What is your bid?

[sty2000]

[hv=pc=n&s=s7532hkt9dk96caq6&n=saha765da87cjt543&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c1s?]266|200[/hv]

 

Assuming standard methods, SAYC or BridgeWorld standard (it doesn't really matter which one), what is your bid with South hand?

[Fluffy]

There is no system that is prepared to deal with this hands, I'd double with south's one, not sure where I'd land, hopefully in 4♥

[mr1303]

Yeah, agree with double here. Probably end up in 4H one way or another.

[mtvesuvius]

Actually I'd rather be in 5♣, but I would double with the South hand, the least of all evils IMO

 

In 5♣, we need 3-2 trump with the ♣K onside. After ruffing 3 spades in hand, in the endgame you can give up two red-suit losers. In 4♥, you still need the ♣K onside usually, and also need a reasonable ♥ split. Also, without the ♥8, there are some added problems.

[han]

I'd rather be in 3NT.

[mtvesuvius]

I'd rather be in 3NT.

Counting is hard for me, lol

[sty2000]

I'd rather be in 3NT.

 

Of course, but keep on your mind that you can't simply bid 3NT... just write down bidding sequence that leads to 3NT!

[whereagles]

Not a good time to bid 2/3NT because our spade holding indicates this is one of those situations where NT needs a full stopper.

 

Thus we'll have to either dbl or bid 2♠. I prefer the cue because our long spades make it likely pard holds 5 clubs, making that fit playable. Dbl runs the risk of going moysian with the long trump hand ruffing. I think that's a bigger risk.

[Fluffy]

I must be missing something because it still seems to me that 4♥ is much better than any other game, Maybe losing 2 hearts and a club only when other games are quickly down

[mike777]

[hv=pc=n&s=s7532hkt9dk96caq6&n=saha765da87cjt543&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c1s?]266|200[/hv]

 

Assuming standard methods, SAYC or BridgeWorld standard (it doesn't really matter which one), what is your bid with South hand?

 

 

pass

[whereagles]

Gonzalo, in this particular hand 4♥ might make, but wouldn't you agree that, should you dbl, it would be rather annoying to find pard with 4 small hearts?

[mikeh]

My suggestion for action is inaction: pass.

 

I intend to cuebid 2♠ over any reopening action. I think that such a course actually shows this hand..altho this is certainly maximum for the sequence.

 

You protest....partner may not reopen. I respond...if he can't reopen, we may miss the occasional game but we will more often avoid getting overboard. Think of the handtype on which he won't reopen and you are looking (usually) at a weak notrump with length in spades....opposite that type of hand, this dummy isn't going to be a pleasant surprise in any game.

 

And, it seems to me, any positive action now (presumably a double) will effectively drive to game.

 

On the actual hand, I suspect that my choice of call will probably get us to either 3N or 5♣...the latter contract has lots of play, since we may well be able to reverse dummy even if the club hook loses. 4♥ seems superior, and double will get us there...at least no-one can claim that I am resulting with my choice :P

[quiddity]

Think of the handtype on which he won't reopen and you are looking (usually) at a weak notrump with length in spades....opposite that type of hand, this dummy isn't going to be a pleasant surprise in any game.

 

Won't we tend to miss 3NT somewhat frequently when partner has spade length and stoppers?

[mikeh]

Won't we tend to miss 3NT somewhat frequently when partner has spade length and stoppers?

well, I did a simulation of partner holding a weak 1n opener...a balanced hand with 3-4 spades, and 3-5 clubs, with fewer than 5 hearts and fewer than 4 diamonds and 12-14 hcp. I appreciate that one can quibble about these constraints and that there will be some unbalanced hands where he won't reopen either (short diamonds or hearts).

 

I gave the overcaller 7-16 hcp and 5-6 spades and no other 5 card suit.

 

The weak notrump seems the most probable holding for him to pass it out.

 

65% of the 3N contracts failed. And under these constraints, 97% of the 4♥ contracts failed and 100% of the 5♣ contracts failed.

 

This suggests to me that passing is not a bad move if partner can't reopen.

 

edit: the sample size was modest: 65 deals

[Fluffy]

Gonzalo, in this particular hand 4♥ might make, but wouldn't you agree that, should you dbl, it would be rather annoying to find pard with 4 small hearts?

I don't claim to be able to reach it, I have no clue where I might land if I start doubling, but I was surprised Adam&Han wanted to play in 5♣ and 3NT better.

[han]

65% of the 3N contracts failed.

This suggests to me that passing is not a bad move if partner can't reopen.

 

 

If it is true that if 1S is passed out we have a 35% of having missed game then I would feel really bad about passing.

[mikeh]

If it is true that if 1S is passed out we have a 35% of having missed game then I would feel really bad about passing.

 

I don't understand this.

 

If it's passed out, it's because partner has a hand on which some 65% of the time game fails...and that was assuming we bid the best game. Last I heard, that makes bidding game a losing proposition at imps. That is so even if we were vulnerable and it is decidedly so, by a substantial margin, when, as here, we are non-vulnerable (as I read the OP).

 

There I was, thinking all this time that one area where your knowledge was indisputably greater than mine was mathematics or, more precisely, arithmetic :P

 

Or are you revealing your masochistic side....you would feel 'really bad' about a good decision?

[han]

Say we double and partner bids 1NT. Or 2C. We should come up with a way to make partner bid game with a good hand and not with a bad hand. I've got it! I'll bid 2NT over 1NT and 3C over 2C. I call it: The Invite.

[mikeh]

Say we double and partner bids 1NT. Or 2C. We should come up with a way to make partner bid game with a good hand and not with a bad hand. I've got it! I'll bid 2NT over 1NT and 3C over 2C. I call it: The Invite.

Let's start by making one thing clear: my suggestion of pass wasn't an argument that double was a bad call...it seems to me to be very close between the two. I posted the results of my short and imprecise simulation because it did seem to me to be relevant to the issue at hand...whether pass caused one to miss too many games to be acceptable. You then responded with a post that said that missing a 35% contract was a bad thing...only when you were called on it did you resort to sarcasm while advancing a new argument.

 

As for the new argument, it is true that doubling then inviting decreases the frequency of reaching a bad game. I haven't run a simulation, and I suspect that quite a few 2N contracts will also fail, but there is no question but that the invitational approach will often work.

 

However, any player seriously examining the options will have to consider points such as:

 

 

(1) if partner responds 2♣ to our double, many of those hands would have had him reopening after a pass, and the likelihood is that both pass and double will work equally well (or poorly) on those hands. As for hands on which he would pass 1♠, but respond 2♣ to a double.....it seems to me that being able to make game on those hands will be very very rare...not impossible, but a little thought about what his hand will usually look like will (i think) persaude you to that view.

 

(2) the recommended call, in expert circles these days, with Jxx AQx Qxx KJxx or the like would be 1N, over which your invite merely minimizes the loss, rather than avoids it

 

(2) the recommended rebid for opener with a weak notrump and 4♥s is 2♥, not 1N...the idea being that one can get back to 3N after starting via 2♥ far easier than one can get to a 4-4 heart fit after 1N. And while you have logical suggestions for responder's rebid over 1N or 2♣, your failure to suggest an approach after 2♥ suggests either that you were more interested in showing off your sarcasm than in addressing the issues or that you realized that this (common) rebid was going to pose a problem for the doublers. I don't think the sequence of 2♥ being raised to 3♥, invitational, is going to fetch 3N very often....and one can hardly bid 2♠ over 2♥ as some form of stopper ask unless playing 'adjective bridge'...2♠ is gf, at least as I understand the game, absent special agreement. Now, the 4-3 heart fit may work even when partner has a weak notrump, but the simulation I did suggests that it usually won't.

 

As it is, I don't think there is any real way to demonstrate which, if either, of pass or double is inherently superior, which is where I came in.

[the hog]

Not a good time to bid 2/3NT because our spade holding indicates this is one of those situations where NT needs a full stopper.

 

Thus we'll have to either dbl or bid 2♠. I prefer the cue because our long spades make it likely pard holds 5 clubs, making that fit playable. Dbl runs the risk of going moysian with the long trump hand ruffing. I think that's a bigger risk.

 

I agree with Nuno, and I would bid 2S here. Passing this hand is a real LOL.

[straube]

I like 2S, too.

[mike777]

edit

 

 

wrong thread

[han]

In your first post your simulation suggested that if we pass and partner also passes, we have a 35% of having missed a making game. That's more than I expected. Given that we have no guarantee of getting to the best contract if partner does reopen, it makes pass far from ideal. This clearly is an ugly hand with no attractive alternative, and I really hate doubling without 4 hearts. In fact, I'm not even sure what I would do and I can imagine choosing different actions on different days. What is clear though is that, if you act, you don't have to force to game. If you only invite (and I don't think the hand is worth a gameforce) then you only get to game on the hands where partner has a sound opening. If 3NT has 35% to make if partner passes out 1S, then surely it has a considerably higher chance on the subset of those hands where partner rebids 1NT over our double and accepts an invite. Perhaps the chance of reaching those games makes it worthwhile to risk ending in a silly contract.

[PhantomSac]

I made this conversation into a play in my mind, not-so-loosely paraphrased it is:

 

Mikeh: Game makes 35 % of the time that partner is passing out 1S; conclusion: it's a good thing when partner passes out 1S!

 

Han: No it's a bad thing when partner passes out 1S if that is true.

 

Mikeh: I do not understand [gee thats an understatement --JL]. 35 % games are bad! *sarcastic comments such as:

 

Last I heard, that makes bidding game a losing proposition at imps.

 

There I was, thinking all this time that one area where your knowledge was indisputably greater than mine was mathematics or, more precisely, arithmetic :P

 

Or are you revealing your masochistic side....you would feel 'really bad' about a good decision?*

 

Han: *said in a sarcastic but clear way* If game is 35 %, and you have room to invite, you can often avoid the bad games. In this way you might play 3N making over 50 % of the time on this subset of hands that passing out 1S is bad, and play 2N the other times, often making (and sometimes failing).

 

Mikeh: *among other nonsense* You then responded with a post that said that missing a 35% contract was a bad thing...only when you were called on it did you resort to sarcasm while advancing a new argument.

 

But wait, wasn't it mikeh who first resorted to rude sarcastic comments (much more than han). And wasn't it mikeh who added no argument with his, while Han made the obvious point that it is not an all or nothing thing that you have to bid game on all hands that partner would pass out 1S with if you start with a double? That's a good and obvious point, but mikeh by his own words "did not understand."

 

Mike, here is an analogy. It goes 1S p 2S p ? Game makes 35 % of the time. Should you game try? Of course, despite 35 % games not being good, when game is bad you will often play 3S making, meaning when you bid game it will often be over 50 %. This case is the exact same, and where your "logic" has failed you. I hope that clarifies to you where you were going wrong.

 

Yes you might double and get to 2N going down, or partner might have a max and game still might be bad, but it's a game of percentages. Your own argument of "game makes 35 %" is the perfect argument for starting with a double. Yes it matters how often 2N goes down also, but it's pretty clear that 2N will make a fair amount of the time that you stop there.

 

And as han has pointed out, it's not like passing and cuebidding will automatically get you to the right spot, against that neither will doubling. But 35 % is a LOT when we have room to invite still, and is compelling enough for me to feel comfortable thinking that PASS will lead us to missing way too many games. Thanks for the simulation, it was very illuminating!

[mikeh]

I made this conversation into a play in my mind, not-so-loosely paraphrased it is:

 

Mikeh: Game makes 35 % of the time that partner is passing out 1S; conclusion: it's a good thing when partner passes out 1S!

 

Han: No it's a bad thing when partner passes out 1S if that is true.

 

Mikeh: I do not understand [gee thats an understatement --JL]. 35 % games are bad! *sarcastic comments such as:

 

Last I heard, that makes bidding game a losing proposition at imps.

 

There I was, thinking all this time that one area where your knowledge was indisputably greater than mine was mathematics or, more precisely, arithmetic :P

 

Or are you revealing your masochistic side....you would feel 'really bad' about a good decision?*

 

Han: *said in a sarcastic but clear way* If game is 35 %, and you have room to invite, you can often avoid the bad games. In this way you might play 3N making over 50 % of the time on this subset of hands that passing out 1S is bad, and play 2N the other times, often making (and sometimes failing).

 

Mikeh: *among other nonsense* You then responded with a post that said that missing a 35% contract was a bad thing...only when you were called on it did you resort to sarcasm while advancing a new argument.

 

But wait, wasn't it mikeh who first resorted to rude sarcastic comments (much more than han). And wasn't it mikeh who added no argument with his, while Han made the obvious point that it is not an all or nothing thing that you have to bid game on all hands that partner would pass out 1S with if you start with a double? That's a good and obvious point, but mikeh by his own words "did not understand."

 

Mike, here is an analogy. It goes 1S p 2S p ? Game makes 35 % of the time. Should you game try? Of course, despite 35 % games not being good, when game is bad you will often play 3S making, meaning when you bid game it will often be over 50 %. This case is the exact same, and where your "logic" has failed you. I hope that clarifies to you where you were going wrong.

 

Yes you might double and get to 2N going down, or partner might have a max and game still might be bad, but it's a game of percentages. Your own argument of "game makes 35 %" is the perfect argument for starting with a double. Yes it matters how often 2N goes down also, but it's pretty clear that 2N will make a fair amount of the time that you stop there.

 

And as han has pointed out, it's not like passing and cuebidding will automatically get you to the right spot, against that neither will doubling. But 35 % is a LOT when we have room to invite still, and is compelling enough for me to feel comfortable thinking that PASS will lead us to missing way too many games. Thanks for the simulation, it was very illuminating!

 

welcome back

 

It's good to see you haven't lost your charming personality :)

 

You're right about at least one thing in your post....I was the one who started and overdid the sarcasm, which I now regret.