is just getting silly.  :unsure:

 

All I am saying is that foo's statement,

 

"If you make most games you bid at IMPs, then you are not bidding enough games."

 

is false. I'm afraid I can't explain this any better without repeating myself. I will now have to stop posting in this thread before it drives me insane.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. But I believe what foo meant to say is:

 

"The flip side of this is that if you are not going minus more often on close games than you are going plus, then you are not bidding enough close games at IMPs."

 

He's welcome to correct me if I am mistaken.

 

Of course you should be bidding your 60/70/100 percent games, and they will make the majority of the time (based on their percentage). This, of course, should give you a much higher combined frequency of making game as opposed to going down, as you state.

 

But, that was never part of the equation since we were discussing bidding game with invitational hands (not certain game forcing ones), and what the cutoff point is for where it begins to become profitable to bid these close games.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

[luke warm]

I asked Marty Bergen about this and he disagreed.

Unfortunately, if I were to respond to this the way I would like to, I probably could be held liable for slander, and I really cant afford it......

 

I knew there was a reason my profile says "NO BERGEN", I just couldnt remember why. Thanks for reminding me.

 

ROFLMAOWPIMP

i find this attitude puzzling and a little troubling... bergen's theoretical contributions have, imo, benefited vast numbers of players... his 2 volume 'better bidding' books are still among my favorites... i've read many books on 2/1 and the most that can be said about even the best is that they compare favorably with his

 

i know of no advanced players posting here, and few if any former or present world class players, who can make negative remarks about bergen's play or introductions to theory... very few have won 12 nat'l championships or amassed over 12,000 masterpoints, or have had rules inacted by the acbl to stop him and cohen from winning even more than they did

[foo]

*sigh* I am not trying to "drive people insane" nor be difficult.

 

Nor did I "pick numbers out of hat" to make my point. They are =exactly= correct.

 

points imps points imps

0- 10 0 750- 890 13

20- 40 1 900-1090 14

50- 80 2 1100-1290 15

90-120 3 1300-1490 16

130-160 4 1500-1740 17

170-210 5 1750-1990 18

220-260 6 2000-2240 19

270-310 7 2250-2490 20

320-360 8 2500-2990 21

370-420 9 3000-3490 22

430-490 10 3500-3990 23

500-590 11 4000+ 24

600-740 12

Work it out for yourself.

 

The thing people are forgetting is that when you bid "close" games, eg w/o extras or w/ slightly less than "traditional values" you do =not= know what the odds are on that game when you bid it. {heck, you do not actually know what the odds are on a game-w/-extras when you bid it either. Eddie Kantar's story of a heart breaking 30+ HCP 3N that is 0% comes to mind...}

 

The point Frances and others including myself are making is that at IMPs you must bid games that are likely to be less than 50%, at Red considerably less, as well as the obvious games-with-extras that are likely (only "likely" we do not know when we bid them) to be considerably better than 50%.

 

...and the upshot of this strategy is that if you are bidding game with the appropriate amount of aggression, particularly Red at IMPs, you are very likely to be going down in game more often than you are making. ...and assuming you are not =too= aggressive, you will still show a profit for it when playing vs opponents strong enough to know to do the same thing.

 

Missing a makable game Red at IMPs is a =big= deal. All of this is why.

[bid_em_up]

I can't and didn't make any negative remarks about his play. Please don't imply something that isn't there.

 

In my opinion, the vast majority of his methods should only be used by those who are already at advanced or higher levels in their bridge expertise.

 

Unfortunately, all too often these methods appear to be marketed to the beginner/intermediate player, and I have problems with promoting or being a fan of any method that by default, starts to teach beginning/intermediate players to open "Rule of 20", just to name one example. All too frequently, I see people stating, "I open Rule of 20 partner" and since they think that it means open any hand where the two long suits length plus HCP equals 20, they proceed to open on:

 

Jx Axxxx Qxxxx K or AQ xxxxx xxxxx A

 

because they truly believe it qualifies as a Rule of 20 opener. And it doesnt matter to these players what position they are in, or what the vulnerability happens to be.

 

Heck, their expert partner/teacher told them they needed 20 and they have it, so lets open it. It works for them (the expert teacher/partner), so why shouldnt I do it? Of course the expert partner wouldnt open either of these hand, especially not first seat vul (ok, maybe some would but its not for me), but most (if not all) would open if it were xx AJxxx KQxxx x, would open regardless of position or vulnerability.

 

Granted, Marty's methods themselves attempt to stress this, but it is not something that can be "taught" and the parts about downgrading values for stiff honors, or having values outside your suits are usually somehow omitted from this discussion amongst lower-level players.

 

The same applies to Bergen raises (and its variants), his preemptive styles, and so on.

 

You also might try reading Larry Cohen's own article titled "Love Thy Partner" for his thoughts regarding partnerships and conventions for another perspective, if you have never read it. It can be found here:

 

http://www.bridge-forum.com/Archives/Cohenluvpd1.htm

 

From Larry's own perspective (and certainly he is a top player as well), too many gadgets/conventions are not necessarily a good thing. Having to discuss lots of different sequences and their intricate meanings has its downsides on partnerships frequently. Having to constantly change a system to meet a specific need is not a good thing.

 

I have to wonder, if Marty was such a great theorist (and I am not saying whether he is or he isnt), why was their system constantly having to be changed? Could it be because there was a flaw in the original theory? I dont know. But I think that is usually the case, when one is constantly having to make system changes/adjustments. Or it could just be because he likes to tinker. I dont know.

 

Another insight might possibly come from another article Larry wrote regarding partnership style, which can be found here:

 

http://www.culbertsonbc.com/Larryc.html

 

Again, imo, Marty Bergen's aggressive tactics are more suited for use by the already advanced player who is seeking to improve his arsenal of weapons, and should be attempted only after they have a firm grasp on fundementals of the game and are not methods that should be taught to beginners and intermediates as I see to be so frequently the case.

 

I, personally, feel that those teaching these methods to beginning/intermediate players are doing what has been one of the biggest disservices done to the game of bridge in the last 30 years, which leaves me not being a fan of his methods.

 

I also realize that I am in the minority opinion regarding this subject, but those are a few of my reasons for it. There are other reasons as well, but I will not go into them on a public forum.