hold back,,, or go for it?

[bid_em_up]

If you have a problem with that, I will put it in language you can understand:

 

Tough *****.

lol.

 

5D is a bid that shows diamonds and a possibility to make 5D, a possibility that it's a good save, just a guess that 5D is our best contract. I can't think of a bid that is less alertable. If you think 5D needs to be alerted you should get a clue. I think posts like yours are completely asinine and take away from discussion of bridge hands. I assumed since you are actually a decent bridge player that your post was essentially trolling, but if you are really just so naive that you think 5D should be alertable I apologize.

Since when do you save vul vs. not?

 

Sure it shows diamonds, but I think that you should actually have some expectation of making 5D to bid it, in this position. Here, I don't think you can actually have that expectation. If it is your partnership tendency or agreement to make "unsound" calls such as this, again, are the opponents entitled to this information or not?

 

You may not feel that they are, so be it. I was just curious whether they were or not.

 

But it was simply a question, and certainly no reason for you to start with your arrogant bullshit. Not everyone can be as lucky as you being born into a bridge playing family with a family member who is an expert in their own right, or to be able to work for one of the best players of all time (you do still work for Hamman, don't you?) or as naturally gifted at the game as you appear to be or have access to the top players in the game to bounce questions off of. Not everyone comes by it naturally, some of us have actually had to work hard, both at the game and at real jobs with little vacation time, raising kids, marriages, school, etc. that prevent us from attending the elite events or attend tournaments frequently. Try to remember that sometimes before making stupid statements regarding other peoples questions.

 

Sorry, but you pissed me off.

[mikeh]

It was addressed specifically to you, because of all the posters who advocated 5D, you are the only one who stated that:

 

1) you used to play it more conservatively.

2) that you have since incorporated it into your partnership bidding that it not be considered a sound bid (as it was before).

3) Therefore, does your partner have information that your opponents do not?

 

This is the crux of what I am trying to find out.  Or is it considered the norm to bid with "any possible reason to do so" these days? I did not say it needed to be alerted, I was simply asking a question.

 

Ok, I misunderstood you (as did Justin, for one). But you misunderstood me as well, perhaps because I was not intending to write a treatise on my change in bidding philosophy.

 

I would always have considered biddng 5♦ with this hand, even in my conservative days. But I probably (read: almost surely) would have talked myself out of it for all the reasons you set out. It is, for me at least, always easy to consider all the negatives about bidding in these situations.

 

Nowadays, at least when I'm playing well, I tend to bid with this hand-type under pressure. This would be a rock-bottom but clear bid for me. I might well hold a better hand than this, and would always want to... but I consider this dangerous bid mandatory... I would be disappointed and surprised if any of my regular partners were to pass in this situation.

 

As to knowing partnership style and disclosing it... there are limits to everything and the suggestion that partner should announce to the opps (how is he to do that if not by an alert?...surely you do not suggest a pre-alert at the start of the match...????) is absurd. I am willing to bet that you 'know' things about your partner's tendencies that you do not alert.... nor should you. Now, if an opp were to ask me (were my partner to have made the 5♦ call) about our agreements (explicit or implicit via experience) and I were familiar with this partner in these meta-situations, I would answer that we tend to err on the side of aggression rather than conservatism..... but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't be looking at Ax x AKJxxxx Kxx for example.... I'd bid 5♦ with that hand as well.... as I suspect you would.

[mikeh]

I have never seen mikeh write f**k. Refreshing.

My spell-checker is self-censoring, and I don't know how to spell the real 4 letter word.......

[Guest Jlall]

Since when do you save vul vs. not?

I did not say you're saving, I said one of the upsides of your bids may be that it turns out to be a good save. Do you see the difference?

 

Especially after a 4H opener, sometimes you don't even get doubled. Sometimes they bid 5H when you were going down.

 

Sure it shows diamonds, but I think that you should actually have some expectation of making 5D to bid it, in this position.  Here, I don't think you can actually have that expectation.

 

How do you not have the expectation of making 5D sometimes lol? You need almost nothing from partner. You make opposite a flat 5 count like xx xxxx Kxx Qxxx. This is a double game swing. Losing double game swings in bridge is bad. If you don't think you might make 5D with this hand something is wrong. There are a million hands where it will go all pass and you will be cold for 5D.

 

If it is your partnership tendency or agreement to make "unsound" calls such as this, again, are the opponents entitled to this information or not?

 

To be frank, this is not even close to an unsound call. If this was a master solvers hand it would be 100 % unanimous to bid. This is not close. Sorry.

 

On a larger scale, you are right, every bid you make your opponents are entitled to know what you might make it on. When you open the bidding, partner should explain to them your tendencies with balanced hands, unbalanced hands, poorly structured honor hands, etc etc. When you respond, partner should tell the opponents every hand that you've responded with. When you make a takeout X partner should alert whether or not you do this with 4333, with a long 1 suited hand and good playing strength, with a 4441 10 or 11 count, etc. Do you see why this is not practical?

 

Most people want to play bridge they don't want to have to explain for 1 minute every small tendency. Full disclosure is an admirable goal but its not feasible, and in most cases like this it's not relevent. If LHO is deciding whether to double or not and wants to ask what your style is in this type of auction hes certainly entitled to do so. I would guess that this would matter 1 out of 1000 times.

 

Thus in bridge we must choose what we alert. Very non standard things and conventional things are good candidates. Things like what we overcall with after 4H 5D and whether or not we make penalty Xs soundly or agressively are not. Natural bids like this that indicate a desire to play the contract are the least alertable of all. If you want this bid to be alerted you should want every bid to be alerted, and that is simply not practical. Sorry.

 

You may not feel that they are, so be it. I was just curious whether they were or not.

 

your "question" is valid but asinine and trolling and completely irrelevant. If you can still not see this, sorry. But it really takes away from the discussions when moro...people keep asking if everything should be alerted. This happens more and more frequently these days, and thus those people who ask such questions are contributing to the deterioration of the forums in my opinion. I think they should have their own "special" forum so they don't spam the good ones. There is your answer to your question.

 

But it was simply a question, and certainly no reason for you to start with your arrogant bullshit.

 

When people ask stupid questions they get flamed. This stops people from asking stupid questions. Sorry if I'm not nice enough for you lol.

 

Not everyone comes by it naturally, some of us have actually had to work hard,

 

Yes woe is you, I'm sure you had to walk a mile to the bridge club and back in the snow. Meanwhile I never had to work at all and was born endplaying people, advancing to squeezes at 2 months old. Good point.

 

You posted on an advanced/expert forum. You challenged some of the thinking on the thread (fine), and you "asked" why 5D shouldnt be alertable. Your comments are fair game. If your logic is faulty I will feel free to point it out, if your question is trolling and retarded, I will feel free to point it out. If you do not like that either make better posts, make better points, or don't post on an advanced expert forum with your views. I was not attacking you, I never made it personal, I was attacking what you wrote. I will feel free to do that, and feel free to have anyone else do that to me.

 

 

  Try to remember that sometimes before making stupid statements regarding other peoples questions.

 

No, see, the burden is on a poster not to ask stupid questions, not on me to fail to mock them.

 

Sorry, but you pissed me off.

 

I understand, some people are sensitive.

[mikeh]

Not everyone comes by it naturally, some of us have actually had to work hard,

 

Yes woe is you, I'm sure you had to walk a mile to the bridge club and back in the snow. Meanwhile I never had to work at all and was born endplaying people, advancing to squeezes at 2 months old. Good point.

Walk a mile to the bridge club in the snow?? LUXURY!!!!

 

When I was a boy, we didn't have bridge clubs.... we didn't even have playng cards. We'd have to cut up the hand diagrams in old newspapers and shuffle the tiny pieces of paper around.... try sorting 13 tiny, smudged, torn bits of paper... we didn't even have sisscors to cut them up neatly!

 

And to heck with walking...why, most days the blizzard was so strong that we had to hunker in our caves, trying to make out our hand in the flickering light of our smoky fire... and our parents were always trying to use the old bridge columns as fuel!

 

Try telling the youth of today about the bad old days.... they just don't give us old guys the respect we deserve!

[han]

I'm not as stone age as you Mike, but I agree. People like Justin who never have to work for bridge but just make the winning bids intuitively shouldn't be allowed to post here.

[bid_em_up]

Really Justin, you just continue to prove my point.

 

The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked.

 

And while you're at it, maybe you should go back and read and UNDERSTAND what I originally wrote, which was:

 

"Do you or should you alert the 5D call?".

 

Notice I did not say that it should or should not be alerted, or what my opinion on it is. But since your partner has information that the opponents do not have, is it your obligation to alert it? Or is it the opponents obligation to inquire about your overcall tendencies? And if they do inquire, what are your obligations in disclosure? These, to me at least, are perfectly reasonable questions from someone who does not have the opportunities to play at the same level as you do. That does not mean I don't belong in this forum, as you seem to be attempting to imply.

 

I have better things to do than to "troll" BBO forums with questions such as this. If I asked it, I wanted a reasonable answer, and not flames or smart-aleck comments such as the ones you have provided.

 

Btw, there was another reason why my original question was directed to Mikeh. It is because he is one of the few posters who will actually take the time to answer questions such as this, which helps others who are not at playing at the top levels to understand, instead of giving glib answers or jabs at a poster like you have done here. You may think it is funny or cute to reply in a manner like this.

 

I happen to find it offensive.

 

I also think you are mistaken about 5D being unanimous in a Master Solvers bidding panel. If it was 100%, then it should be renamed to Master Minders instead. :)

 

But you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.

[Guest Jlall]

The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked.

lol, they teach this to 5 year olds. I didn't know any adult actually believed it. Questions can be stupid if:

 

1) the answer is obvious if you use basic logic

2) the question has already been answered and can be found easily

3) the question has no relevance to the topic at hand

 

etc, etc etc.

 

 

...These, to me at least, are perfectly reasonable questions from someone who does not have the opportunities to play at the same level as you do. 

 

 

What level you play at has nothing to do with alerting. If anything the alert procedures are violated the most at the top level because people don't care about some silly procedure when everyone knows whats going on and bridge is being played. I already answered your question as to whether or not 5D should be alerted, do you still not get it? Reread my last post. If you are simply trying to get an honest answer, you got it.

 

 

I also think you are mistaken about 5D being unanimous in a Master Solvers bidding panel.  If it was 100%, then it should be renamed to Master Minders instead.  :)

 

But you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.

 

Yes but some opinions are wrong. That is the point of a message board where you discuss things, to figure out which opinion is right, or more right.

[bid_em_up]

 

I also think you are mistaken about 5D being unanimous in a Master Solvers bidding panel.  If it was 100%, then it should be renamed to Master Minders instead.  :)

 

But you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.

 

Yes but some opinions are wrong. That is the point of a message board where you discuss things, to figure out which opinion is right, or more right.

You know, originally I was going to write,

 

"But you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be, just as I am entitled to mine."

 

But then I thought better of it and tried to let it go with a simple statement. But that couldn't satisfy you.

 

Just because you think you are right and I am wrong, does not make it so. In this case, I am as equally certain that I am correct in 5D is a bad bid as you are that it is the correct bid. So we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Guest Jlall]

So we will just have to agree to disagree.

ok

[cherdano]

 

I also think you are mistaken about 5D being unanimous in a Master Solvers bidding panel.  If it was 100%, then it should be renamed to Master Minders instead.  :)

 

But you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.

 

Yes but some opinions are wrong. That is the point of a message board where you discuss things, to figure out which opinion is right, or more right.

You know, originally I was going to write,

 

"But you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be, just as I am entitled to mine."

 

But then I thought better of it and tried to let it go with a simple statement. But that couldn't satisfy you.

 

Just because you think you are right and I am wrong, does not make it so. In this case, I am as equally certain that I am correct in 5D is a bad bid as you are that it is the correct bid. So we will just have to agree to disagree.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but when ALL of the good or better players in this forum, including a few world class players, agree on this bid, and one of them claims this would be 100% unanimous in MSC, then maybe it should cause you to rethink your opinion (and there is also little point in discussing this further when pretty much everybody has already given his opinion and you don't bring up new issues).

 

Regarding your alert question, you are simply misunderstanding what alerts are to be used for. If you need to know s.th. about opponent's style, it is your responsibility to ask. You can't assume that opponent's would make a natural bid on the same set of hands as you, and you can't assume that they will alert whenever they bid it with some hands that you would not expect. On the same grounds they could expect you to alert when you bid 5♦ only when you have almost a make in your hand.

 

 

(Of course in real life most opponents you find in a club will have no idea on which kind of hands partner would bid 5♦.)

[foo]

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.

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.

[foo]

... 5D here is a bad bid ...

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

 

LOL

[bid_em_up]

... 5D here is a bad bid ...

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

 

LOL

The original name was "bid_em_up_pard". It was too long for a BBO handle.

 

It also meant that partners never were bidding their cards to their fullest potential on the site it was originally derived on. :)

 

It really had nothing to do with my own personal bidding philosophy.

[keylime]

I couldn't in good faith, go back to my teammates and hear -16 because I didn't suck it up and bid 5♦. Pard will not hang me for bidding here unless he/she has a pretty good hand to try slam on (and should be aware of LHO's 4M tendencies).

[foo]

I couldn't in good faith, go back to my teammates and hear -16 because I didn't suck it up and bid 5♦. Pard will not hang me for bidding here unless he/she has a pretty good hand to try slam on (and should be aware of LHO's 4M tendencies).

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.

[awm]

I'll agree with the many 5♦ bidders.

 

One point people seem to be neglecting is that the 5♦ bid doesn't have to be right for it to work. After I bid 5♦, opponents will also be put to a guess. In particular:

 

(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.

 

(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).

 

The passers insist that "partner is still there" but keep in mind that we have zero hearts. It is quite likely that partner has some hearts. The more hearts partner has, the less likely it is that we will see partner balancing even holding some values. The auction so far suggests that we have 11 points and zero hearts and RHO has something like 5-9 points and 7-8 hearts. So it would be quite unsurprising to find partner with the expected 9-13 points and 2-3 hearts, which is a hand that's going to pass 4♥ out. Assuming partner's hand approximately meets the expected strength (and not a lot of the values are in hearts) odds of our making 5♦ seem to be pretty good.

 

It would be interesting to look at a sample set of hands (although perhaps difficult because it will depend on your parameters for a 4♥ opening). But keep in mind that even if bidding 5♦ is a small expected negative on a double-dummy basis, real life opponents will probably "do the wrong thing" enough to make the bid work well in practice.

 

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.

[Guest Jlall]

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.

huh? I'm just saying you are biased. This is factual. I am also biased. I am not saying that you shouldn't do your simulation, I'm just saying that you are in fact biased. I'm sure you will not conciously skew the results, but your bias may cause you to do this. I did not mean it as an attack, I just consider it a fact of life that everyone has biases.

[mike777]

To attempt a summary:

1) Reasons to bid are we may make a double game swing or they may forget to double if we are going down.

2) Reasons not to bid, they may misplace key cards or overbid themselves. Going for 1100 vs 420 on bd 2 may be discouraging to partner for the rest of the bds, partner is flesh and blood not a robot. If we bid with a bad hand or borderline bad hand partner may make the final poor bid. Don't press and begin forcing the issue simply because you are holding borderline or bad cards. Be patient.

 

BTW I note every decent partner I emailed this problem to bid 5D! I passed. :)

[the hog]

This has been a most interesting and entertaing thread. While I would still bid 5D, I now think that bid is not nearly as obvious as I originally thought. I think by far the most telling arguments in favour of that bid are presented in Adam's post above.

[mikegill]

Guess I was late to the party here. 5♦, and it's really not close. adam summed it up very well. Passing hands like this will make life far too easy for your opponents. Partner just isn't going to be able to find a bid. Stretch to bid when you are short in the opponents' suit, particularly when you are void.

[foo]

I'll agree with the many 5♦ bidders.

 

It would be interesting to look at a sample set of hands (although perhaps difficult because it will depend on your parameters for a 4♥ opening). But keep in mind that even if bidding 5♦ is a small expected negative on a double-dummy basis, real life opponents will probably "do the wrong thing" enough to make the bid work well in practice.

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.

[mikeh]

THE BIG LOSE WHEN BIDDING 5D WITH OUR HAND IS THAT WE RATE TO HAVE A S CONTRACT THAT IS BETTER.

 

I find it interesting that you need to shout about this 'finding'.

 

I have not bothered to do a simulation on this, primarily becaue of the problematic constraints for the 4♥ bid and the subjective element of deciding what the other two players would do.

 

I find the suggeston that a ♠ contract will be 'better' to be virtually content-free.

 

It becomes meaningful only once you cater to the following factors:

 

1. Will partner actually reopen with 4♠ on all of the relevant hands, or will he, due to ♥ length (amongst other factors) decide to defend? This is an impossible question to answer objectively when you already 'know' all the other hands involved.

 

2. What will the big ♦ hand do if partner reopens 4♠? I defy any pair to both reach and stop in 4♠. The big ♦ hand will drive to slam. So, if 4♠ makes but both 5♦ and 5 or 6♠ fail, at approximately the same cost, then 5♦ will be as good as any reachable spade contract (except when partner raises to a worse ♦ slam)

 

3. I hope you are factoring in hands on which 5♦ is better than pass when partner cannot reopen, as well as hands on which 5♦ pushes the opps to an unmakeable 5♥, when 4♥ was making

 

4. Factor in hands on which 6♦ makes and partner cannot reopen

 

And so on: simply put, no matter how careful you are in setting constraints, your analysis will have to be incredibly detailed to be worth anything at all...and even then, I strongly suspect....heck, having done many simulations, I KNOW... that your results will be unique to you.... no two good players will agree with all of your choices of action if you have a sample large enough to be meaningful. And I doubt that anyone would or should just accept the 'results' of your analysis without a posting of all of your hands.

 

This is NOT a knock on you or your integrity. It reflects that, imo, this is a very, very poor situation for any simulation.

[jdonn]

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.

Frankly Foo, the "logic" and "analysis" you posted in this thread is based on completely faulty assumptions, and used to reach conclusions that would not follow even if given your assumptions (MikeH's post is an excellent example of an instance of this, that just because 4♠ may be the right contract is not a point in favor of pass since it would be an impossible contract to reach anyway). I didn't do a point by point breakdown of any of your analyses for two reasons. One is that you never change your mind about anything despite overwhelming contrary evidence, so it would be a fruitless effort. The other is that frankly it would be impossible for me to do so accurately without coming across as extremely rude.

 

You say things like how your primary goal is just to get better, yet ignore better players and never let them convince you that you may have been wrong about something. I'm both as stubborn and as confident as they come, but on a number of occasions I have openly admitted that either I was wrong or that someone on the forums changed my initial view about something. And I have played and seen more hands of bridge over the last 5 years than probably almost any person who posts here but Justin.

 

It is not irrelevant that a majority of all players and an overwhelming majority of the best and most experienced players here feel bidding 5♦ is right. Those opinions are based on personal experience (the only accurate way to guage a situation like this), and I will take a large group of those experiences over a 2 day simulation that you perform any day of the week.

[han]

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.

If you are as literate with simple probabilities as you are with computer programming then you must have noticed that these claims are way off. A simple computation shows that partner is more than 6 times as likely (45/7) to be 2-2 in the red suits than 3-0.

 

I'm not going to check the rest of your numbers.