Partner DBLed 3S preempt

[kgr]

IMP's

[hv=pc=n&e=saj72hj9d76532ct9&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=3sdp]133|200[/hv]

Your call?

[gwnn]

4♦

[whereagles]

4♦. Pard is very short in spades, so his take-out dbl rates to be a very pure one, with likelyhood of being on the lightish side (thus no way I'm passing this :)).

[jogs]

Would be nice if you include vulnerability. I would pass if opponents are non-vul. They seem to take liberties non-vul.

[kgr]

Would be nice if you include vulnerability. I would pass if opponents are non-vul. They seem to take liberties non-vul.

All red as you can see in the diagram header (red colors)

[Siegmund]

A close pass at IMPs that will occasionally go sour; a much clearer pass at MPs.

[kgr]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt98643h62dqc32&w=s5haq753dakj9cq75&n=shkt84dt84cakj864&e=saj72hj9d76532ct9&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=3sdppp]399|300[/hv]

My Pass was not a success and I felt bad about it (Because I also think now it is bad)

[aguahombre]

So five of the ten voters (thus far) get to use the actual layout to show how much smarter they are than Larry Cohen. I was a sheep who guessed to pass with 17 total tricks likely.

[MrAce]

Obviously i would have the same result by passing.

 

But i still pass.

[the hog]

4D, diagram or no diagram. The result is no surprise.

[Free]

Pass and 4♦ can both have merit, but I think 4♦ is a lot safer.

[gwnn]

So five of the ten voters (thus far) get to use the actual layout to show how much smarter they are than Larry Cohen. I was a sheep who guessed to pass with 17 total tricks likely.

no need to be bitter.

 

just remember that a 7-0 fit is not the same as a 4-3 (for example).

 

long suits make the law break down.

[whereagles]

even 7-1 is not enough. This week-end I saw stuff broke 5-0 :blink:

[whereagles]

long suits make the law break down.

 

The law is statistical. It says total tricks = trump length, ON AVERAGE. Deviations of 1-2 tricks are prefectly normal on such a random variable.

 

For an arguably better evaluation method, see Lawrence/Wirgren's book "I fought the law".

[gwnn]

Say we have a 4-4 fit, and we keep the distributions constant, and start moving around kings and queens between our hands, we will most often find that if a king is "onside" for them, it's "offside" for us, so the sum of the available tricks will stay more or less the same.

 

However, if we keep the opps' cards the same and we change our hands from 4-4 to 8-0, it will most often lead to them getting much less tricks on defence but not a much different number of tricks when they declare (perhaps one less, because we can ruff something, or their trumps break bad).

 

It is not just random. Long suits make the law break down.

[Siegmund]

If a penalty pass fails because opener had an 8-card suit to the KQ at equal vulnerability AND responder turned up with 3 working tricks... gee, seems like that means pass is clearly right and is usually going to net a 500-point set, with no guarantee a 4D bid is going to produce a game.

[bluecalm]

Pass wouldn't even cross my mind to be honest. I think it's very bad.

I don't think it's close even at matchpoints.

[mtvesuvius]

I'm also in the 4♦ camp. I'd pass at MPs, partially because I've found people pre-empt more aggressively at MPs.

 

At IMPs however, I just don't see where we are getting 500, or even 200 from. We have at best two trump tricks, and on a bad day, only one. We have no outside defense, and there rates to be a few cards in dummy as well, all of which we know are working.

 

I think passing is very bad position to take at IMPs, and will have you -730 significantly more than +500. +200 is nice, but if we beat this, we rate to make 4♦.

 

I think we have to expect at least two "working" cards in dummy, and unless they are opposite declarer's shortness, declarer will have 5 or 6♠, and at least 2, maybe 3 working cards in dummy. While this could occasionally be a 500 set, it's not worth the risk in the long run IMO.

[Phil]

The play in 3N looks kind of interesting on a non-club lead (and why would South find this?), but competent defense should always beat it.

 

I would bid 4♦, but it kind of depends who is on my left.

[MrAce]

no need to be bitter.

 

just remember that a 7-0 fit is not the same as a 4-3 (for example).

 

long suits make the law break down.

 

In a way the Law was accurate at this deal, as usually is at 2-3 levels. Also there are negative adjustments besides positive(long suit) ones in this hand, my ♠J for example.

 

We have 9♦+They have 8♠=17 trumps=17 tricks

 

They can make 9 tricks doubled, or they could take 500 in 4♦ doubled if played from East. (The Law requires DD defence and play)

 

So lets see the chart for pass and 4♦. I think when pd doubles 3♠ he tends to have a good hand, i expect results like -1 or -2 and very rarely = when i have 2♠ tricks.(i wish people brought also the hands where they bid but pass was making em rich, but they dont, i knew very well that this 3♠ was making when read the topic but still answered what i thought was right)

 

A-3♠x= -880 instead of -500 or -200

B-3♠x-1 +200 instead of -100 or - 200

C-3♠x-2 +500 instead of +130 or +860

D-3♠x-3 +800 instead of +600

E-3♠x-4 +1100 instead of +1370

 

I choose pass on any day over 4♦, simply because A and E will occur much less than B and C and D. I dont even mention there may as well be only 16 trumps. But hey, it did not work for this hand :) Sorry pd ! :P

[mtvesuvius]

Sorry but using the law to justify passing on hands like this is silly... As gwnn said, just think about the different effects of moving around cards and suits when trump divide 7-1 instead of 4-4 or 5-3. I don't see where you are getting 880 from, and I think 3♠ rates to make quite often.

[gwnn]

edited out

[MrAce]

Sorry but using the law to justify passing on hands like this is silly... As gwnn said, just think about the different effects of moving around cards and suits when trump divide 7-1 instead of 4-4 or 5-3. I don't see where you are getting 880 from, and I think 3♠ rates to make quite often.

 

 

You are off if u really believe they make 3♠ doubled often when pd doubles and u have AJxx ♠...I mean way way off. Pd is doubling 3♠, not 1 ♠.

 

Perhaps simulation helps, but i am quite confident we set them most of the time at least by 1 trick. When u have AJxx in trump, declarer will have 5 tricks in trumps and his pd has to cover pretty much 4 losers for him that u cant ruff...And if his pd is covering 4 tricks for him, boy, u aint gonna have fun at 4 level yourself even if u hit the jack pot and find a 9 card fit.

 

Anyway, we think different about how often 3♠ makes, but does it worth to take the risk or not should be the debate. We are talking about a good preempt here, i doubt that will be the case all the time in 1st seat. You pass and they go down most of the time, and they make once in a while, but regardless, they will not mess with u with their silly joke preempts after that and steal your space every other hand, pushing you to make important decisions when u dont have AJxx trump in their suit ;)

 

Sorry but using the law to justify passing on hands like this is silly...

 

I have no problem with you disagreeing with pass, but The Law is actually all about this. It is a guide to help u decide when u face such situations and have to decide whether it is more profittable to bid, or let them play :) (And the chart i posted doesnt support my pass, unless we find out the frequencies of each results)

[whereagles]

You are off if u really believe they make 3♠ doubled often when pd doubles and u have AJxx ♠...I mean way way off. Pd is doubling 3♠, not 1 ♠.

 

Perhaps simulation helps, but i am quite confident we set them most of the time at least by 1 trick.

 

Some people that a dbl of 3♠ promises slightly more than the dbl of 1♠, but not all abide by that requirement. It's very normal to see people dbling 3♠ on marginal 11-counts with a 4441. You may disagree with it, but it happens on a regular basis. I, for one, do it.

 

I agree that you'd normally set it by 1 trick, but there's too much risk involved for my liking. Especially since our hand tells us this can be one such case of pard dbling on a marginal hand.

[the_dude]

So .. we got our two trump tricks .. and partner's 16 count was compromised by the fact that all of the opponents high cards are over him. (which we know to be true looking at only 6) I consider this hand a perfect illustration as to why pass is poor with such a bad hand.

 

 

The 8 card suit is a distraction .. looking at only 2 trump tricks it's an unreasonable risk to assume that partner will produce 3 more with the rest of the deck sitting over him and opener with shortness somewhere.