must I pass ?

[jillybean]

Dealer: West Vul: None Scoring: MP ♠ T4 ♥ AK ♦ K876542 ♣ T5

 

West North East South

 

 Pass  Pass  Pass  ?

[TylerE]

I see very few ways to go plus and lots of ways to go minus.

[the hog]

You don't have to pass Kathryn. However given the paucity of Spades in your hand, I would.

[inquiry]

If you follow Pearson Points, then you "have to pass". However, I have a funny rule, with an opening hand you should open. Yes, novel idea, but it works for me.

[CSGibson]

I'd pass unless I was playing against a pair that is very weak. If I open, it will be 2 diamonds, not one.

[pclayton]

No way I'd pass in a weak or even average game. This hand has some offensive strength and I dont want to negate our advantage on offense or defense with a passout.

[neilkaz]

50/50 for me if PD opens aggressively, but if PD's openings are a bit old fashioned and he routinely passes average 12 counts, this may be your hand as you may miss 3NT or possibly 5♦.

 

By opening you are often committing yourself to the 3♦ level. Playing with the average "adv" :blink: pickup in MBC I'd open.

 

Playing with PD's who open aggressively, I doubt I'm missing much and flip a coin, but if playing vs opps who are cautious openers, this is a clear passout, IMHO.

[whereagles]

If you can open 2♦ as "weak", this is a good hand for it.

[hotShot]

I miss the "Yes, because it's smart" option.

 

You know a lot about the hands that passed. They share 30 HCP and nobody has more than 11, which means nobody has less than 8 HCP. So your partnerships combined strength is 18 to 21 HCP.

Usually passing will be good with 18 and 19 combined HCP and usually it won't be bad to pass with 20.

 

Nobody had a weak 2 opening so they might be semibalanced.

 

Of the missing 13 honor cards only 6(7) cards are probably useful to you ( ♠AK, ♣AK, ♦AQ(J) ) on average your partner will hold 2 of them.

Combine that with your 6 loser and you may be able to make 3♦.

Unfortunately you only have 2 defense tricks and your partner has about the same. This means that your opps are likely to be able to make a 2 or 3 level contract as well.

 

If you pass now, you score 0.

If you go down or allow opps to find their fit (they might not open with 10 and a 5-card major, but they will surely overcall) and make, you'll get a negative (bad) score.

Only if you make or opps go down, you can improve the 0 score by getting a + score. The chance for that is clearly less than 50%.

 

So your 6 loser, 2 defense trick, weak 7 card minor hand with 10 HCP won't get you a plus score most of the time, so take the 0 and move to the next board.

[Mbodell]

Strongly disagree with hotShot. This is a clear open.

 

I just ran a 250 hand double dummy simulation giving the other 3 players hands I'd pass 1st seat nv (slight distortion since partner is possibly slightly stronger than this and RHO would open some of these passes - but that's the filtering function I had easily available and also should bias slightly against opening).

 

On average we expect to make 8.976 tricks with diamonds as trump. 2♦, what I'd bid, makes 89.6% of the time.

 

The average par score across all the boards is 51.56 and we get a positive par score on 65.6% of the boards. About 8% of my hands had a par score below 2♦, but even if all of those boards were small + for us that become - we are still getting a positive score on nearly 6 in 10 boards.

 

I think if anything the double dummy solving is slightly biased against opening because by getting the first word in we are in a much better position than our opponents.

 

So in conclusion do not pass this board.

[NickRW]

Only if you make or opps go down, you can improve the 0 score by getting a + score. The chance for that is clearly less than 50%.

I'm not sure that "this is clearly less than 50%".

 

It would seem probable that opps will be able to compete in a major. However, there are reasonable chances that you will be able to reel in 9 tricks in diamonds. I'd say that the chances for a plus are better than 50%. Your chances are probably a little better if your system allows a weak 2♦ - some weaker opps won't overcall it and some stronger ones will (sometimes) get in a twist trying to find which strain they have a fit in.

 

The advice above about waiting for spades when you have a relatively borderline decision is generally good. I am not sure this is a case to worry about the spades given the length of your suit.

 

I used to know one old boy, who was a bit of a maverick at the table, that would have opened it 3♦ and looked first seat directly in the face as if to say, "Feeling lucky?" He usually made a plus himself or collected one when someone did indeed, "feel lucky".

 

Nick

[the hog]

Kathryn,

Most posters have not yet said why it is not correct to open this hand. As two good players, Ben and Phil, would open 1D, here is why I feel it is clearly incorrect. (Though Phil does qualify his statement).

 

Ben refers to Pearson points. This means you take your HCP and add the number of spades; if the total is less than 15, you don't open. On this hand the Pearson, or casino count as it is often called, is 12, significantly less than 15.

 

You have 2 Spades and a 10 count. The points are likely divided equally around the table. Unless your pd has a 5 card Spade suit, the opponents will be able to outbid you. The chances of him having 5S is less than 50% and even then you would only have a 7 card fit. It would be better for him to have 6 Spades so you have an 8 card fit.

 

Sure you may make 2/3 or whatever ds, but the chances are reasonable that the opps can make 2 spades or so.

 

So Mbodell's comment that "This is a clear open" (sic) is not correct at all. In fact the exact opposite is the truth. Playing against weak players you might try 2D - whatever that means in your system. Playing against anyone decent, this is a clear pass. You would not be overly surpised to find them playing and making 2 of a Major. After all, bridge is played with 4 players and not 2.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

First of all try to decide, if you want to open, or

if you want to pass.

The laws dont require a pass from you.

 

If you can open 2D, than go ahead, open this hand.

If you cant, well pass is certainly the percentage

action, you wont get the contract below 3D,

... hence if you still want to open, open 3D, the

main problem with this opening bid is, the suit quality

is too weak.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hotShot]

Strongly disagree with hotShot.  This is a clear open.

 

I just ran a 250 hand double dummy simulation giving the other 3 players hands I'd pass 1st seat nv (slight distortion since partner is possibly slightly stronger than this and RHO would open some of these passes - but that's the filtering function I had easily available and also should bias slightly against opening).

 

On average we expect to make 8.976 tricks with diamonds as trump.  2♦, what I'd bid, makes 89.6% of the time. 

 

Seems that we agree up to here, that 3♦ may make. Thank you for the percentage, it's about what I expected.

I than stated that opps are likely to bid and make 2-3M, given the defensive tricks available in the combined hands.

 

The average par score across all the boards is 51.56

Since you did not write % behind that number it means that the average score is "non vul down 1 by opps", and that scoring more than 50 is required to get an above average score. Your simulation indicates that the defensive power of the hands is about one trick bigger than I expected and that opps usually can't make 3M.

 

So this hand seems to work well, if opened weak.

[ArtK78]

I would pass, as most players that I play with are not timid about opening, especially with major suits.

 

So, if partner does not have an opening hand, why am I opening the bidding on a hand that is average in high card strength and has a seven card minor suit to the K? Do I really expect to make 9 tricks in diamonds? If I open the hand at all, I am opening 2♦ - not 3♦, as that shows a better playing hand than this. Even a 2♦ bid overstates the strength of my suit (the seventh diamond compensates for the lack of honor cards in the suit). A 2♦ bid in fourth seat is not weak (at least, not the way I play it). It shows an opening hand that would rebid diamonds over any response. I don't think this is an opening hand.

 

I expect that my opponents may be making 8 or more tricks in a major suit. It is unlikely that if I open 2♦ that this will end the auction. So, it is right to open only when we make at least 9 tricks in diamonds.

 

Opening could be the winning call, but I don't like it. I have seen hands on which the opponents have a major suit game when I have this kind of hand in 4th seat.

[BillHiggin]

I think it important to point out to B/I players in general (perhaps not to Kathryn specifically) that preempts in the passout seat are never real weak. Whether you open a weak 2 or a 3 level preempt in 4th seat, you are sending the message "I expect to make over 60% of the time if you have about 9-10 HCP". If you did not have at least that much expectation of a plus score, you would simply settle for the no-score option that is available.

 

The flatness of this hand and the poor quality of the diamond suit probably make a 3♦ call too risky, but partner will not be particularily mislead about the strength. A 2♦ call will force them to enter the auction at the two level with hands that they were not comfortable bidding at the one level. No guarantees, but probably worth it on this hand.

[jillybean]

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...rname=jillybean

 

Funny board, only 3 pairs passed this hand out. Feeling frisky I decided to open 3♦ and managed to get away with it. I didnt think this was a smart bid, hence the post. Playing in a "serious" game I think I would pass but maybe thats not smart either, who knows.

[jtfanclub]

On average we expect to make 8.976 tricks with diamonds as trump. 2♦, what I'd bid, makes 89.6% of the time.

In those 250 times, see how many tricks it makes in the opponent's better major, because there's no way in hell they're passing out 2♦. Not unless your partner's the most conservative bidder on the planet. One of your opponents is going to have the points and shape to make a call the second time around.

 

So forget 2♦. You make 3♦ just under 50% of the time, if it's a bell curve. So if they make 2 of a major, opening this is a loser. Unless your opponents are especially foolish, of course.

[keylime]

I open 2D in passout, intermediate and natural. I think passing on this hand is a losing item.

[hotShot]

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...rname=jillybean

 

Funny board, only 3 pairs passed this hand out. Feeling frisky I decided to open 3♦ and managed to get away with it. I didnt think this was a smart bid, hence the post. Playing in a "serious" game I think I would pass but maybe thats not smart either, who knows.

Those who open should take a close look at this traveler,

opps make 3♥. Fortunately they can only make 2♠

It seems to be from a BBO tourney where very aggressive bidding is common.

[pclayton]

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...rname=jillybean

 

Funny board, only 3 pairs passed this hand out. Feeling frisky I decided to open 3♦ and managed to get away with it. I didnt think this was a smart bid, hence the post. Playing in a "serious" game I think I would pass but maybe thats not smart either, who knows.

This is a nice little case study to look at.

 

Also look at the frequency of times your RHO opens (13 out of 47 by my count) the bidding with xxx QJxx Ax Axxx in 3rd seat and what happens. Frequently they were in 3♥ or 3♠ making.

 

Compare a 3♦ opening with a 1♦ or 2♦ call. So many times the opponents competed successfully. 3♦ bought the pot more often than not.

[pclayton]

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...rname=jillybean

 

Funny board, only 3 pairs passed this hand out. Feeling frisky I decided to open 3♦ and managed to get away with it. I didnt think this was a smart bid, hence the post. Playing in a "serious" game I think I would pass but maybe thats not smart either, who knows.

Those who open should take a close look at this traveler,

opps make 3♥. Fortunately they can only make 2♠

It seems to be from a BBO tourney where very aggressive bidding is common.

Who should take a call over 3♦?

 

I can understand a balance with the North hand over 2, but not 3.

[jocdelevat]

east had 11hcp in third seat. i suppose thats why the hand was not pass out for most of the tables.

I saw there some funy openings too like with east hand open 1s with 3 cards. Does 3c transfer to diamonds realy exist? I never heard. I saw 2 or more tables open 3c and alert diamonds. Whats the advantge.

[Mbodell]

On average we expect to make 8.976 tricks with diamonds as trump.  2♦, what I'd bid, makes 89.6% of the time.

In those 250 times, see how many tricks it makes in the opponent's better major, because there's no way in hell they're passing out 2♦. Not unless your partner's the most conservative bidder on the planet. One of your opponents is going to have the points and shape to make a call the second time around.

 

So forget 2♦. You make 3♦ just under 50% of the time, if it's a bell curve. So if they make 2 of a major, opening this is a loser. Unless your opponents are especially foolish, of course.

Do people not understand what a par score is? Multiple people discussed only part of the data from my simulation but really I think the data is pretty compelling. And this isn't surprising given what inquiry has written in the past about the flaws of Pearson points. I ran 5000 hand double dummy overnight and the results are the same within 1% and we have a positive score (>0) on the board 65% of the time. That means we can take more tricks then the opponents most of the time. Sometimes it is 3d>2M, sometimes we make 2nt>2M, and sometimes the opponents can't even make 2M.

 

At matchpoints if we pass we get a score of 0. If we don't pass and the par result is obtained (I.e., everybody bids knowing all the double dummy results) we get a positive score 65% of the time. A large percentage of our positive games are either in diamonds or NT with diamonds running. Our getting to make the first statement of bidding diamonds is a winning action.

 

Anyone who claims that we should pass this has to have a justification about how much worse a position we will be than our opponents at finding the par score when we get to bid first, because if it is just about finding the par score we win. I think a 2♦ bid here is clear. It is a slight overbid in my system as it should be promising 7 tricks even opposite a terrible misfitting hand.

 

We have a partner and some of the time the opponents will bid 2M. Some of a time this M will be their best strain. Some of the time we will set them. Some of the time our partner will bid 2nt or 3nt and we'll make. Some of the time our partner will bid 3♦. Over all, many more good things than bad will occur when we open 2♦.

 

If people want to make claims about what kind of hands overcall our 2♦ and what moves our partner makes I can simulate the auction from here, but I maintain that we are in a better position, with respect to par contracts, than our opponents when we bid first. And the par contracts favor us significantly. In fact the actual hand linked in looks to be a case where this would be in the minority where the par result is against us and hence would be in the ~35% of my hands where I'd say pass was the winning option but yet again bidding would be the winning option because EW can't find the par result. From looking at travelers it looks like par result is 4dN/SX-1 bid as a sac against 3HE/W which makes, but almost no EW found the hearts and instead found spades which doesn't make or sold out to 3 diamonds which does make.

 

I'm not surprised pass out got a score in the ~30% range on this hand.

[mikeh]

I'm not convinced that simulations are much help in trying to estimate likely outcomes in a mp field for various options, because one thing we 'know' is that one or two or all three of the other players have hands on which their earlier or second round decisions will vary, often widely, across a mp field. And any simulation involves the simulator rejecting or accepting hands, for inclusion in the study, based upon his or her view of the degree of probability of any such action. Allowing for the best efforts imaginable, such a simulation will be greatly subject to the simulator's constraints filter, which, in turn, will be idiosyncratic.

 

Personally, this is a 2♦ opening for me, but a borderline one. 3♦ shows an entirely different hand.. it is highly invitational to 3N, from my pov. I would expect 7 good diamonds (AKJxxxx or the like) and an outside card.. i.e. a full opening short in the majors.

 

2♦ shows, for me, a hand of about 10-13 hcp with 6 chunky diamonds... here, the suit is weak but the 7th card makes up for it.

 

My entirely subjective, non-scientific rating is: 2♦ 100, pass 80, 1♦ 60, 3♦ 50.

 

I like 1♦ less than pass because there is too much risk of us being outbid after 1♦. The main problems with 3♦ are that it may be too high, when partner has the 4=4=1=4 9 count that is consistent with the acution, and it may get us too high when he has the balanced 9 count with the diamond Q or J that warrants 3N by him.