Are there any good choices?

[hrothgar]

IMPs

 

Red versus White

 

RHO opens 1♠

 

You hold[hv=s=sa8ha8642dk985ck7]133|100|[/hv]

 

Name your poison

[Echognome]

Je pass.

[pclayton]

IMPs

 

Red versus White

 

RHO opens 1♠

 

You hold[hv=s=sa8ha8642dk985ck7]133|100|[/hv]

 

Name your poison

Hemlock is fine for me, thank you. :D

 

If its a short match, or MPs, I'll dive in with 2♥. A long match and I'll pass.

[Blofeld]

Pass. Second choice double.

 

Phil, could you explain how the length of the match alone is enough to change your choice. I could see this if in combination with some other known factors (state of match, strength of opposition) - but on its own? I'd assume we could hypothetically tag each bid with an expected IMP score and variance. In each case lacking any other knowledge wouldn't we just like to pick the one with the highest expected IMPs?

 

Sorry if I'm being dense here.

[pbleighton]

I hate 2H less than anything else.

 

Not by much, though. I sympathize with the passers.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Pass. Sometimes you just don't have any other bid IMO.

 

Winston

[luke warm]

i can't double and we are vulnerable.. i'd have to pass and i'm glad it's imps

[pclayton]

Pass. Second choice double.

 

Phil, could you explain how the length of the match alone is enough to change your choice. I could see this if in combination with some other known factors (state of match, strength of opposition) - but on its own? I'd assume we could hypothetically tag each bid with an expected IMP score and variance. In each case lacking any other knowledge wouldn't we just like to pick the one with the highest expected IMPs?

 

Sorry if I'm being dense here.

I don't mind some short term gambles in a short match. 2♥ risks losing an occasional 13 (-800), but it will produce a lot of win 6's (+140).

 

I would think an action like 2♥ over 10 boards gives you a plus position 6-7 times, a few small minuses and one or two disasters.

 

Make it more extreme: how do you feel about overcalling 2♥ in a BAM? I like it myself.

 

I also like the action in ANY event where I think I am outmatched by the opps. This is the kind of slighty swingy hand that can turn a profit.

[Echognome]

Just looked at the colours again...

 

Pass! It's not so much that I don't want to get in there and compete, it's that I want my partner to respect my 2 level overcalls vulnerable. I expect partner to base his or her decisions on the fact that I had a good suit (or some compensating values*). The vast majority of the time it will be the former rather than the latter. I feel if I start overcalling on Axxxx, then that will chip away at p's confidence in my bids.

 

Lost 6 imps tonight in an online match because my hand chose to pass over 1♦ red against white with:

 

AQ93

QT

Q8

QT876

 

My counterpart overcalled 2♣, finding his p with KJxx. I always find LHO with that and go for a packet. It just seems that with each successive level you bid, the easier it is to get doubled. Pretty tough for them to get you at the 1 level, but for a 2 level overcall, I want to have some tricks.

 

MP and, in particular, BAM is another story.

[awm]

How about double? This guarantees we'll find any 9-card heart fit, and I'd feel better about passing after 1♠-X-2♠ and two passes than after 1♠-P-2♠ or 3♠ preemptive. There's obviously some danger of ending up in clubs, but there are also many times that the double helps partner compete in a red suit or double the opponents final contract when otherwise that would be difficult. Double seems like a happy medium between overcalling (risky if LHO has hearts) and passing (risky if opponents raise spades).

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Winstonm]

I also like the action in ANY event where I think I am outmatched by the opps. This is the kind of slighty swingy hand that can turn a profit.

 

I always thought this was one of the reasons I was outclassed - my opponents' had the discipline to pass this hand and my teammates never did. :lol:

 

Winston

[Winstonm]

Just looked at the colours again...

 

Pass! It's not so much that I don't want to get in there and compete, it's that I want my partner to respect my 2 level overcalls vulnerable. I expect partner to base his or her decisions on the fact that I had a good suit (or some compensating values*). The vast majority of the time it will be the former rather than the latter. I feel if I start overcalling on Axxxx, then that will chip away at p's confidence in my bids.

 

Lost 6 imps tonight in an online match because my hand chose to pass over 1♦ red against white with:

 

AQ93

QT

Q8

QT876

 

My counterpart overcalled 2♣, finding his p with KJxx. I always find LHO with that and go for a packet. It just seems that with each successive level you bid, the easier it is to get doubled. Pretty tough for them to get you at the 1 level, but for a 2 level overcall, I want to have some tricks.

 

MP and, in particular, BAM is another story.

Well, you would have had a push against me. :lol:

 

Winston

[Winstonm]

Lost 6 imps tonight in an online match because my hand chose to pass over 1♦ red against white with:

 

AQ93

QT

Q8

QT876

 

My counterpart overcalled 2♣, finding his p with KJxx

 

All I can say is you would have push board against me. :lol:

 

Winston

[Free]

I choose my poison: FREEWILL overcalls :lol: 2♦ showing 4+♥ and 4+♦, maximum 15HCP.

[flytoox]

I will overcall 2H. The suit is weak, but I have good cards.

[han]

Also pass for me, but I like Adam's double better than 2♥.

[Finch]

Pass. Second choice double.

 

Phil, could you explain how the length of the match alone is enough to change your choice. I could see this if in combination with some other known factors (state of match, strength of opposition) - but on its own? I'd assume we could hypothetically tag each bid with an expected IMP score and variance. In each case lacking any other knowledge wouldn't we just like to pick the one with the highest expected IMPs?

 

Sorry if I'm being dense here.

Here are two reasons why we don't always pick the action with highest expected IMPs.

 

i) In a long match, particularly against a team we think are weaker than us, it's not uncommon to make a bid known as "taking out insurance". You have the choice of passing/doubling 5H (say) or bidding 5S. You believe that both contracts are likely to be 1 off - so much so that the expectation is maximised by defending. However, you bid 5S because you aren't prepared to risk one or (worse) both contracts making: you invest 5 IMPs or so against the possibility of a large loss. In a short match you can't usually afford to do this, because there aren't enough boards to get those IMPs back (in the last board of a short match where you are a lot up you might do the same thing).

 

ii) even at IMPs it's sometimes right (in the expectation sense) to risk the contract in pursuit of overtricks, or risk letting the contract through in search of additional undertricks. But in a short match you often feel you can't afford the risk of the game swing out this might cause: you can get a couple of overtrick imps back by getting a partial position right on the next board, but you can't get 13 back so easily.

[Blofeld]

Frances: I agree with both of those points when we think that we are the stronger team. But can it really be right for both teams to follow such an action, if they both have accurate ideas of their relative strengths?

 

Say Team A expects on the remainder of the boards to beat Team B by about 4 IMPs, with low variance. Say there is a game that can be made certainly or played for an overtrick with high probability of success with a small chance of going down. Then if the variance of the expected scores from the other boards is high enough, it looks like it must be right for both teams to eschew the overtricks : for both teams the value of an unlikely large swing or a likely small swing out in is greater than the cost of an unlikely large swing out or a likely small swing in.

 

So ok, I grant that the situation is possible. But to make it possible it looks like we need a low variance on the rest of the match (well, or it to be a late hand in a match, where you have a pretty good idea of the score). My intuition for this says that the variance is unlikely ever to be low enough that it is right for both teams to persue such a strategy (given that we also need the expected score to be away from zero). Is my intuition just screwing around with me here?

 

---

 

Phil: I like 2♥ much more at BAM, though I suspect I would double instead. However, BAM doesn't feel awfully like a short (but longer than 1 board) IMP match to me. I should add the proviso that I'm not very good at BAM !

[whereagles]

Double. I've tried passing and coming in later with hands like these and concluded that's it's FAR safer to take immediate action.

[helene_t]

Double. Might get us to a ridiculous ♣ contract but I think the the alternatives are more risky.

[Winstonm]

Double. I've tried passing and coming in later with hands like these and concluded that's it's FAR safer to take immediate action.

I agree wholeheartedly that if action is to be taken it should be taken now - my experience on these hands is over the long haul it's best to just shut up and let the opponents struggle trying to go plus - usually any plus our way is OK, but occassionally there is going to be a big swing on these types hands and all you can do is hope your counterpart holding the same tickets does the same thing you do.

 

I do agree with Phil that in a short swiss match it is probably right to take borderline action as you don't have time to "grind them down", but this hand still to me doesn't fit the ticket for even borderline action - it's all defensive with very little offense unless you get lucky an find a huge fit.

 

Anyway, that's my thinking for what it is worth.

 

Winston

[kfgauss]

I hate this problem, but will perhaps double.

 

Double is pretty dangerous, as they'll be quick to (redouble and) double at these colors. A good agreement about running will, however, probably be helpful:

 

If pard bids 2♣, and the opps double:

 

Running to 2♦ shows equal length (in the reds) or longer diamonds

Redouble shows longer hearts (the more expensive strain)

 

This scrambling agreement is discussed in the current Bridge World in an MSC write-up (on the auction P 2S P P; X P 3C X; ?).

 

(I'm not certain why this is the agreement they mention [or how standard it is] instead of xx = equal or longer ♥ and 2♦ = longer diamonds, but in any case, it helps us here.)

 

Andy

[mike777]

For sake of discussion let's say our choices are pass, x and 2h.

 

This seems to be the perfect hand to invoke Hamman's and others rule of saying well bid partner and concentrating on the next hand. I see no reason to blame partner and put her in a bad mood for the rest of the session.

 

I x...but.......am willing to listen and learn.

[Finch]

I don't think you can crime any of pass, double or 2H. They all might work well, they all might go wrong badly. I would probably double, but one of my regular partners would probably overcall 2H.