Bid Game at MP ?

[Phil]

Justin, I agree with everything you are saying (and was going to mention that myself), but my ADD brain forgot to include the screening component to TBH instead of random problems on an open forum.

[jdonn]

You get better scores at mps for bidding your games too, not just at imps.

[Fluffy]

it's 0-29-0 at the moment.

for f**ks shake, it took me 4 hours to find it, did you say it was easy? :S.

 

I had to read all of foo's posts before finding it, and guess waht? I never voted on that poll, so I can change it. You are all in my hands muhahahahha :).

 

BTW: about 4 years ago I would had actually picked a different option than theunanimous one.

[manudude03]

At least John Mohan has company now :). I still can't find the link gwnn was suggesting....

[jjbrr]

it's 0-29-0 at the moment.

for f**ks shake, it took me 4 hours to find it, did you say it was easy? :S.

 

I had to read all of foo's posts before finding it, and guess waht? I never voted on that poll, so I can change it. You are all in my hands muhahahahha :).

 

BTW: about 4 years ago I would had actually picked a different option than theunanimous one.

lol way to read the "Best threads of the decade" thread!

[hanp]

I voted 3H to make the forums look better. 3-31 now, more in line with the bridge world.

[the hog]

I would bid 4H on this.

[Phil]

I voted 3H to make the forums look better. 3-31 now, more in line with the bridge world.

Sorry, not good enough. You have pick a serious underdog and offer sage advice to make yourself look like a genius and imply everyone else is stupid.

[neilkaz]

Can the 5 who bid 3♥ really be serious?

[jjbrr]

Can the 5 who bid 3♥ really be serious?

It's possible they found the winning bid. Chances they found the right bid are small.

[hanp]

I expect at least half the panel to bid game, afraid to appear cowardly in print. In truth there is nothing cowardly about bidding the cards you hold. Here we have a minimum with 3 diamonds, the worst possible number. The avenue [Ed: French for street] I live on is called 3H.

 

 

 

 

Any better Phil?

[Phil]

I expect at least half the panel to bid game, afraid to appear cowardly in print. In truth there is nothing cowardly about bidding the cards you hold. Here we have a minimum with 3 diamonds, the worst possible number. The avenue [Ed: French for street] I live on is called 3H.

 

 

 

 

Any better Phil?

Jrubens@thebridgeworld.com

[Dirk Kuijt]

OK, I admit to being one of the 3♥ bidders, and I don't think this is such a WTP, LOL problem at all, especially at matchpoints.

 

It seems to me that there are several warning signals that suggest going low:

 

1. The 2♦ bidder is likely to have an easy and effective opening lead of a top diamond honor, so you don't get any help from the blind lead, and it sets up tricks for the defense.

 

2. The partner of the 2♦ bidder didn't double, which suggests that he doesn't want to go higher in diamonds, which in turn suggests that partner will have a few diamonds, which will be very bad for us.

 

3. The opposing bid was 2♦, not X. Double would tend to have more values in spades; this suggests that missing spade values are in the dummy, which is not a good place for our side's values.

 

4. The OP said the partnership style was to open most 12's and good 11's, so there is no potential 'reserve' of high cards, since partner is a passed hand. Putting it another way, you are not going to make this game on power; if you make it at all, it will be because of good distribution, and, at the moment, you have no reason to expect that good distribution exists.

 

Let's look at a few possible hands:

 

KQxx

Axx

xxx

Qxx

 

The worst: This is an easy beat for the defense, and if clubs are 5-1, even 3 hearts is going down. Pretty pessimistic, I admit.

 

Kxxx

Axx

xxx

Axx

 

I give you having the spade Ace in front of the king, but it doesn't help much, does it?

 

AQJx

xxx

xx

Axxx

 

You will make this hand fairly easily--if both round suits are 3-2. Is that likely? I'm guessing that the compound probability on this auction is less than 50%, and, note that this might well be an opener by OP's standards.

 

Having written down a bunch of hands, I concluded that you make if partner has most of:

 

1. 2 or fewer diamonds

2. 4 or more hearts

3. QJ in clubs (not A, not only Q, not only J)

 

There are too many assumptions to have an effective simulation, IMHO, but it seems to me that there are lots of hands that are going down in 4♥, and, on a really bad day, in 3♥.

[gwnn]

partner is not always balanced when he shows a limit raise!!!!

 

how about this hand?

 

xxxx

xxxx

x

QJxx

 

???

 

partner does not need to have a lot of HCP in spades and a 4333 hand!

[hanp]

6 votes for 3H and counting, who said anything about herd mentality?

[whereagles]

It's certainly possible that we have a slam but I would never try for it

JLOL back?

 

but yeah, 4

[JLOGIC]

It's certainly possible that we have a slam but I would never try for it

JLOL back?

??

[Dirk Kuijt]

Gwnn

 

Of course the unbalanced hands make 4♥ much more easily, but can that really be the deal? Obviously the hand you cited is extreme, but, IMO, it is inconsistent with the bidding, since the opponents would be bidding much more with their many HCP and many diamonds. Yes, I'm aware there are risks in putting too much faith in the opponents to bid correctly (that is, the way I do ;) ) OTOH, it is risky to assume that the opponents have made a mistake.

[pooltuna]

I wonder if a simulation would generate probabilities for 3♥ and 4♥ contracts that match the current vote %age ;)

[jdonn]

Gwnn

 

Of course the unbalanced hands make 4♥ much more easily, but can that really be the deal? Obviously the hand you cited is extreme, but, IMO, it is inconsistent with the bidding, since the opponents would be bidding much more with their many HCP and many diamonds. Yes, I'm aware there are risks in putting too much faith in the opponents to bid correctly (that is, the way I do ;) ) OTOH, it is risky to assume that the opponents have made a mistake.

You are missing the point. It's not that partner can have xxxx xxxx x QJxx, it's that if that hand makes game just imagine how many actually possible limit raises make game.

[gwnn]

Gwnn

 

Of course the unbalanced hands make 4♥ much more easily, but can that really be the deal?

yes, unbalanced hands are more likely from partner. suppose partner can have either

 

10-11 with no singleton (but not a very good 11)

OR

7-11 with a singleton (but not a very good 11)

 

which of these would you think is more common?

 

Also, the fact that in my example hand partner is short with about a good toothsome Ace (or AJ) from his limit raise but we still make game rather easily, what does that fact prove? that we should bid 3♥??

[hanp]

You are exaggerating your case gwnn, 7-11 with a singleton?

[gwnn]

What do you mean hanp

 

Axxx

Kxxx

x

xxxx

 

your call?

 

OK maybe you bid 4♥

 

but how does 8-11 sound?

[hanp]

With an 11-count, a singleton (especially a singleton diamond) and 4-card support partner won't pass 3H anyway so it doesn't matter what we do. The same is true for many 10-counts. That's what I meant.

 

It's also true that some of the 7-counts with singleton don't make a limit raise (especially if a mixed raise is available) but I wasn't thinking about that side of your range.

[gwnn]

I was just saying that partner's hand is more likely to be unbalanced than balanced. I wasn't making a very precise argument, it looked like shock therapy was what I was looking for.