bid on?

[andrei]

all red, IMP, you hold:

 

♠Q9

♥9872

♦AT3

♣8643

 

biding goes:

 

p - 1♦ - p - 1♥

p - 2N - p - ??

[655321]

3NT

[andy_h]

They pay bonuses for games

[jdonn]

3nt wtp

[Siegmund]

pass wtp :) and be pleasantly surprised if p makes it.

 

"TP" for 3NT is that this is just about the worst hand I could possibly have had for my 1H bid - only 6HCP, not where my partner expects them to be, 2 of them possibly worth nothing at all. I would not have minded passing 1D here.

[Jlall]

pass wtp :) and be pleasantly surprised if p makes it.

 

"TP" for 3NT is that this is just about the worst hand I could possibly have had for my 1H bid - only 6HCP, not where my partner expects them to be, 2 of them possibly worth nothing at all. I would not have minded passing 1D here.

Since you are the one making the final decision, and partner has defined his hand very tightly while you have not, you should be thinking of what he has shown not what you have shown.

 

He has shown 18-19 balanced without 4 hearts and at least 4 diamonds.

 

So you have 24-25 HCP. To many, that is already game vulnerable at imps. I don't think you'd do too badly doing all 24 HCP games red at imps when the alternative is two NT (note it's a big difference than the alternative being 1NT, because you are only costing your side 3 imps some of the time that you go down rather than 7), and I think you would be doing TERRIBLY to be playing 2N with 25.

 

But on top of that, you have ATx of partner's long suit which is very positive. Your honors being in diamonds rather than hearts is a GOOD thing, not a bad one, you fit partner well and if a heart lead is the killer they're unlikely to find it. You also have the possibly useful 987 of hearts, and possibly useful S9.

 

Against that, you are not really all 24-25, because partner will probably upgrade the top 10 % of his 17s and 19s, and never downgrade, but whatever... as jdonn said they pay a game bonus :)

[nigel_k]

Prefer 1NT the first time and bid 3NT now. It probably won't make though. This would be harder nonvul I think.

[pooltuna]

Prefer 1NT the first time and bid 3NT now. It probably won't make though. This would be harder nonvul I think.

I agree with you so you'll need to put on your flak jacket not because I agreed but because you bypassed a crappy 4 card major suit.

[655321]

I agree with you so you'll need to put on your flak jacket not because I agreed but because you bypassed a crappy 4 card major suit.

This is a mama papa hand, and I don't see any need to grab the notrumps from the strong hand. Just bid your suits naturally.

[jdonn]

Pleasantly surprised if partner makes? I feel like he makes 5 or 6 on lucky breaks every time I pass the 2NT rebid.

[chasetb]

Since you are the one making the final decision, and partner has defined his hand very tightly while you have not, you should be thinking of what he has shown not what you have shown.

 

He has shown 18-19 balanced without 4 hearts and at least 4 diamonds.

 

So you have 24-25 HCP. To many, that is already game vulnerable at imps. I don't think you'd do too badly doing all 24 HCP games red at imps when the alternative is two NT (note it's a big difference than the alternative being 1NT, because you are only costing your side 3 imps some of the time that you go down rather than 7), and I think you would be doing TERRIBLY to be playing 2N with 25.

 

But on top of that, you have ATx of partner's long suit which is very positive. Your honors being in diamonds rather than hearts is a GOOD thing, not a bad one, you fit partner well and if a heart lead is the killer they're unlikely to find it. You also have the possibly useful 987 of hearts, and possibly useful S9.

 

Against that, you are not really all 24-25, because partner will probably upgrade the top 10 % of his 17s and 19s, and never downgrade, but whatever... as jdonn said they pay a game bonus ;)

I agree with you, Red at IMPs, I am hands down going to game. The price is too much for not bidding 3NT but making it. As I like to hide the stronger hand in NT, I'll ALWAYS bid 1♥ as long as the top card is an 8 or higher. While you only have 6 HCP, they are in partner's suits; I also believe there's an 8 card ♦ suit that will suit you well for that extra trick needed. So even non-vulnerable at MPs I am going for game.

[Siegmund]

Without addressing specific spots on this hand (having a sure entry with the DA is nice), my impression has been that 19-opposite-6 is a LOT less likely to make game than 13-opposite-12 or 15-opposite-10 is. Without simulating it, I'd guess that with 19 it's close to the breakeven point for a red imp game.

 

I could well be wrong - I stick to matchpoints unless someone puts a gun to my head - but I must say I was surprised to even see this question asked let alone 3NT getting so much support.

 

Do any of y'all who like going on play the 2NT jump as forcing, the way it was in the 50s, or do you all respond on so many 4-pointers you want to still bail out?

[Jlall]

Without addressing specific spots on this hand (having a sure entry with the DA is nice), my impression has been that 19-opposite-6 is a LOT less likely to make game than 13-opposite-12 or 15-opposite-10 is.

I think a LOT is a definitely overstatement, but surely it is true that the more evenly distributed the high cards the better so you have entries etc.

 

As far as simulating it, I'm not sure what would happen, but I find it hard to believe that even double dummy game is not >40 % opposite a bal 19 count with 4-5 diamonds and 2-3 hearts. Even if it was less, they will frequently make the wrong lead in real life and that will often be the decider on a thin game. This combined with the possibility that they will later misdefend is much more likely than you going down when you could have made it double dummy.

 

Also, even if it is slightly less, it could be ok because you don't have the option of playing 1N. I mean to take a very extreme scenario, if game was 25 % to make, and 75% to go down 2, and they never doubled you should bid 3N in this case. Obviously that is completely artificial, but you see my point that you gain some extra edge in bidding from that fact (and also, sometimes misdefenses/wrong leads cost 2 or 3 tricks rather than just 1, so this factor plays in, etc).

 

Basically, you don't really need that high of a double dummy percentage to go from 2N to 3N red at imps, and in close situations I would always err on that side.

 

Admittedly against my argument is the fact that LHO MAY double given that our hearts are so weak, he might have strong hearts and want to ask for that lead, which means we need a higher percentage to bid 3N than normal.

 

But IMO 24-25 highs, some useful spots, and our values reasonably well placed is definitely enough of an excuse to go.

 

Do any of y'all who like going on play the 2NT jump as forcing, the way it was in the 50s, or do you all respond on so many 4-pointers you want to still bail out?

 

There is a regular poster here, Fluffy, who likes to play 2N as forcing, and could contain some hand types other than 18-19 balanced. However that is a very uncommon treatment, at least in USA (can't speak for other countries).

 

I think the modern trend, and especially for some of those that have already posted, is to respond with less than 6 quite often. On this forum I am known for taking that possibly to an extreme, but generally I do not pass if a game is possible, meaning a hand with a 5 card major and 4 or 5 points is pretty much always a response, a hand with an ace is a response, etc. I also try very hard to respond with a stiff in partner's minor.

 

Again, I am on the extreme side, but there has definitely been a trend to respond light. If you don't include other hand types in 2N other than 18-19 balanced, there's not really any reason to play it as forcing given that that is a very tight range, and you are well placed to bid accordingly. However, if you never respond with less than 6, it might be smart to add in some other hand types to unload your jumpshifts.

[Mbodell]

Basically, you don't really need that high of a double dummy percentage to go from 2N to 3N red at imps, and in close situations I would always err on that side.

How would it change if you were playing a different system such that you could play 1nt?

 

I realize it is a bit of a different problem but my partner and I would bid this hand 1♣-1♦-1nt with partner showing 18-19 balanced and us showing 0-7 or 8+ with at most 1 control. At this point we don't know about the suit usefulness. Red at IMPs would you pass, invite, or blast? And assuming you answer invite, if you had to choose pass 1nt or blast 3nt which would you pick?

[TylerE]

Red at IMPs? Why am I still thinking? I don't really expect this to make, but on a good day it will at we're certainly getting sufficient pot odds with the punt.

[gwnn]

3NT, defenders always help a little :)

[whereagles]

Red at IMPs? Why am I still thinking?

I would say a similar thing, namely

 

Red at IMPs? Why is this a problem? B)

[Fluffy]

2NT is forcing right? :P

[bid_em_up]

I could well be wrong - I stick to matchpoints unless someone puts a gun to my head -

I think this is where your problem lies.

 

At matchpoints, passing 2N isn't that bad, and I suspect if the problem was posed as a matchpoint question, you would find a lot more support for passing 2N.

 

In IMP play, you cannot afford to miss a vulnerable game that will have any play whatsoever (some say greater than 40%). While you may not have nine legitimate tricks, you will make nine either via the opening lead or through misdefense often enough to make raising to three profitable in the long run.

 

Like most everyone else, this is an automatic raise to 3N for me.

[Jlall]

Basically, you don't really need that high of a double dummy percentage to go from 2N to 3N red at imps, and in close situations I would always err on that side.

How would it change if you were playing a different system such that you could play 1nt?

 

I realize it is a bit of a different problem but my partner and I would bid this hand 1♣-1♦-1nt with partner showing 18-19 balanced and us showing 0-7 or 8+ with at most 1 control. At this point we don't know about the suit usefulness. Red at IMPs would you pass, invite, or blast? And assuming you answer invite, if you had to choose pass 1nt or blast 3nt which would you pick?

If I could I would invite to 2N, I would expect partner accept pretty aggressively (again, he is going from 2N to 3N, so he should be accepting usually) and if he passed with 18 and no 5 bagger or 17 and a 5 bagger I don't think we're missing game too often.

 

If I had to pass 1N or bid 3N I would choose 3N.

[Siegmund]

Great discussion points in this thread, guys. Especially the bit about 3N-vs-2N requiring a lower success rate than 3N-vs-1N never crossed my mind before.

[Siegmund]

So just for kicks I fed it to a simulator this afternoon. North as posted, South 2-4 spades 2-3 hearts 4-5 diamonds 2-4 clubs, 18-19HCP. After 3000 hands (so we have ±2% confidence),

 

Lose 3 imps (7 or fewer tricks): 24%

Lose 7 imps (8 tricks): 40%

Gain 10 imps (9 or more tricks): 36%

 

... which multiplies out to an imp expectation not significantly different from zero.

 

Seems to confirm that it's a pass at matchpoints, but at worse breakeven at IMPs, and probably a small winner at 3NT against human defence.

[maggieb]

So just for kicks I fed it to a simulator this afternoon. North as posted, South 2-4 spades 2-3 hearts 4-5 diamonds 2-4 clubs, 18-19HCP. After 3000 hands (so we have ±2% confidence),

 

Lose 3 imps (7 or fewer tricks): 24%

Lose 7 imps (8 tricks): 40%

Gain 10 imps (9 or more tricks): 36%

 

... which multiplies out to an imp expectation not significantly different from zero.

 

Seems to confirm that it's a pass at matchpoints, but at worse breakeven at IMPs, and probably a small winner at 3NT against human defence.

220 is 6

[TylerE]

and probably a small winner at 3NT against human defence.

Grossly underestimating the advantage declarer has in 3NT imo. Also, you're assuming the opponents always stop in 2NT, when IMO it's more likely that they bid 3 here.

 

How about if you assume the have superior methods, and thus bid 3NT 75% of the time when it's right, and only 25% of the time when it's wrong.

 

Then the table looks more like:

 

7 Tricks (24%): 25% of 0 (0), and 75% of -3, for -2.25

8 Tricks (40%): 25% of 0 (0) and 75% of -220 (-6), for -4.5

9 Tricks (36%) 25% of +480 (10) and 75% of 0, for (0), for +2.5

 

Net: -1.44

 

If we always pass 2N then:

 

7 Tricks: 25% of +3, 75% of 0, +.75

8 Tricks: 25% of +6, 75% of 0, +1.5

9 Tricks: 25% of 0, 75% of -480 (10), -7.5

 

Net: -1.92

 

What if we assume the opps are weaker, and have a 50/50 of getting it right:

 

If we always bid 3N

 

7 Tricks: 50% of 0, and 50% of -3, -1.5

8 Tricks: 50% of 0, and 50% of -220 (6), -3

9 Tricks: 50% of +480 (10) and 50% of 0, for +5

 

Net: +0.24

 

If we always pass 2N:

 

7: 50% of 0, and 50% of +3, 1.5

8: 50% of 0, and 50% of +6, 3

9: 50% of -10, and 50% of 0, -5

 

Net: -0.24

 

If we assume the opponents are very weak, and ALWAYS get it wrong then:

 

 

Bidding 3N

 

7: 0 8: 0 9: 10 Net: 3.6

 

Passing 2N

 

7: 3 8: 6 9: -10 Net: -0.48

 

And finally, against perfect oppoents:

 

3N: 7: -3 8: -6 9: 0 Net -3.12

2N: 7: 0 8: 0 9:- 10 Net: -3.6

 

I guess the moral of this is one of two things.... either A: it's too late for me to be doing IMP math, or B: Bidding 3N is always better, and it's fairly close (but real), except against very bad opponents where it pays off a lot.

[Jlall]

So just for kicks I fed it to a simulator this afternoon. North as posted, South 2-4 spades 2-3 hearts 4-5 diamonds 2-4 clubs, 18-19HCP. After 3000 hands (so we have ±2% confidence),

 

Lose 3 imps (7 or fewer tricks): 24%

Lose 7 imps (8 tricks): 40%

Gain 10 imps (9 or more tricks): 36%

 

... which multiplies out to an imp expectation not significantly different from zero.

 

Seems to confirm that it's a pass at matchpoints, but at worse breakeven at IMPs, and probably a small winner at 3NT against human defence.

Siegmund, a couple of things:

 

One, as maggie said 8 tricks is a 6 imp loss for bidding game.

 

If you recalculate the EV, it is significantly +EV to bid now. However, your sim is probably overestimating the strength of partners hands; it includes 5422 19 counts (with 5 of the black suit) which likely would jumpshift to the black suit. Also, I think all 4252 18 counts would bid 1 or 2 spades, and some 2254 18's would bid 2C or 3C (some would bid 2N also). Not sure how you would simulate this. Also, I think some 5332 19 counts would be too strong for a 2N rebid and would open 2N.

 

So, that being said, I'm sure the EV of moving on is going down again. At the end of the day imo people underestimate declarer advantage.

 

On top of everything that has been said already, I think part of "being lucky" is putting yourself in a position to do so. If you are playing a knockout match against a pair who is constantly making every auction competitive, putting you to the test in the card play whenever possible, falsecarding frequently, doubling aggressively, bidding game aggressively, etc etc, you are going to be under constant PRESSURE, and you are just going to make mistakes. IMO I am "lucky" that my opponents make more mistakes against me than others because I am constantly putting pressure on them. That is a great meta to have going on, and it is part of winning bridge. Maybe some things are -EV in a vaccuum if my opps are going to react perfectly to it, but you know what, no opps I've ever played have reacted perfectly to constant pressure. If they are going to go low on marginally +EV things, and not test me with things that should be neutral EV but give me an opportunity to err, etc, I have a huge advantage because I will be less tired and less fried by the end of the match.

 

Sorry for that random rant, but I think it is an important part of bridge that is often overlooked, especially imp bridge.

 

Here's another thing that is overlooked. If I am playing and you make some stop in 2N making 2, I am not really demoralized. Even if I am conciously aware that that is going to be six imps out, eh whatever, 6 imps, and I didn't really do anything wrong. Similarly, if I go down in a thin game, no big deal, that is how I play and that's how the chips fall. Six isn't that much. This is how people think. However, if they happen to misdefend and let a game make, or even if I bid some 30 % game and it makes, oh no, thats a BIG SWING, that is demoralizing, some people feel pressured to get it back...and here we go...they're in another game... etc. A lot of times you can blitz an opponent on thin game hands if they mess one of them up and are not tough as nails psychologically, they're going to make more mistakes, etc etc. These kind of things do not happen if you are just playing 2N. Again, there is no pressure.

 

IMO there is a reason why playing Meckwell is just downright scary. There is just an overwhelming amount of pressure on you at all times, and they don't let up, EVER. If you look at the hands, it looks like they are in -EV contracts very often, so they should be losing to teams that are in +EV contracts, but that's just not what ends up happening. You have to play the match of your life to beat them. IMO it is a winning style to say to the opponents "Ok, if you play perfectly in the face of this blitz of fast competitive bidding and hyper aggressive game bidding, you will beat me. Go ahead and do it."

 

All of this is just more reason to bid game on these hands and not worry about it. The people who simulate hands miss all of this and wind up in 2N more often than they should, not understanding why their opponents seem to play well against them so often.