Distributional Filth

[aguahombre]

[hv=pc=n&s=s5ht5dq7532c97532&n=sa863h4dak8cakt64]133|200[/hv]

 

Interesting. One poster believes North would be a moron for trying 6C after the second double and a 4NT runout. Maybe, but a lucky moron. Another believes 4NT is wrong and shows little faith in North's bidding.

 

There are a lot more North hands which might have been better to illustrate this phenomenon.

[MrAce]

Having already been converted from pass to 4N by the posts here, I note the following:

 

I don't believe the given hand with one more Q and/or Jack would have necessarily bid 4N over 4H without the second double.

 

It is possible that partner will bid 6m after my 4N with a lot of controls and a bit of extra minor suit length. It might even be right on this hand, or it might not work out well if we could make exactly 5, but RHM's comment ---while maybe intended sarcastically---might have value and is not ignoring anything.

 

If pd is bidding 6 in this auction, he is bidding on his own. Not because u bid 4NT and promised any value except than shape. 4NT is a response to his 2nd DBL, does not promise anything except than unwillingness to play 4♥ doubled and some shape, since we passed 4♥ initially. Anyone who thinks this 4NT is some sort of slam encouragement is in wrong forum imo.

 

Game before Slam. Had we decided not to bid 4NT the auction would DIE 4♥ doubled. I hope this means something to you. Unless you have a strategy that allows u ONLY and ONLY defend doubled or bid slam, and if u do, good luck with that.

[mikeh]

I suggest the 4n bidders have very little faith in their

partners ability to decide when a reopen x is wise.

Your p already know you did not want to x 4h and that

you were not strong enough to bid a game and that if weak

you had no reasonable sacrifice. That means P must consider

the probability that his LHO has some goods and will only

reopen with x when it is safe for a weak p to pass.

 

The sad part about bidding 4n is I probably have defense

in the form of a spade ruff which is completely unexpected

and makes the penalty pass even more likely to succeed

Let me suggest that you try to construct some typical hands for partner. This is dangerous, since most of us have a tough time being objective when we do this, but it is still a useful exercise in this kind of situation.

 

I suggest that you be careful to exclude hands that would have overcalled in notrump or bid/rebid spades at some point. In fact, I suggest that you assume that partner has 4=1=4=4 shape. Obviously, he might not, but he ought to be doubling in the expectation that you will play him for this shape.

 

Now, having constructed his hand type, go the next step and try to construct the hands held by the opps. This is a second-level inference (constructing partner's was a 1st level inference). Inferences are usually to be viewed with some caution, but one of the attributes of the expert player is the willingness to draw and rely upon this sort of reasoning. It is also, interestingly enough, easier to do this against competent opponents than against unskilled players.

 

If we place partner with 4=1=4=4, we should, I think, assume that LHO probably has fewer than 4 spades. Some players will open 2♥ with 4=6 majors, but they are in the minority.

 

 

Now we begin to see RHO as likely holding 5 or 6 spades along with 4 hearts, and this means he is short in the minors....it also means that both of our 9 card fits will break reasonably well......of course, that doesn't hold if rho is 6=4=3=0 or 6=4=0=3, but while that is bad for our offence, it is even worse for our defence!

 

So let's assume that rho's hand types include 6=4 (21) and 5=4=2=2/3-1/1-3.

 

Having got that far, and bearing in mind that we have placed partner with a strong 4=1=4=4, we can see that, while there are no guarantees in any of this, passing will rarely score a big plus, and may often go minus, while bidding offers excellent chances of a plus, and may in fact turn out to be either a double game swing or, on an unusual day, a good sacrifice.

 

Notice that nowhere in this process did we give regard to the obvious fact that we hold a 'weak hand'.

 

Your point that partner expects us to pass with a weak hand is, largely, valid. Were we 3=2=4=4, with the same lack of strength, I suspect that all of the 4N bidders would pass, concerned that they may make, hoping that they don't, and aware that opposite most hands they can construct for partner, they have no hope of going plus if they bid.

 

So, yes, partner is prepared for us to pass with weakness, but he expects us to do the sort of analysis I have described here before doing so.

 

I hope that helps.

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&s=s5ht5dq7532c97532&n=sa863h4dak8cakt64]133|200[/hv]

 

Interesting. One poster believes North would be a moron for trying 6C after the second double and a 4NT runout. Maybe, but a lucky moron. Another believes 4NT is wrong and shows little faith in North's bidding.

 

There are a lot more North hands which might have been better to illustrate this phenomenon.

 

I would not be interested less in starting a back and forth hand picking with you. But i think Axxx vs stiff, AKx vs Qxxxx and AKxxx vs xxxxx is called PERFECTO among good players ;)

 

Funny as it is, even with this hand, if u make our hand xx x xxxxx Qxxxx

slam goes down :D Which then players like you, ironically, would have MUCH LESS reason to pass 4♥ Dbled, because there would be no ♠ ruff expectations.

 

But on the forums experts find everything with a %99.99 accuracy right ?

[han]

Let me suggest that you try to construct some typical hands for partner. This is dangerous, since most of us have a tough time being objective when we do this, but it is still a useful exercise in this kind of situation.

 

I suggest that you be careful to exclude hands that would have overcalled in notrump or bid/rebid spades at some point. In fact, I suggest that you assume that partner has 4=1=4=4 shape. Obviously, he might not, but he ought to be doubling in the expectation that you will play him for this shape.

 

Now, having constructed his hand type, go the next step and try to construct the hands held by the opps. This is a second-level inference (constructing partner's was a 1st level inference). Inferences are usually to be viewed with some caution, but one of the attributes of the expert player is the willingness to draw and rely upon this sort of reasoning. It is also, interestingly enough, easier to do this against competent opponents than against unskilled players.

 

If we place partner with 4=1=4=4, we should, I think, assume that LHO probably has fewer than 4 spades. Some players will open 2♥ with 4=6 majors, but they are in the minority.

 

 

Now we begin to see RHO as likely holding 5 or 6 spades along with 4 hearts, and this means he is short in the minors....it also means that both of our 9 card fits will break reasonably well......of course, that doesn't hold if rho is 6=4=3=0 or 6=4=0=3, but while that is bad for our offence, it is even worse for our defence!

 

So let's assume that rho's hand types include 6=4 (21) and 5=4=2=2/3-1/1-3.

 

Having got that far, and bearing in mind that we have placed partner with a strong 4=1=4=4, we can see that, while there are no guarantees in any of this, passing will rarely score a big plus, and may often go minus, while bidding offers excellent chances of a plus, and may in fact turn out to be either a double game swing or, on an unusual day, a good sacrifice.

 

Notice that nowhere in this process did we give regard to the obvious fact that we hold a 'weak hand'.

 

Your point that partner expects us to pass with a weak hand is, largely, valid. Were we 3=2=4=4, with the same lack of strength, I suspect that all of the 4N bidders would pass, concerned that they may make, hoping that they don't, and aware that opposite most hands they can construct for partner, they have no hope of going plus if they bid.

 

So, yes, partner is prepared for us to pass with weakness, but he expects us to do the sort of analysis I have described here before doing so.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Do you do this sort of analysis at the table? I must admit I wouldn't go further than "takeout double, 5-5, clear pull".

[mikeh]

Do you do this sort of analysis at the table? I must admit I wouldn't go further than "takeout double, 5-5, clear pull".

yes

 

To the extent that I can claim to be a real expert, the turning point for me was playing for a year as the regular partner of Alan Graves, one of the finest players Canada has produced. He thinks deeply into the game, and one of the things I learned from him was to take the time to think logically about primary, secondary and tertiary inferences.

 

I'm not the fastest player in the world. However, I do think a lot faster than I type :D

[ggwhiz]

As a matter of maintaining partnership trust we NEVER pull such a double without a decent chance of a plus.

 

This qualifies as a 4nt bid for the reasons already stated but I wouldn't be surprised if 4♥ and 5m were both down one.

 

If by "real" bridge the OP means IMPS bidding rates to be a small loss at worst and passing risks a disaster.

[the hog]

I suggest the 4n bidders have very little faith in their

partners ability to decide when a reopen x is wise.

Your p already know you did not want to x 4h and that

you were not strong enough to bid a game and that if weak

you had no reasonable sacrifice. That means P must consider

the probability that his LHO has some goods and will only

reopen with x when it is safe for a weak p to pass.

 

The sad part about bidding 4n is I probably have defense

in the form of a spade ruff which is completely unexpected

and makes the penalty pass even more likely to succeed

 

I think you have no understanding of what the 2nd double means.

[jogs]

[hv=pc=n&s=s2h32dq7654c65432&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2hd4hppdp]133|200[/hv]

 

it was actually speedball which imo makes pass a clear winner as the opps will often be having a total larf, but assuming it's real bridge, what do you think?

 

What's the vulnerability on this board? I can't see it.

 

Assuming advancer is 4=1=4=4. Whether opponents go down or not will depend on their pattern fit.

5=4=2=2 facing 3=6=2=2. They rate to go down. Maybe more than the value of game.

5=4=4=0 facing 3=6=0=4. They're probably a favorite to make.

They can hold every pattern in between. We are in no position to judge.

 

Does advancer show 18-21 HCP on this second double?

 

Still think we need to know the vulnerability and run a monte carlo to answer this question properly.

Also helps to know your opponents.

[aguahombre]

The white background behind the direction symbols means NV; red means vulnerable. Quite similar to what a real life board looks like.

[jdeegan]

:P I am a little surprised that I am the only respondant who applied the law of total trick analysis. It can be very useful on hands like this. It works out as follows:

Base case is:

1. they have 10 trumps

2. they have a secondary 8 card ♠ fit split 3-5 or even 2-6.

3. we have 9 trumps

4. we have a secondary 9 card fit

5. I don't see any sign of negative adjustment factors, but they can't be ruled out.

All this adds up to 21 tricks.

There is a possible upside if there are voids out or if we have 10 trumps with a secondary side suit of 8 or even 9 cards. There is a somewhat more likely downside if the opponents have mirror 2-2 holdings in the minors, or only 9 trumps, or (unlikely) a mirror 4-4 holding in ♠. We are still talking about 19 to 22 total tricks with a median between 21 and 22. With 20, 21 or 22 tricks it is right to bid 4NT. Even with the dreaded 19 trick hand, the only way passing is right is a split of 9 for them and 10 for us. Of course, an 18 trick hand is possible, but given a classic six card weak two bid and less than desperado opponents, it has to be of very low probability, maybe 10%. Even then 5 of a minor may make.

The great thing about LOTT is that, with practice, you actually have time to apply it at the table in an abbreviated form. Its conclusion is the same as the good players came up with on this thread - 4NT is the obvious call. Anything else is utterly wrong. As far as pard hanging me by bidding six, I haven't promised ANY high cards, just a 5-5 minor suit distribution.

[Zelandakh]

I think post #28 from mikeh is one of the finest I have seen here in a while, clearly setting out the thought processes of an expert player in this kind of position. Many thanks for this.

[jogs]

The LOTT gives an estimate of total tricks which is +/- two tricks. From How I Fought the Law of Total Tricks knowing the pattern of the side suits will narrow the range to +/- one trick. Flatness leads to fewer tricks. Voids leads to more tricks than the LOTT estimates.

[gnasher]

I'd apply Han's analysis, though Mike's is instructive.

[Phil]

I'd apply Han's analysis, though Mike's is instructive.

 

I'd apply MikeH's analysis, though Han's is instructive.

[han]

Mikeh's analysis is wonderful for the discussion, and moreover, being able to make such an analysis at the table is a great asset for bridge players. I am not convinced that it is called for on this hand at the table.

 

Haven't we all thought about very similar decisions many times before, and don't we know rather quickly what we we would bid? Are the tertiary inferences going to change anything?

 

I am not saying we should bid 4NT in a flash. A jumpy auction like this doesn't call for bidding in a flash, and besides, inferences that we make now (such as that RHO probably has spade length) may be useful later. But if we think about such decisions for 25 seconds then we spend a lot of energy, we may tip off the opponents (a great example in Bramley's report on te Vanderbilt in the last BW) and we may create problems for partner.

 

I don't mean to suggest that mikeh would actually spend 25 seconds on his analysis, of course I pulled that number out of my hat. What I am saying is that I would consider this a somewhat mundane decision that I would make without going as in-depth as mikeh does here.

[mikeh]

Mikeh's analysis is wonderful for the discussion, and moreover, being able to make such an analysis at the table is a great asset for bridge players. I am not convinced that it is called for on this hand at the table.

 

Haven't we all thought about very similar decisions many times before, and don't we know rather quickly what we we would bid? Are the tertiary inferences going to change anything?

 

I am not saying we should bid 4NT in a flash. A jumpy auction like this doesn't call for bidding in a flash, and besides, inferences that we make now (such as that RHO probably has spade length) may be useful later. But if we think about such decisions for 25 seconds then we spend a lot of energy, we may tip off the opponents (a great example in Bramley's report on te Vanderbilt in the last BW) and we may create problems for partner.

 

I don't mean to suggest that mikeh would actually spend 25 seconds on his analysis, of course I pulled that number out of my hat. What I am saying is that I would consider this a somewhat mundane decision that I would make without going as in-depth as mikeh does here.

You are right, of course.....what I wrote was as it were an extended-play version of what I would consciously think at the table. There are hands on which I would take the time to do the full-blown analysis, but I suspect that all of us have developed barely conscious or even subconscious subroutines for situations that we encounter frequently. We sort of automate some aspects of the analysis, and I am sure I would do so here.

 

However, my take on how non-experts will often go wrong here is because they either have little prior experience with this situation or, perhaps more commonly, have never learned how to draw and rely upon inferences in the manner I set out.

 

I think I would make my call within about 5-10 seconds, perhaps a little longer behind screens, and that some but not all of my conscious thought processes would be as I wrote, but that my non-verbal thinking would incorporate the entire analysis. I know that I think faster than my mind can form words, and it is that non-verbal or perhaps subconscious part of the brain that will be completing the analysis.

 

In that sense, my post and my subsequent reply that I do think this way at the table was a little misleading....on this hand, since I have encountered its like many times, I would be unlikely to do the full monty. But I hope that doesn't detract from the utility of my earlier post.

[gszes]

pulling to 4n with the hand shown really

makes it extraordinarily difficult for p

to reopen with x. In fact about the only

time they can afford to reopen with x is

if they have a rock crusher. Do we really

want p to have to PASS when they have

hands similar to

 

AKxx x Axxx Axxx (put K in any suit but hearts)

 

whats wrong with taking an extra sure 50?

 

and a whole slew of slightly stronger hands that

would give zero play in 5 of a minor

 

then there are also the just plain strong hands

with lots of defense like;)

 

KQJx x KJTx AKQx

 

which offer no play for 5 of a minor yet are

an overwhelming favorite to hammer 4h

 

these hands are all weaker than the ones needed

to make 5/6 of a minor and are a ton more

likely.

 

If you think reopening with hands like

 

KJxx x AKxx KQxx

 

is a good idea (I dont because I would

hate for p to pass with a weak hand),

definitely balance with 4n with the hand

given in problem at imps because a double

swing is definitely possible

[jogs]

 

 

and a whole slew of slightly stronger hands that

would give zero play in 5 of a minor

 

then there are also the just plain strong hands

with lots of defense like;)

 

KQJx x KJTx AKQx

 

which offer no play for 5 of a minor yet are

an overwhelming favorite to hammer 4h

 

these hands are all weaker than the ones needed

to make 5/6 of a minor and are a ton more

likely.

 

If you think reopening with hands like

 

KJxx x AKxx KQxx

 

is a good idea (I dont because I would

hate for p to pass with a weak hand),

definitely balance with 4n with the hand

given in problem at imps because a double

swing is definitely possible

 

Sometimes there's not way to judge the defense

from the auction.

 

Opponents may be

 

3=6=4=0 facing 5=4=0=4

 

All those minor tricks may vanish.

[jonottawa]

Pass. The spots could not be clearer.

[jdeegan]

The LOTT gives an estimate of total tricks which is +/- two tricks. From How I Fought the Law of Total Tricks knowing the pattern of the side suits will narrow the range to +/- one trick. Flatness leads to fewer tricks. Voids leads to more tricks than the LOTT estimates.

:P 1. How I Fought the Law of Total Tricks presents an analytical framework that can be even better than the LOTT on many hands. I love it. It really illustrates how deadly stiff minor honors in the opps suit are in competitive auctions.

2. Both LOTT and I fought the law are simply two tools among many that can help the bridge player.

3. Proper use of LOTT adds a trick for both a void and a seven bagger. 4-4 fits outside of trumps are not secondary fits since there is no discard available, etc. etc. "A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or not taste not the Pierian spring."

4. The way the song goes is: "I fought the law, and the law won." Don't forget that Mike and Anders picked the title for their own book. I'm sure Mike and probably Anders know the song. It's called irony, son.

[whereagles]

The law won because players aren't interested in rocket science.

 

LOTT is dead simple and, if you use Cohen's adjustments, it gives you the right answer a great deal of the time.

 

FTL is clearly more accurate but it needs at-table calculations and some assumptions only an experienced player can get right.

 

If bridge players were all geeks we'd definitely see everybody using FTL instead of LOTT. But that's not the case.

[jogs]

:P 1. How I Fought the Law of Total Tricks presents an analytical framework that can be even better than the LOTT on many hands. I love it. It really illustrates how deadly stiff minor honors in the opps suit are in competitive auctions.

2. Both LOTT and I fought the law are simply two tools among many that can help the bridge player.

3. Proper use of LOTT adds a trick for both a void and a seven bagger. 4-4 fits outside of trumps are not secondary fits since there is no discard available, etc. etc. "A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or not taste not the Pierian spring."

4. The way the song goes is: "I fought the law, and the law won." Don't forget that Mike and Anders picked the title for their own book. I'm sure Mike and probably Anders know the song. It's called irony, son.

 

HCP is the first estimate of tricks.

Use HCP and combined trumps for the second estimate of tricks.

 

Expected(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e

 

This is the equation for the estimate of tricks for one side.

 

Wirgrens/Lawrence work does NOT replace LOTT. Used with LOTT it improves the estimates.

 

E(tricks) = C(ts) + (HCP-20)/3 + e

 

Where the array C is a family of constants for each combined trumps and pattern fit combination.

[gnasher]

Did the "Law" win? My impression is that very few good players rely on it.

 

There's really no substitute for thinking about what everyone else has got, then working out what each side is likely to make. I might not agree with gszes's conclusions about this particular hand, but his approach seems a lot better than counting up how many trumps everyone has and then magically converting it to a number of tricks.

[jdeegan]

Did the "Law" win? My impression is that very few good players rely on it.

 

There's really no substitute for thinking about what everyone else has got, then working out what each side is likely to make. I might not agree with gszes's conclusions about this particular hand, but his approach seems a lot better than counting up how many trumps everyone has and then magically converting it to a number of tricks.

:P It is a good place to start. Analysis is not magic.