How far do you go to cater to a penalty pass?

[TimG]

There are problems doing objective sims of contested auctions that are realistic, but I'll see what can be done on that front.

I agree, it will be difficult to set the constraints for responder's pass.

[TimG]

FTR, I do not like passing.  I just hate it less than either

=making such an off shape takeout X (unless you play X is Penalty here) or

=making a 3H invitational bid when We do not rate to have 3+ level safety.  I certainly do not want to end up in 4H if Advancer has the expected flat boring 12 count with something like 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s.

A 3♥ invitational bid? Who said 3♥ was invitational? It is a balancing call. Sure, it shows some values, but partner knows that the 3♥ call is a balance, so it could be based on very minimal values - certainly far less than a 3♥ call in direct seat.

 

If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts, partner is not a bridge player.

Even more so because it is hearts (over a spade opening). I would expect 2S-P-P-3H to have a narrower range than 2S-P-P-3C.

[foo]

FTR, I do not like passing.  I just hate it less than either

=making such an off shape takeout X (unless you play X is Penalty here) or

=making a 3H invitational bid when We do not rate to have 3+ level safety.  I certainly do not want to end up in 4H if Advancer has the expected flat boring 12 count with something like 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s.

A 3♥ invitational bid? Who said 3♥ was invitational? It is a balancing call. Sure, it shows some values, but partner knows that the 3♥ call is a balance, so it could be based on very minimal values - certainly far less than a 3♥ call in direct seat.

 

If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts, partner is not a bridge player.

So what is Balancer to do with a full, yet minimum, opening bid? Bid 4H all by themselves?! X and then bid ♥'s ?! Of course not. They bid 3H.

 

It is the oldest adage in Bridge that an opening bid opposite an opening bid belongs in game.

 

If direct seat Advancer has a full opening bid, they are supposed to bid a game if we bid 3H:

=3N with 4+S containing a stop & only 2 H's.

=4H with 3+H

=4H with only 2 H's but no ♠ stop (xxx or xxxx of ♠'s means We may be playing with a 3 suited deck from our PoV. The nasty is if Advancer has wasted ♠ values but not a stop.)

 

But Advancer certainly should not be passing 3H while holding a full opening bid under most conditions.

[mikeh]

Despite the 6 card H suit, this looks like a defensive hand in this auction.

 

Let me see... we have a stiff in their suit. Our longest suit is headed by the jack. We have two side cards, and they are Aces... and you think that this looks like a defensive hand?

 

We live in different universes.

 

I agree, virtually verbatim, with the sentiments expressed by Frances.

 

3♥ may indeed lead to a poor result, whether that is 3 or 4♥ failing, or partner bidding 3N over our 3♥. Bidding is an imperfect science. So what? The issue is a blend of frequency and magnitude. 35 years of experience suggests to me that 3♥, flawed as it is, represents the best chance of a decent result.

 

I suspect that a simulation would be problematic... not only do we have to account for 3rd seat's tendencies, but also opener's views of what a 1st seat weak 2 looks like, and, of course, what partner will do over any of our actions... and we all 'know' the hand, so it would be difficult to be objective. And this is a situation in which double-dummy analyses would be particularly unhelpful.... it's not what 'should' happen that counts, but what 'would' happen. I do, however, strongly suspect that Frances is correct in saying that such a simulation would say that SOME action is preferable to pass.

 

Finally, if I passed that hand out, some of my partners would insist on checking me for a pulse :P

[foo]

Fine. I'll change my vote to X.

 

This is a less deep position than 3H IMHO and a less deep position than pass in other people's opinion.

 

And FTR, while having a stiff in Their suit and a 6 card suit is nice, it's the nasty of having 8/9 of my points be A's in my short suits that drives the ODR of the given hand into the floor.

 

At least according to my understanding of what Robson and Segal had to say on the subject.

[MarkDean]

FTR, I do not like passing.  I just hate it less than either

=making such an off shape takeout X (unless you play X is Penalty here) or

=making a 3H invitational bid when We do not rate to have 3+ level safety.  I certainly do not want to end up in 4H if Advancer has the expected flat boring 12 count with something like 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s.

A 3♥ invitational bid? Who said 3♥ was invitational? It is a balancing call. Sure, it shows some values, but partner knows that the 3♥ call is a balance, so it could be based on very minimal values - certainly far less than a 3♥ call in direct seat.

 

If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts, partner is not a bridge player.

Wow, not a bridge player, really?

[foo]

FTR, I do not like passing.  I just hate it less than either

=making such an off shape takeout X (unless you play X is Penalty here) or

=making a 3H invitational bid when We do not rate to have 3+ level safety.  I certainly do not want to end up in 4H if Advancer has the expected flat boring 12 count with something like 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s.

A 3♥ invitational bid? Who said 3♥ was invitational? It is a balancing call. Sure, it shows some values, but partner knows that the 3♥ call is a balance, so it could be based on very minimal values - certainly far less than a 3♥ call in direct seat.

 

If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s, partner is not a bridge player.

Wow, not a bridge player, really?

Yes, evidently no "real" bridge player would raise (2S)-pa-pa-3H;pa-?? to 4H with any of the following:

 

xxxx_Ax_(KQx_Kxxx)

 

xxxx_Ax_(Kxx_KQxx)

 

Jxxx_Kx_(KQx_Kxxx)

 

Jxxx_Kx_(Kxx_KQxx)

 

Jxxx_Qx_(KJx_KQxx)

 

Jxxx_Qx_(KQx_KJxx)

 

Here are 12 =crappy= 12 counts that have play for 4H opposite even the given 9 HCP hand. I have admittedly cheated by putting cards exactly where they will do the most good or the least harm. Most 12 counts will not have their values so perfectly placed.

 

But Advancer does not know that you've balanced on a low ODR 9 count with a bad suit.

 

With the average 12 count, Advancer should be even more willing to raise 3H to 4H than they are with any of the above. I know I will be raising 3H to 4H with any 12+ hand with 2+♥ that I can envision having 50+ % chances (34+ % Red @ IMPs) of making 4H but less odds on making 3N. I like bidding my games and slams.

 

...but then, according to ArtK78, my actions are not those of a bridge player. :)

[han]

Gotta agree with Art there.

[TimG]

Yes, evidently no "real" bridge player would raise (2S)-pa-pa-3H;pa-?? to 4H with any of the following:

 

xxxx_Ax_(KQx_Kxxx)

 

xxxx_Ax_(Kxx_KQxx)

 

Jxxx_Kx_(KQx_Kxxx)

 

Jxxx_Kx_(Kxx_KQxx)

 

Jxxx_Qx_(KJx_KQxx)

 

Jxxx_Qx_(KQx_KJxx)

 

Here are 12 =crappy= 12 counts that have play for 4H opposite even the given 9 HCP hand.

Are you seriously suggesting that on this auction xxxx Ax KQx Kxxx is a "crappy" 12 count?

 

Any 12-count that has 4 small spades should probably be elevated from "crappy" status given the auction. Don't you think?

[Finch]

EDIT: BTW, Frances- if in 2/3 of the scenarios you think you should X, you should want to X instead of bidding 3H?

Only if all the scenarios are equally likely.

[ArtK78]

Apparently my definition of a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts differs somewhat from foo's definition.

 

How about this one:

 

KJxx xx QJxx KQx

 

Here you are off 4 tops and probably one off the bottom.

 

Or this one:

 

QJxx xx KJx KQxx

 

Again, 4 off the top and no assurance that you won't lose another one.

 

And the list goes on....

 

By the way, if partner has one of these flat, boring 12 counts, 2♠x may or may not make (depends on how many of your tricks can cash) and 3 of your 4-3 minor suit fit doesn't look that great, either.

[rogerclee]

Apparently my definition of a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts differs somewhat from foo's definition.

 

How about this one:

 

KJxx xx QJxx KQx

 

Here you are off 4 tops and probably one off the bottom.

 

Or this one:

 

QJxx xx KJx KQxx

 

Again, 4 off the top and no assurance that you won't lose another one.

 

And the list goes on....

 

By the way, if partner has one of these flat, boring 12 counts, 2♠x may or may not make (depends on how many of your tricks can cash) and 3 of your 4-3 minor suit fit doesn't look that great, either.

Art I will admit that no bridge player would bid 4♥ on these two hands if you admit that no bridge player would pass on them.

[foo]

Yes, evidently no "real" bridge player would raise  (2S)-pa-pa-3H;pa-??  to 4H with any of the following:

 

xxxx_Ax_(KQx_Kxxx)

 

xxxx_Ax_(Kxx_KQxx) 

 

Jxxx_Kx_(KQx_Kxxx)

 

Jxxx_Kx_(Kxx_KQxx)

 

Jxxx_Qx_(KJx_KQxx)

 

Jxxx_Qx_(KQx_KJxx)

 

Here are 12 =crappy= 12 counts that have play for 4H opposite even the given 9 HCP hand.

Are you seriously suggesting that on this auction xxxx Ax KQx Kxxx is a "crappy" 12 count?

 

Any 12-count that has 4 small spades should probably be elevated from "crappy" status given the auction. Don't you think?

Please remember that the exact issue I was responding to was

 

If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥s (in this auction), partner is not a bridge player.

So I provided hands with average or less than average controls that fit the required definition.

[foo]

Apparently my definition of a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts differs somewhat from foo's definition.

 

How about this one:

 

KJxx xx QJxx KQx

 

Here you are off 4 tops and probably one off the bottom.

 

Or this one:

 

QJxx xx KJx KQxx

 

Again, 4 off the top and no assurance that you won't lose another one.

 

And the list goes on....

 

By the way, if partner has one of these flat, boring 12 counts, 2♠x may or may not make (depends on how many of your tricks can cash) and 3 of your 4-3 minor suit fit doesn't look that great, either.

These rate not to make much opposite the 9 count that this thread is about.

 

Opposite an Opening bid with 5+♥ in it, they both look like decent hands for declaring 3N on this board.

 

Now, how good are you at being able to tell, via some method legal within bridge, which kind of hand it is that Balancer has?

 

If you can't Advance 3H to 3N with these, you are going to miss a lot of games.

[CSGibson]

General observation: Every time foo answers a thread, it gets hijacked to a example-counter example argument, foo vs everyone, with neither side ever giving any ground.

 

Can we all just agree not to argue with foo, as regular posters already know that he is not to be taken seriously as a bridge authority? I call for a cone of silence around foo!

[Trysalot]

I would bid 3 hearts. In balance seat I am not promising good texture. So despite the ugliness of the suit I would bid it rather than pass 2 spades.

[the hog]

Either 3H or double could be correct. I think 3H is the winner in the long term. Not pass.

[foo]

General observation:  Every time foo answers a thread, it gets hijacked to a example-counter example argument, foo vs everyone, with neither side ever giving any ground. 

 

Can we all just agree not to argue with foo, as regular posters already know that he is not to be taken seriously as a bridge authority?  I call for a cone of silence around foo!

1= Your 1st statement is not true. In any particular.

 

a= Discussion, even debate, and examples germane to the topic under discussion are not "hi-jacking". Such discussion is what these forums are for. I wish those discussions did not get as heated as they do occasionally, but debates sometimes do that.

 

b= While I am often in the minority opinion, I am rarely the only person to hold an opinion I post.

 

c= I have shown more flexibility in changing my mind when presented with convincing enough argument or evidence, as seen even in this very thread, than most on this site.

 

 

2= This is a site for discussing bridge. Not personal vendettas.

 

a= Discussions of bridge issues are supposed to be based strictly on bridge merits. Not on Argument From Authority, Ad Hominem attacks, or any other logical fallacy.

 

b= last I checked, you were not one of the people whose job it is to police these forums. It is inappropriate for you or anyone else who is not in that group to act as if they are part of that group.

 

You've got a problem, you PM me privately if you think you can discuss it like an adult. If you don't think you can manage that, then please talk to one of the people whose job it is to police the site and have them speak to me.

 

But please refrain from public personal attacks or calls for such or other such inappropriate behavior.

[MarkDean]

Apparently my definition of a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts differs somewhat from foo's definition.

 

How about this one:

 

KJxx xx QJxx KQx

 

Here you are off 4 tops and probably one off the bottom.

 

Or this one:

 

QJxx xx KJx KQxx

 

Again, 4 off the top and no assurance that you won't lose another one.

 

And the list goes on....

 

By the way, if partner has one of these flat, boring 12 counts, 2♠x may or may not make (depends on how many of your tricks can cash) and 3 of your 4-3 minor suit fit doesn't look that great, either.

I am a bit confused by your argument. Are you saying we should bid 3♥ on the hand in question in part because partner will not hang up by bidding game with 42(34) 12 counts, and the reason partner will not do that is that because those hands will not make game opposite the hand in question?

 

Would you not bid 3♥ with x KJT9xx Axx Axx? Would you want partner to give you the bump with Qxxx Qx KJx KJxx? I gave you some spade wastage and no aces, still game is pretty darn good.

[TimG]

c= I have shown more flexibility in changing my mind when presented with convincing enough argument or evidence, as seen even in this very thread, than most on this site.

Maybe this is because you are wrong more often than most! <BIG smiley>

[ArtK78]

Apparently my definition of a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts differs somewhat from foo's definition.

 

How about this one:

 

KJxx xx QJxx KQx

 

Here you are off 4 tops and probably one off the bottom.

 

Or this one:

 

QJxx xx KJx KQxx

 

Again, 4 off the top and no assurance that you won't lose another one.

 

And the list goes on....

 

By the way, if partner has one of these flat, boring 12 counts, 2♠x may or may not make (depends on how many of your tricks can cash) and 3 of your 4-3 minor suit fit doesn't look that great, either.

I am a bit confused by your argument. Are you saying we should bid 3♥ on the hand in question in part because partner will not hang up by bidding game with 42(34) 12 counts, and the reason partner will not do that is that because those hands will not make game opposite the hand in question?

 

Would you not bid 3♥ with x KJT9xx Axx Axx? Would you want partner to give you the bump with Qxxx Qx KJx KJxx? I gave you some spade wastage and no aces, still game is pretty darn good.

My argument is that we have bid 3♥ in balancing seat. Partner should give us some leeway and not raise to game on any hand with 12 HCP. There are 12 HCP hands and then there are 12 HCP hands. As shown in foo's examples and my examples, there are good ones and there are bad ones. Partner should be able to tell the difference.

 

Yes, we could have a better hand for the balance of 3♥, and game might make opposite a random 12 count if I had a better hand. But partner should not expect it to make opposite a random 12 count. Preempts often make life difficult. You can't get all of these hands right.

 

If partner has a good 12 count, or a better hand that was going to pass the reopening double, then he should probably bid game (not that there is any guarantee that it will make).

[cherdano]

A balanced 12 count with a double stop and two hearts will bid 3NT over our 3♥ balanced, I don't think it matters whether the 12 count is good or bad.

[ArtK78]

A balanced 12 count with a double stop and two hearts will bid 3NT over our 3♥ balanced, I don't think it matters whether the 12 count is good or bad.

Those are the risks that you take when you balance.

[mikeh]

My two bits worth on the Art-foo 'debate'

 

I opted for 3♥. I did so knowing full well that partner will often put me in an ummakeable game, or put himself in a hopeless 3N.

 

So what?

 

Since when did we start judging our choice of calls based solely or largely on the possibility that we might get a bad result?

 

We choose our calls based on our assessment of mulitple factors, including whether we may get a bad result but also including our assessments of:

 

1. the chances that alternate actions will be worse

 

2. the chances that the chosen action will generate a good result

 

3. the 'size' of the bad result that may arise, compared to the 'size' of the good alternative that may result.. this is more important, of course, in imps than in mps, where frequency of gain/loss is the critical criterion.

 

The foregoing is not to be viewed as exhaustive.

 

So, when I bid 3♥ and partner raises me to a bad game with some boring 4=2 in the majors 12 count... I give it my best shot, accept the result and take my cards from the next board, unless this was the end of the match.

 

Postulating possible hands for responder, especially with a ridiculously silly constraint such as 12 hcp 4=2 in the majors, is an utter waste of time, and, as I am sure Art knows, like waving a red flag in front of a bull... foo is always going to 'rise to the challenge', and the resulting 'debate' spirals rapidly down the rabbit hole and away from the interesting issues raised by the original post.

 

(I hereby acknowledge my own rabbit-chasing tendencies, lest anyone feel that I can a pot calling a kettle black)

[Rossoneri]

3♥ for me.