jdonn Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 jdonn, you can evaluate the hand to 6 hcp, but that seems overly pessimistic because pard has a moderately strong hand. That strength increases the chance of pard being able to make use of your poorly-positioned assets. To devaluate 2 hcp on this hand and sign-off borders on weak-hand-masterminding and is bound to lead to some bad scores in the long run. You can't afford that at imps, unless you need a swing. Well I'm assuming you are partner, so even after I sign off you will bid game for me anyway since that's your favorite thing to do when you are limited and not the captain. I expect 1NT p 2♥ p 3NT, making the whole issue moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Don't be silly. If you don't want to discuss the issue you needn't bother reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 DealMaster Analysis: When opener has 2 spades, 3N makes 33% of the time and 5D makes 18%. When opener has 3+ spades, 4S makes 58% of the time. So mentioning diam to get to a futile 5D contract is a loser. I don't understand this conclusion at all. If you decide the hand is worth a game force, then surely it's right to bid diamonds? You don't say how many of the 18% of the time 5D makes 3NT also makes, but if mentioning diamonds lets us get to 5D making instead of 3NT going off, say 10% of the time, then why not do so? Partner also knows that 5D needs 11 tricks. You can argue that they might lead diamonds if we don't bid them, but that seems not very likely with KJxxx. As a slight side point, I think that hands with a source of tricks (either in the the 1NT bidder's hand or as responder) make 3NT more often single dummy than they should do, because the choice of opening lead becomes critical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeegan Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 :P Transferring to spades, then bidding 2NT is a winner by a mile based on my simulation of 50 hands using Pavlicek's hand generator*. Using this method I created a statistically unbiased data base of the opening notrumper's possible hands and then used my own bidding and play analysis to evaluate the results. Game was reached 28 times out of 50 hands. Seventeen of these were high percentage games (3-2 suit splits or better). Five more were worth bidding (50% plus or minus a little). Only six were anti-percentage games, but even these had some play. When game was not bid, the resulting part-score contracts all had excellent prospects. In addition, we missed four high percentage games and four marginal games. The high percentage games missed had some common characteristics. The opening notrumper held a 15 HCP hand with three spades to an honor and prime cards (aces and supported kings) in the side suits. By comparison, transferring, then raising a 3♠ super acceptance to four only happened six times (12% of the time). All six cases were virtual lay downs for 4♠. Unhappily, this method missed eleven high percentage games (and five more 50%+ or - games), playing them in 2♠ instead. In all of the six cases where opening notrumper gave a superacceptance, 4♠ was an excellent contract even if responder held a small club in place of the king. Finally, I noted that superaccepting with only three trumps and 17 HCP or four trumps and 15 HCP was a bit too pushy, leading to low percentage contracts. In summary, standard hand evaluation methods worked much better than relying on the newfangled 'super acceptance' method alone. I got the feeling working through the 50 hands that it was the presence of the stiff club king that caused the traditional method to work so well. Using both tools, one can reach good games whether or not their hand has one small club or the singleton king. *I allowed 5-4-2-2 hands to open 1NT, IF they had a rebid problem over a 1♠ response, and I excluded balanced six baggers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Hrm, I will try my own sim. I could certainly be talked into inviting, in fact in my very first post that's what I did at imps anyway. I have serious doubts I could be talked into bidding game. To be edited... (later) I ignored hands that superaccept, since then it doesn't matter what your original intentions were. I was extremely fair in both the bidding, play, and opening lead, but I was very formulaic in opener's actions over the invitation. That was by design so I wouldn't have to make biased judgment calls. So with 16 or 17 opener always accepted, or with 15 and four card support. And opener always prefered spades to notrump with three of them. I did generation of all four hands, so some good games went down, a couple bad games made, etc etc, just like would happen at the table. I always made a realistic lead, even to the detriment of the defense (once a low diamond from QT9xx, once a club from AQJTx, etc). So for example, that explains hands 7-8-9, all of which would have had very different results with the defenders' hands switched. I included partner's 1NT bid in every case. 1) 3NT -2, A9 AQT8 973 AQ952) 4S =, AKT9 A93 AT9 J943) 2NT +1, QT AT2 A73 AJ9754) 3NT -1, Q4 KQ43 AQ A98425) 3NT -1, K6 AKQ7 Q4 QT8756) 2NT -2, Q3 AJ3 A73 A98637) 2NT -6, AK Q84 AQT94 8328) 4S -1, KT9 AQ9 96 AQJ839) 3NT =, AT KJ94 A64 A53210) 4S =, AT6 AT9 A73 AT5411) 4S =, KT94 AQ2 Q97 A6412) 4S +1, KQT KJT7 A6 A97213) 2NT =, AQ K974 AQ7 953214) 3NT +1, A4 QJ93 AT96 AQ515) 3NT -1, A6 AJ32 Q7 AQJ6516) 4S +1, K63 AK7 Q97 A65417) 2NT =, K9 AT42 AT4 AT4318) 4S -1, AK3 A9 A64 JT74219) 3NT -2, K3 QJ AQ763 AT6420) 4S =, AK96 AQ8 Q76 T8221) 4S =, AT6 A3 AQ93 Q87622) 4S =, AKT6 T43 QT AQJ623) 3S +1, KT3 KT7 A3 AJT9824) 2NT -2, A4 AKT2 AT43 74325) 2NT =, Q4 AK2 AT97 Q762 Totals: 2NT seven times, -6 once, -2 twice, = thrice, +1 once. 3S once, +1 (but partner would actually have accepted so I'll count it as 4♠ =). 3NT seven times, -2 twice, -1 thrice, = once, +1 once. 4♠ eleven times, -1 twice, = seven times, +1 twice. Conclusions: Better to invite than signoff at imps, though not by a mile. It got to game 18 times, making 11 of them. At matchpoints, still correct to invite based on this little study, but the sample size is too small to draw a matchpoint conclusion since about three hands going the other way would have swayed it. Signing off was not quite enough. However, blasting game was also far too much. Game made 11/18 times partner would accept, 1/7 times partner would reject, so clearly lost over inviting. Two side conclusions:- When partner transfers and invites, accept with four card support no matter how terrible your hand is, even 15 with 4333. I have actually seen this work badly in person once that I recall, but it went 2 for 2 here (hands 11 and 20).- Play 2♣ then 2♠ as a light unbalanced invite, it has a huge advantage on this kind of hand. You get to the making games, and also do much better in partscores as partner can play in your second suit if he chooses. I would guess this is far more valuable than other uses for the bid. You can see that 2NT did quite terribly, and almost always either 2♠ or 3♣ would have done better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshs Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 What are honors worth? Their values comes from a few factors: a. Tricks. An ace is a trick no matter how you slice it. b. Promotional value. When you have an honor, it immediately raises the rank of all the other honors in both hands. E.G. If you have the ace of spades, then the K of spades becomes like an ace. If you have the K then the QJT becomes like the KQJ. Note: promotional value is value on power. You lead your K forcing out the A, and then your Q becomes good. c. Positional value. If you don't have the ace, but you lead toward the Kx it will score half the time.Having honors in combination (in the same hand) greatly improves their positional value. KQx vs xxx will take 2 tricks half the time (assuming enough entries) while Kxx vs Qxx will take 2 tricks only when the ace is singleton or doubleton and you guess who has it. You take a lot less tricks on average with this holding. d. entries/communication. Being able to get from hand to hand without wasting tricks is valuable. If you can't get to the correct hand, the positional value of your holdings goes down and possibly the promotional value as well. For instance:Picture K vs AQJx vs Kx vs AQJx. If in the first case you need to overtake the K, you have used the K to promote the QJ but have lost the trick taking value of the K. e. timing and control. While KQJT are 3 tricks after you knock out the ace, this holding is still worse than the AKQ since you have to lose a tempo to set up your 3 tricks. If you have to give up the lead, the opps may be able to set up tricks of their own before you cash yours. WHat is the value of a stiff K relative to Kx or K and more length? 1. is the almost the same. Its worth a trick whenever partner has the A (except when its a stiff A). 2. the promotional value is almost the same as the K with length but if partner has the stiff Q or the AQ it loses its promotional value. 3. this value is completely lost 4. this value is greatly reduced since you do not have 2 way communication, and if partner doesn't have the ace, you do not have an entry (while Kx is an entry 50% of the time) and you might have to give up the trick taking value (value 1) in order to use the K to get to partner's hand 5. this value is greatly reduced since you do not have either absolute control (and A or a KQ) or positional control (protected K) Now what is Jxxxx worth?It has very little value in all 5 measures. Its trick taking value depends on the probability that partner has enough of the higher honors... Since there are no good spots, it has little promotional value....etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeegan Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 :D My head is still aching from trying to rapidly evaluate fifty bridge hands as to how many tricks are available at what odds for each hand. I may have made some mistakes. I do not think I erred in constructing a good random sample, though. The trick here is to use Pavlicek's hand generator to generate a random sample based on criteria looser than necessary but that covers all possible cases. Next, I cull out any hands in this group that would not open 1NT by using my special program Eyeballs 1.0. The hands generated for the opening notrumper are shown below. The first 50 have been culled using Eyeballs 1.0 and were the basis for my aforementioned analysis. The suits are spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs AQ4 KQ87 T64 A43 1AQ4 A743 AT6 Q94 2AQ64 AQ2 A4 J876 3AQ9 Q843 AQT7 JT 4AQ96 K973 A9 A84 5AQT A94 Q6 QJ763 6AT KQJT T9 AJ754 7AT QJT2 QT4 AQJ5 8AT AQ4 A73 QJT93 9AT4 K2 AQT96 QJ9 10AT9 AQ83 AT96 Q8 11K3 AQ4 AQ4 QT962 12K43 AK3 AQ97 J96 13K64 K973 A4 AQJT 14K9 AQ4 AT96 AT74 15KQ QT87 AQT73 QJ 16KQ43 AJ82 QT QJ9 17KQ9 K742 AT6 A42 18KQT AK84 A64 942 19KQT4 T942 AQ6 AQ 20KT AQT3 AQT74 64 21KT9 AKJ2 Q6 Q854 22Q3 AQ7 A964 A754 23Q4 AKQJ 43 AJ762 24Q6 AJ7 AT63 AQ83 25Q63 A942 A9 AJT5 26Q9643 AQJ AQ4 Q3 27QT6 AKQ AT J8642 28T63 AK84 A7 AJ63 29AT63 42 AQ94 AJ6 30AT96 QJ Q94 AQ62 31K3 AQ7 AQ7 T9872 32K43 AQ7 AQ6 Q963 33K643 A8 Q63 AQ72 34K94 AK82 Q3 A872 35KQ AJ73 A643 QT2 36KQ6 KT9 T4 AQJT5 37KQ9 T942 AQT A82 38KQT KJ8 QT AJT98 39KQT4 AJ7 43 AQ53 40KT AJ87 Q63 AQJ2 41KT9 AQ94 A7 QT83 42Q3 AK9 QT4 AJ952 43Q4 AQ4 QT764 AQ9 44Q64 AJ32 A76 A54 45QT KJ98 QT AQJT3 46QT63 KQT8 AQ A85 47T64 AK74 AQ97 A3 4893 AKQ Q43 A9632 49643 AK82 A96 AT3 50A4 AJ97 QT9 A632 51A6 K94 AT64 A832 52A6 KT72 A43 AT82 53A63 AQJ7 A93 J42 54A64 AJ7 QT4 A987 55A93 A73 AQ JT954 56A94 KQ9 Q764 A98 57A963 AK7 AQ7 432 58AK AK97 Q3 JT953 59AK4 Q73 AQ763 82 60AK43 T83 AT AQ87 61AK6 Q98 63 AQJ76 62AK94 AQ7 A976 72 63AKQ3 KT92 97 A32 64AKQ6 QT8 AQT T97 65AKQT A8 AT6 T632 66AKT 983 AQ64 Q96 67AQ AK42 A9763 74 68AQ KQJ8 AT JT864 69AQ3 AJ7 743 AT64 70AQ4 93 AQ76 A652 71AQ4 74 AQ93 QJ82 72AQ9 AQJ8 Q974 92 73AQ9 A97 A9743 Q4 74AQ96 A42 A964 JT 75AQT4 K74 QT9 A95 76AT AQ72 QT3 AJT2 77AT AT98 AQ J7654 78AT KQJ AQ93 T962 79AT6 AJ97 AT76 A3 80AT63 KJ98 Q3 AQ5 81K3 AKJ T97 AT964 82K4 T93 AQ93 AQJ6 83K6 AKJ7 T4 A9653 84K9 AQJT Q6 AJ652 85KQ K74 A943 AJ86 86KQ A97 AQ93 QT74 87KQ6 QT92 AQ Q953 88KQ9 KT82 A4 QJ32 89KQT AJ9 AQ4 T863 90KQT4 AT2 AT9 Q62 91KT3 94 AQ74 AQ92 92KT96 83 AQT AQJ8 93Q4 AKQ9 QT97 A53 94Q4 AK98 T6 AQJ52 95Q6 AKJ2 A63 J543 96Q93 KJ7 AQ QJ532 97QT AQT8 64 AQJT6 98QT9 A84 AT93 AQ2 99T9 AKQJ T64 AQ74 10094 AQ73 Q3 AQJT4 101963 AQJ2 AT3 AT2 102A4 QT87 A74 AJ64 103A6 K874 A93 AJ84 104A6 AK97 A96 J976 105A63 AK3 A64 J932 106A9 QJ74 AT74 A98 107A93 AK94 A3 QT98 108A94 Q3 AQ43 QJT3 109A963 AK AQT4 962 110AK QJ74 Q96 QJ63 111AK4 Q84 AT64 A92 112AK6 AQT9 QT64 53 113AK6 AQT9 76 AT98 114AK94 Q84 QT A984 115AKQ3 A32 Q6 T542 116AKQ9 KQ4 943 Q65 117AKT QT7 Q6 AJ952 118AQ K942 QT4 A963 119AQ KQ82 QT9 QT93 120AQ3 KQ93 AT4 Q95 121AQ4 KJT7 76 AJ87 122AQ6 A93 94 AJ874 123AQ9 AJ74 AQ 9543 124AQ9 AQT2 A9 T963 125AQ96 KQ2 AT43 T5 126AQT6 KT2 93 AQ73 127AT A94 A94 AJT94 128AT AQ42 AQT9 J97 129AT3 AQJ T3 AJ942 130AT6 KJ7 A974 A74 131AT64 AKJ 43 AJ42 132K3 AQ AQ43 J9854 133K43 AQ AQ64 9865 134K63 QJ8 A63 AQ62 135K9 AK7 963 AJ653 136KQ QJ92 AQT6 J62 137KQ3 QT AQT4 QJ43 138KQ9 AQ4 A3 87532 139KQ96 T82 A43 AQ8 140KQT4 A9 Q763 A76 141KQT9 J9 AQ93 A83 142KT4 K72 A4 AJT84 143Q3 AK4 AQ93 9764 144Q4 AQ82 AT6 A532 145Q4 AKQ3 AT6 J432 146Q6 KQJ9 AQ7 QJ72 147Q96 KJ AQ93 A654 148QT QJ94 AQ9 AT92 149QT96 AQ AQ6 JT65 15096 AJ2 A76 AQT98 151A3 K94 AT4 AJ963 152A43 KQ7 Q6 AT872 153A63 AQJT 64 A985 154A64 KQJ4 QT3 A53 155A93 QJ4 A964 A54 156A94 AKJ8 63 A942 157A96 AJT3 AQ7 J63 158AK QJ72 A9 J7542 159AK3 AQ98 AT96 95 160AK6 A984 Q64 A72 161AK93 KQT Q9 JT98 162AKQ Q7 AQ4 87543 163AKQT AQ T743 QT3 164AKT AKQT 97 J987 165AKT9 T9 A3 AT932 166AQ K32 AT3 AT964 167AQ3 KJ72 97 AJ42 168T93 AQJ2 Q6 AQ63 16996 AQ72 A973 AJ9 170964 AKQ9 A9 QT84 171A43 AQT Q7 AT654 172A6 AT94 T6 AQJ72 173A6 AK98 Q76 Q974 174A63 KT97 AQ9 Q62 175A9 KQJ A73 QJ653 176A94 AT A63 A7532 177A94 AQ97 AQ9 T92 178AK T983 A6 A5432 179AK AK97 Q63 T732 180AK4 AK7 43 J9876 181AK6 KT74 AQT 874 182AK64 AT7 T3 A854 183AK94 74 AQ64 QT9 184AKQ4 942 AQ9 T72 185AKQT A94 A9 8754 186AKT KJ2 74 AJ986 187AKT9 A874 A6 873 188AQ QJ83 Q3 AT632 189AQ AK73 QT3 T852 190AQ4 AK93 AT63 43 191AQ4 AQ2 A3 J9752 192AQ6 J98 AQ9 Q652 193AQ9 A72 64 AQ653 194AQ94 AKT8 94 A32 195AQT AJ A9743 J72 196AQT6 KT A643 AT5 197AT KJ4 QT63 AQ82 198AT KJT A973 QJT9 199AT4 AQ74 AQ7 975 200AT6 A7 QT3 AJ976 201 If you want to analyze them, be my guest. It took me a couple of hours to do 50 and then write up the results. Working through the sample is a very good way to get a feel for what is right and/or wrong with each bidding approach. I did not evaluate the game forcing sequence that Xfers to spades and then bids 3♦. It seemed almost self-evident that it led to too many instances of overbidding. My main feeling doing this was admiration for how well our traditional bidding system works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Without going through a full analysis (not that much free time on my hands) I did notice that 4♠ is excellent opposite all the openers which include four-card spades. This seems to vindicate the "bid stayman" approach to some degree. At least it seems clear that "bid stayman and raise to game if partner has spades" is better than "transfer and pass unless super-accept." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Although not in the original list of options, in my methods I would respond 2D showing either a GF hand with more than 3 Spades (unbalanced) or a weaker hand (potentially very weak) with more than 4 Spades. Opener commits beyond 2S with more than 3 Spades, upon which as responder I commit to game. With fewer than 4 Spades opener distinguishes min v max according to 2H/2S rebid. If max I commit to game (3N opposite doubleton Spade, 4S opposite 3). If min I stop in 2S. I might miss the odd game but hope to gain on corresponding hands where 2S is the limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 I would transfer then pass unless superaccepted at any scoring. This is not pessimistic, it's realistic. You have another way to win, you see. It may not be the end of it, someone might come with a Dbl or bid 3C, in which case I can wheel out a non-forcing 3D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Glen Ashton, a frequent contributor here and the author of the ETM victory system, has written up his adaptation of inverted stayman for handling hands like this. You can find his right up at http://www.bridgematters.com/etmnt06.pdf Let me quote a piece of what Glen says about inverted stayman in this document.Almost all game invite hands make use of Inverted Stayman, a brilliant invention of the Bridge World’s Jeff Rubens. ETM decided to use this when our independent analysis determined that an invite hand with five of a major is better bid using 2♣ then a transfer. Basically, he would start responders hand with 2♣, which allows him to make a game invite and stay at 2♠ or stop in 3♦. To illustrate his method, I took the first 10 hands from the list of jdeegan to illustrate the method. ♠ J8752 ♥ 65 ♦ KJ852 ♣ K AQ4 KQ87 T64 A43 1 1NT - 2C2S! - Pass or 3♦ Where 2♠ shows 4 or 5 ♥'s and a minimum hand. Pass and 3♦ are both to play. AQ4 A743 AT6 Q94 2 1NT - 2♣2♦ - 2♠3♥ - 3NT4♠ Where 2♦ is ANY MAXIMUM, or a minimum with no four card major,2♠ is invitational with 5♠ or constructive with 5♠ and 4♥+3♥ game invite values in both minors, maximum, and 4/5 ♥'s AQ64 AQ2 A4 J876 3 1NT - 2♣2♦ - 2♠4♠ AQ9 Q843 AQT7 JT 4 1NT - 2♣2♠ - pass or 3♦, see hand 1 AQ96 K973 A9 A84 5 1NT - 2♣3NT - 4♦4♠ Where 3NT is maximum, 4-4 in majors, likes both minors4♦ is transfer to 4♠ AQT A94 Q6 QJ763 6 1NT - 2♣2♦ - 2♠3♠ - 4♠ 3♥ = game try, values for both minors AT KQJT T9 AJ754 7 1NT - 2♦2♠ - pass AT QJT2 QT4 AQJ5 8 1NT - 2♣2♠ - 3♥3NT - Pass 3♥ = maximum, 4/5 ♥ values in both minors, AT AQ4 A73 QJT93 9 1NT - 2♣2♠ - 2NT3NT - Pass 2NT = maximum, less than 4/5 ♥, game try. AT4 K2 AQT96 QJ9 10 1NT - 2♣2♦ - 2♠3♠ - 4♠ Ok, overbid this one :-) Anyway, for anyone thinking about these issues, take a look at Glen's pdf at the link above. I don't play these methods (yet, hehehe), but they do look interesting (as does almost everything else on his bridgematters website). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Not yet had a chance to look at these in depth, and note to self to do so, but in the meantime: ♠ J8752 ♥ 65 ♦ KJ852 ♣ K AQ4 KQ87 T64 A43 1 1NT - 2C2S! - Pass or 3♦ Where 2♠ shows 4 or 5 ♥'s and a minimum hand. Pass and 3♦ are both to play. So, at this stage, opener could have 4 card Spade support and minimum? Not sure I like that. AQ4 A743 AT6 Q94 2 1NT - 2♣2♦ - 2♠3♥ - 3NT4♠ Where 2♦ is ANY MAXIMUM, or a minimum with no four card major, Contrast with: AQ96 K973 A9 A84 5 1NT - 2♣3NT - 4♦4♠ Where 3NT is maximum, 4-4 in majors, likes both minors So 2D is not "ANY MAXIMUM"? Guess I will have to look at the detailed notes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Not yet had a chance to look at these in depth, and note to self to do so, but in the meantime: ♠ J8752 ♥ 65 ♦ KJ852 ♣ K AQ4 KQ87 T64 A43 1 1NT - 2C2S! - Pass or 3♦ Where 2♠ shows 4 or 5 ♥'s and a minimum hand. Pass and 3♦ are both to play. So, at this stage, opener could have 4 card Spade support and minimum? Not sure I like that. No, opener can not have 4♠ when he bids 2♠. In addition to promising hearts, 2♠ denies both maximum and 4 ♠'s. AQ4 A743 AT6 Q94 2 1NT - 2♣2♦ - 2♠3♥ - 3NT4♠ Where 2♦ is ANY MAXIMUM, or a minimum with no four card major, Contrast with: AQ96 K973 A9 A84 5 1NT - 2♣3NT - 4♦4♠ Where 3NT is maximum, 4-4 in majors, likes both minors So 2D is not "ANY MAXIMUM"? (any maximum except 4-4 in the majors, obviously.. This is not my method. I just returned to it when this discussion started. Guess I will have to look at the detailed notes. Me too.. I just shared this link because it seemed relevant to the discussion of this hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.