ATB

[MrAce]

That seems unlikely since East has ♣10.

 

It is still wrong sided :) Qxx in dummy vs Tx in hand, small ♣ lead (assuming the guy on lead didnt make inspired J lead) U have to guess while no guess needed from otherside. :) (original hand didnt matter, regardless we had no business in any game)

 

 

@Mcphee : our agreement is pass showing the weakest. Right or wrong, we believe pass gives cuebidder another chance to make a last attempt if in doubt still. (Rdbl-or by bidding the suit below the supported trump) We also dont play 3♥ over double any better than pass except an extra trump.

 

If our agreed suit was a minor, for example if pd overcalled 2♦ over 2♣, and cue was doubled, then the difference between pass and 3♦ is ♣ stopper both showing bad hand.

[whereagles]

I've yet to see what's wrong with 2NT over 2♥... Shape/strength should always come before stoppers, but maybe that's just me.

[hotShot]

Not sure why there are 2 posts in this thread saying the East hand is too weak to bid. Passing partner's vulnerable 2 level overcall with a decent 10 count including Kx in his suit would be very bad and you would expect to miss a lot of cold games.

 

It's a style issue, you can overcall solid in 2nd seat and reopen aggressively in 4th seat or you can bid aggressively in 2nd seat and reopen with better hands.

I favor the later, but most important is to use the same style as your partner.

 

If the given West hand is a minimum, than West has no 3♠ or 5♥ bid.

If the given West hand is a maximum, than West has a slam try opposite partners 3♣ bid that should be much stronger.

[awm]

I think 3♠ is the worst call. South essentially let West off the hook by doubling 3♣, allowing an easy pass to show a hand with nothing much to say. Even without the double, the West hand is not really an accept of an invitational heart raise.

 

While the 3♣ call is not personally to my taste (I prefer to bid my suits rather than raise partner on doubleton), any choice by East is at least a mild distortion (in terms of either strength or support or stoppers). I don't think 3♣ is nearly as poor a call as 3♠.

 

The suggestions that West should have passed over 2♣ or that East should have passed partner's 2♥ overcall are somewhat ridiculous to me.

[rhm]

 

The suggestions that West should have passed over 2♣ or that East should have passed partner's 2♥ overcall are somewhat ridiculous to me.

 

This is interesting since I feel the oppsite.

We do not know the vulnerability here. I myself have no particular high requirements for an overcall, but overcalling 2♥ with at best a mediocre 5 card suit, a balanced hand (weak notrump range) and Qxx in opener's six card suit (The ♣Q most likely being worthless on offense), is asking for trouble. You have at least a nine card fit with your RHO. Is it really difficult to see what will happen should LHO have a couple of points opposite a limited opener and a singleton ♣? Besides going for a number, there will be nothing on for them.

Meanwhile how good are your game chances when there are at best around 11-15 HCP to be shared between LHO and your partner? Sure, not zero. After all partner could have ♥ support, could have most of the outstanding points and could be short in ♣. But my guess is, chances, that all of this will happen, will be a single percentage figure and then partner may reopen. Going for a big number is at least 3 times more likely here against seasoned opponents.

 

Now let's look at advancer's hand. He has a doubleton in opponents suit, the worst holding you can have for game chances, in particular when ♣ were not raised and ♣Tx does not bode well for 3NT either.

I can understand 3♥, because game in ♥ could be on, if partner has an (unusual) good hand for his overcall.

But for my money I take the plus and pass, particularly non vulnerable. This hand will likely turn out to be disappointment in a high level contract. Too often you will go minus if you continue with this aceless semi balanced rubbish beyond the two level.

 

But cuebidding with this stuff at the 3 level without a known fit, is not just a tad too weak. This again is simply asking for trouble.

 

Of course overcaller should have passed over the silly double of 3♣, but I do not like my chances in any contract beyond 3♣.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

This is interesting since I feel the oppsite.

We do not know the vulnerability here. ......

 

All red, imps. The bidding schema shows actually that all red, thats why i didnt mention.

[Fluffy]

Your post is very incosistent Rainer, if you have higher standards for LHO to overcall it is ridicoulous to also think abou pasing east's hand.

[rhm]

Your post is very incosistent Rainer, if you have higher standards for LHO to overcall it is ridicoulous to also think abou pasing east's hand.

 

My standards are not higher, they are different. The West hand is a good example, how a direct overcall at the two level should not look like.

An overcall at the two level should show a reasonable six card suit, preferably with shortage in opener's suit.

From time to time I will overcall at the two level with a good 5 card suit, if I am unbalanced or short in opponents suit or if I have extra strength. But being balanced, having a mediocre 5 card suit and Qxx in opener's known long suit and being vulnerable, where is the point?

If West had the ♥ queen and the ♣ace instead of the ♣ queen and the ♥ ace, I might still refrain from overcalling but the hand would be substantially better.

 

With regard to East, it is a matter of judgement and you may disagree with me. The 2♣ opening has effectively preempted you. If the ♥ overcall had been at the one level you would be in a far more comfortable position.

You now have to decide what is the bigger risk: Pass and miss game or continue and turn a plus score into a minus.

 

From East's perspective, is West likely short in ♣, when you hold ♣Tx there and North did not raise ♣?

Give West a six card ♥ suit (and West may have overcalled on a 5 card suit) and a minimum opening bid, how likely is it, that you will miss a good game. Even if you do have an eight card fit, the fact that South has shown a long ♣ suit, makes it more likely that ♥s may be behind overcaller and not break well.

East is missing first round control in every suit and second round controls in two. The East hand would be better with the ♥queen and the ♠ king instead of the ♠ queen and the ♥ king.

 

I said I can understand a 3♥ bid by East. But to me the danger signs are clearly visible and Pass looks more prudent.

I am well aware that from time to time I will miss game. However, even vulnerable, where it is closer, letting it go at 2♥ will show a handsome profit in the long run .

 

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

I think 3♠ is the worst call.

 

Agree.

 

The suggestions that West should have passed over 2♣ or that East should have passed partner's 2♥ overcall are somewhat ridiculous to me.

 

Also agree.

[MrAce]

My standards are not higher, they are different. The West hand is a good example, how a direct overcall at the two level should not look like.

An overcall at the two level should show a reasonable six card suit, preferably with shortage in opener's suit.

From time to time I will overcall at the two level with a good 5 card suit, if I am unbalanced or short in opponents suit or if I have extra strength. But being balanced, having a mediocre 5 card suit and Qxx in opener's known long suit and being vulnerable, where is the point?

If West had the ♥ queen and the ♣ace instead of the ♣ queen and the ♥ ace, I might still refrain from overcalling but the hand would be substantially better.

 

With regard to East, it is a matter of judgement and you may disagree with me. The 2♣ opening has effectively preempted you. If the ♥ overcall had been at the one level you would be in a far more comfortable position.

You now have to decide what is the bigger risk: Pass and miss game or continue and turn a plus score into a minus.

 

From East's perspective, is West likely short in ♣, when you hold ♣Tx there and North did not raise ♣?

Give West a six card ♥ suit (and West may have overcalled on a 5 card suit) and a minimum opening bid, how likely is it, that you will miss a good game. Even if you do have an eight card fit, the fact that South has shown a long ♣ suit, makes it more likely that ♥s may be behind overcaller and not break well.

East is missing first round control in every suit and second round controls in two. The East hand would be better with the ♥queen and the ♠ king instead of the ♠ queen and the ♥ king.

 

I said I can understand a 3♥ bid by East. But to me the danger signs are clearly visible and Pass looks more prudent.

I am well aware that from time to time I will miss game. However, even vulnerable, where it is closer, letting it go at 2♥ will show a handsome profit in the long run .

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Rainer, after i read this last reply, i am afraid i have to agree with Fluffy about inconsistency. Eventhough i agree with some of the stuff u wrote, You CAN NOT be so picky BOTH on the overcall and response side. It is imps and there is game bonus still, if they didn't change the rules recently.

 

I can sit and write long lecture about 2 level overcalls, that they can be upto a bad 17 hcp with 6 cards suit. And i can continue the lecture why it is right to start with an overcall instead of double in some hands. It is beyond my imagination to be so shy and passive in imps when u hold 10 hcp and Kx in pd's suit.

 

You wanna make the overcaller's hand a 6 cards ♥ ? Lets do it, lets even take out some hcps from him and add some shape. ATx AQ9xxx x xxx ATx AQxxxx xx xx . I have hell of a play in 4♥ after RHO opened vs that 10 hcp despite the fact that i gave pd a stiff on my KJxxx suit. And this overcall is not even close to some strong overcalls. What pass are u talking about ?

[rhm]

Rainer, after i read this last reply, i am afraid i have to agree with Fluffy about inconsistency. Eventhough i agree with some of the stuff u wrote, You CAN NOT be so picky BOTH on the overcall and response side. It is imps and there is game bonus still, if they didn't change the rules recently.

 

I can sit and write long lecture about 2 level overcalls, that they can be up to a bad 17 hcp with 6 cards suit. And i can continue the lecture why it is right to start with an overcall instead of double in some hands. It is beyond my imagination to be so shy and passive in imps when u hold 10 hcp and Kx in pd's suit.

 

You wanna make the overcaller's hand a 6 cards ♥ ? Lets do it, lets even take out some hcps from him and add some shape. ATx AQ9xxx x xxx ATx AQxxxx xx xx . I have hell of a play in 4♥ after RHO opened vs that 10 hcp despite the fact that i gave pd a stiff on my KJxxx suit. And this overcall is not even close to some strong overcalls. What pass are u talking about ?

 

The modern 2♥ overcall is wide ranging and I do not doubt that game will be worthwhile if West is top of the range or very suitable for a high level contract. Trouble is, that this is less likely than West being at the low end for an overcall.

 

I decided to do a simulation, with fairly favorable assumptions about West (e.g. always more than 5 cards in ♥):

 

South: Precision club opener as described 11-16 HCP, either at least 6 cards in ♣ or 5 cards in ♣ and a 4 card major.

West: No 5 card ♠ suit, either 6 cards in ♥ and 10 to 17 HCP or 7 cards in ♥ and 10 to 15 HCP. But otherwise West could be very distributional.

North: Less than 4 cards in ♣ (no raise), no further restrictions

 

1000 random deals, double dummy results with West declarer in a ♥ contract:

 

4♥ (or more) would make on 295 deals or 29.5%

3♥ would make on 618 deals or 61.8%

2♥ would make on 884 deals or 88.4%

 

Your chances to make game is around 30%, but of course West will not always guess right when to accept the invitation, not least because some games depend on a favorable layout of the North South cards.

Meanwhile your chances to get a positive score drops from close to 90% to less than 60%, again because West will not always know when not to accept, not least because of an unfavorable layout of the North South cards.

If you assume that West will accept an invitation of 3♥ in half the cases (most players tend to accept more frequently), the best you can do in theory is

 

295 games bid and made

205 times you go down in game

500 times you stop in 3♥, of which

118 times 3♥ makes

382 times you will go down in 3♥

 

So bidding on would mean you bid 295 games but you will get a minus score 587 times instead of 116 times, that is 471 more minus scores and on the remaining 116 minus deals you go down more, which also means you are much more likely to get doubled. This is theory, the practical decision will likely be worse.

I guess bidding 3♥ looks okay, but even vulnerable, it does not look to me a favorite over Pass.

Pass by East is certainly not ridiculous. I still maintain it to be prudent.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

DBL post

[MrAce]

-How many of them actually goes down without double dummy defense ? did u check each of them ?

 

-How do u know if we will stop in 3♥ with 500 of them, did u check 500 hands 1 by 1 and decided those hands would pass 3♥ or did programme do it for u by bean counts ?

 

-Did u make a restriction for hands, especially 10-11 hcps where ♥ suit doesnt worth to overcall at 2 level ? Since we have ♥ K, can pd have anything less than Qxxxxx in your deals ?

 

-Did u check what are the results for 3NT in some of those hands where pd can bid 3NT ?

 

-Did u check what happens to 4♠ when pd has 4♠ and an accepting hand ?

 

-What kind of hands is pd raising to 4, assuming my hand didn't cue but just raised to 3♥ ? You need to have a decent hand to bid 4 when pd only raises.

 

-Did u restrict, at least a very good portion of hand to only ♣ lead ?

[655321]

The modern 2♥ overcall is wide ranging and I do not doubt that game will be worthwhile if West is top of the range or very suitable for a high level contract.

 

And a raise here (instead of a cuebid or a game bash) says exactly that, it says 'partner, I am making a courtesy raise in case you are have a very good hand', it does not say 'partner, I expect you to accept this one frequently'.

 

 

If you assume that West will accept an invitation of 3♥ in half the cases (most players tend to accept more frequently)

 

Without addressing other aspects of your simulation, this unrealistic estimate of 50% is enough to make your results questionable. If you play with numbers and get an answer that passing with the East hand is acceptable, it is more likely that there are errors in your assumptions than it is that you have proved that the whole of modern bidding is wrong.

[rhm]

And a raise here (instead of a cuebid or a game bash) says exactly that, it says 'partner, I am making a courtesy raise in case you are have a very good hand', it does not say 'partner, I expect you to accept this one frequently'.

 

 

 

 

Without addressing other aspects of your simulation, this unrealistic estimate of 50% is enough to make your results questionable. If you play with numbers and get an answer that passing with the East hand is acceptable, it is more likely that there are errors in your assumptions than it is that you have proved that the whole of modern bidding is wrong.

 

If you do a simulation, you have to make some assumptions. I can change any of them or refine them and repeat the simulation.

Tell me what you consider unrealistic. No big deal.

The assumption that a typical Bridge player would accept in about 50% seems realistic if not conservative to me.

Many accept, unless dead minimum for their previous call, that is in many more cases than 50%. In fact I myself belong to the invite heavy, accept often school

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

-How many of them actually goes down without double dummy defense ? did u check each of them ?

No, I can not with 1000 deals. But double dummy works both ways. Declarer also does not play double dummy. The end result is that these errors tend to cancel each others. Tests have shown that double dummy result come close to average results at the table. At 3NT declarer makes slightly more often than double dummy suggests and in grand slams the defense does slightly better.

 

-How do u know if we will stop in 3♥ with 500 of them, did u check 500 hands 1 by 1 and decided those hands would pass 3♥ or did programme do it for u by bean counts ?

No, of course not. I prefer simulation with typical 1000 deals to get statistical valid results. (variation is reasonably small) The drawback is that you can only look at samples but not at every deal and analyze it. The double dummy analyzer(deep finesse) just tells me how many tricks in hearts I get on each deal.

For my analysis I simply assumed that West would accept in 50% of the deals and exhibit excellent judgment and would not accept, unless there were at least 9 tricks available to declarer in ♥ and would always accept, when there were more. My experience is that most player accept invitations on many more hands.

 

-Did u make a restriction for hands, especially 10-11 hcps where ♥ suit doesnt worth to overcall at 2 level ? Since we have ♥ K, can pd have anything less than Qxxxxx in your deals ?

No I kept the simulation simple and I can refine it. But if you have 6 of your 13 cards in ♥ and 9-10 HCP only in very few deals will your suit be anything less than Qxxxxx. I can rerun my simulation, but I doubt it makes a difference

 

-Did u check what are the results for 3NT in some of those hands where pd can bid 3NT ?

No, but will you and partner know, when to prefer to stay in 3NT, when West holds a six or seven card ♥ suit?

 

-Did u check what happens to 4♠ when pd has 4♠ and an accepting hand ?

No. I kept it simple, there will be few deals were partner will have 4 cards in ♠ besides 6 cards in hearts.

 

-What kind of hands is pd raising to 4, assuming my hand didn't cue but just raised to 3♥ ? You need to have a decent hand to bid 4 when pd only raises.

My analysis assumed simply that partner would bid 4 ♥ on 50% of the random deals and that he would always accept when there are 10 tricks or more available and never accept, if 3♥ would already go down. In other words my analysis assumed partner would exhibit perfect judgment.

The results in practice will be less good for the inviter.

 

-Did u restrict, at least a very good portion of hand to only ♣ lead ?

Double dummy results work both ways. Perfect defense and perfect declarer play. For example declarer always finds a trump queen. Checks have shown that these assumption are wrong of course, but tend to cancel each others and double dummy results come very close to what will happen on average in practice, when a board is played a number of times (except for grand slams).

 

I am open, I did not try to make assumptions so that the simulation results would support my assessment. I was interested in an unbiased outcome. I can change or refine any of my assumptions and rerun the simulation.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

Tell me what you consider unrealistic. No big deal.

The assumption that a typical Bridge player would accept in about 50% seems realistic if not conservative to me.

Many accept, unless dead minimum for their previous call, that is in many more cases than 50%. In fact I myself belong to the invite heavy, accept often school

Why do you call a 3H raise an invite? I would call it a raise, promising less than invitational values, since with invitational values advancer would bid 3C.

But 655321 already told you that and you ignored it, so I am not sure there is much point in saying it again.

[rhm]

Why do you call a 3H raise an invite? I would call it a raise, promising less than invitational values, since with invitational values advancer would bid 3C.

But 655321 already told you that and you ignored it, so I am not sure there is much point in saying it again.

 

I am not sure what you are aiming at. Are you claiming that a ♥ raise is preemptive and non-invitational or do you like splitting hairs?

There may be a difference in strength between a cuebid of 3♣ and a ♥ raise, but there is no doubt that absent of some very special agreements anyone at the table would consider a raise of an over-call of 2♥ to 3♥ as an invitation to 4♥.

Call it what you like. This is a discussion group on Bridge not on semantics.

If you and 655321 claim that you would rarely accept a 3 ♥ "raise", fine. But this means, you will still turn a lot of pluses in minus scores or small minus scores in larger ones.

 

Let's do the mathematics based on the simulation.

The best you can theoretically do is

 

You accept in exactly 29.5% of all cases, where you make game.

You would still have 382 minus scores instead of 116 and the minus score on the 116 deals would be larger.

 

But in practice even if you accept in the correct frequency here, you will do much worse and miss many games and reach many, which will go down and on some of these you will get doubled.

Is there really a net gain?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

double dummy works both ways. Declarer also does not play double dummy. The end result is that these errors tend to cancel each others. Tests have shown that double dummy result come close to average results at the table. At 3NT declarer makes slightly more often than double dummy suggests and in grand slams the defense does slightly better.

 

Where did you get those tests results? Common sense says double dummy gives the defenders more chances.

[rhm]

Where did you get those tests results? Common sense says double dummy gives the defenders more chances.

 

Have a a look at

 

http://crystalwebsite.tripod.com/double_dummy_accurate.htm

 

To cite from this site:

 

"The most important general finding is that double dummy analysis is very accurate as compared to actual play from OKBridge."

 

For 4 level contracts in trump suits the actual declarer made 9.84 tricks and the double dummy result was 9.85 tricks (based overall on 30 million plays). So there was no declarer advantage in actual play for 4♥ contracts.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

Thanks. I'll have a look at it asap.

[hotShot]

Where did you get those tests results? Common sense says double dummy gives the defenders more chances.

 

The numbers indicate that the defense loses tricks to double dummy at low level contracts,

while the declarer loses playing slams.

 

This correlates with the amount of information the defense and the declarer possesses.

In a low level contract the defense has almost no information, while it is often unavoidable for the declarer to lose a specific trick playing a slam.

[MrAce]

Rainer; first of all ty for the answers.

 

-I think someone with 6 cards suit and stoppers in opponent suit, trying 3NT is not uncommon. But i see your point.

 

-2 level overcalls are prefered to be made by 6 cards, i agree, but also almost all unbalanced hands, especially after precision 2♣ (like 5♥+4♠ hands, 5♥+4♦ hands,5♥+5♦ hands and some rare 6-5 with ♦.

 

-Also some hands where overcaller has 7♥ but less than 10 hcp (8-9 hcp)and choosed to not preempt due to hand being too good for it, or suit being poor and hcps are on side (side ace, or void or well placed honors etc..)

 

-Opener's pd not raising ♣ does not mean too much, and a deceptive factor,since it is common to hide the fit with very weak hands when one believes showing it will help opponents to judge their hand better. And trust me it works more often than showing and finding a good save. I witness a lot of hands everyday, where one side would never reach to the game or slam if they were let alone, but preempt and raises may make it atractive to bid it.

 

-In some of the hands, where opener has 11-12 hcp and overcaller has 10-11 hcp, opener's pd will then have 8-9 hcp and probably would take some action instead of pass, that also eliminates some hands where pd is as weak as 9-11 hcp.

 

Now, on the other hand, if you read my post again where i reacted you, you will see that i was against being picky from BOTH overcaller and responder side as a response to your previous post. If you are as picky on the overcaller side, i believe a good portion of these hands that fails at 3 level, will be eliminated at the first place. Because as oppose to computer, humans (at least good players) make their calls by looking at the hand rather than just looking at hcps.

 

And i also think accepting with % 50 of the hands is wrong assumption. 3♥ is not a cue. Where a cue can still be just an invite and willing to pass if pd bids 3♥ with a dead minimum, a 3♥ asks for more than a normal or ave+ overcall to raise to 4.

 

I believe if test is made more accurate, the chances of making game (IF accepted by overcaller) will be above % 35 and thats what required in IMPS vulnerable if i am not wrong.

[gwnn]

rhm do you also call

 

1♥-p-2♥

 

an invitation to 4♥? or just a raise?

 

people basically bid

 

2♣-2♥-p-3♥

or

1♠-2♥-p-3♥

 

on the same set of hands as 1♥-p-2♥. I freely concede that the two sets are not identical, however they are extremely close and it would be very hard to think of a better definition than 'single raise' of the latter two auctions. Just as

 

1♥-p-2♥ is called a single raise and

1♥-p-3♥ (in SAYC or SEF) is called an invitational raise,

 

it makes sense to call

 

3♥ in the above auctions as a raise or a single raise and the cues (3♣ and 2♠ respectively) as invitational raises.

[hotShot]

people basically bid

 

2♣-2♥-p-3♥

or

1♠-2♥-p-3♥

 

on the same set of hands as 1♥-p-2♥. I freely concede that the two sets are not identical, however they are extremely close and it would be very hard to think of a better definition than 'single raise' of the latter two auctions.

I tend to disagree.

Playing precision 2♣ and 1♠ are limited bids and RHO's pass is a limited bid. Why should someone holding a "single raise" bid 3♥ if his side can buy the contract in 2♥ and he can still bid 3♥ if LHO decides to compete?

Ain't it more useful to have an invitation and some sort of a GF/ slam interest bid available?