Any takers?

[VM1973]

Well, VM it is hard to get a "top" at IMPs. Against a good team, I expect the same action to come over to my seat at the other table, and that the player in my seat will double. I don't want to swing it for the odds involved, since passing can't really gain much. I have a partner who won't be leaving a double in when he shouldn't.

 

Against a weaker team, I expect that the small loss which might occur because the other side didn't double will come back to us on other boards of the match; but would expect somewhere between +1 IMP and +11 IMPs if I double and my counterpart doesn't.

I realize it's hard to get a top at MPs. That's why I said you're likely to lose a lot of IMPs whereas it might work out well at matchpoints.

 

This has been another controversial, out of nowhere, trolling response made solely for the purpose of getting a rise out of you.

[VM1973]

Be nice, that was a thoughtful, well written post. While I don't agree with his conclusion, it's an honest post that raises reasonable points.

 

On that note, VM, there's one main reason I don't agree with your conclusion. The double is simply meant to give partner the chance to do something good. I believe that more often than not he'll leave the double in when we'll set it, and he'll bid when we'll make something, and the times when neither is possible is, oh well, then we're hopefully getting a cheap sac against 3S making.

 

In fact, most of the time I disagree with you seems not to be in your ability to analyze the deal from your hand, but that I think you don't appreciate all the ways to utilize your partner's input in the auction. Just my two cents on the pattern of when we disagree.

Thank you for your generosity in saying that it was a thoughtful well[-]written post.

 

Assuming that you believe in the Law of Total Tricks (which I realize not everyone does) and that there are 17 trumps on the deal, and also assuming that partner can manage to bid us into an 8-card fit (guessing at the 4-level makes me uncomfortable) we're still figuring that 3S makes 9 tricks (+140) whereas we are in 4 hearts only taking 8 tricks. If we are doubled and down 2, which doesn't seem that unlikely, we are -300 when the opponents weren't making game. Accordingly I believe that it's unlikely that the sac will be profitable (unless we escape undoubled, which I consider unlikely).

 

As I said, it might make better sense at matchpoints or if you had a stiff spade.

 

This has been another controversial, out of nowhere, trolling response made solely for the purpose of getting a rise out of you.

[JLOGIC]

Just curious, why do you manually post that at the end of every post when you could just make it your signature?

[VM1973]

Just curious, why do you manually post that at the end of every post when you could just make it your signature?

Because I don't know how to make a signature.

 

This has been another controversial, out of nowhere, trolling response made solely for the purpose of getting a rise out of you.

[gwnn]

click on your username in the top right corner, then

my settings->profile->change signature

[gwnn]

VM1973, I think you misunderstand JLOGIC's reasons

Overall we have a lot of those things:

 

-Complete max non opener

-No spade honor

-Good defense

-Four hearts

-Not vulnerable

When you try to paraphrase them as

I really disagree with balancing with this hand just because you've got ♠xx and you're not totally broke.

It would be nice if you could try to take time and look for reasons given in the thread and not just write controversial, out of nowhere, trolling responses made solely for the purpose of getting a rise out of us. :)

[Free]

Definitely Dbl: we have decent shape, good defense, and I'm almost embarrassed that I passed. With reversed vulnerability I would be more scared.

[VM1973]

VM1973, I think you misunderstand JLOGIC's reasons

When you try to paraphrase them as

It would be nice if you could try to take time and look for reasons given in the thread and not just write controversial, out of nowhere, trolling responses made solely for the purpose of getting a rise out of us. :)

Fully 80-90 percent of the posts I make are perfectly normal. You all just get bent out of shape because I think outside the box and I don't accept slink away with my tail between my legs everytime someone disagrees with me. The point adding the "controversial, out of nowhere, trolling responses..." point was to draw attention to that very fact. The majority of posts I make are "What is CHO?" or "What's the difference between a progressive squeeze and a three-suited one?"

 

Hmm... I think something got lost in the quote field. I've lost my train of thought... what were you saying?

Oh yes...

-Complete max non opener

-No spade honor

-Good defense

-Four hearts

-Not vulnerable

 

1. Well you have 24 ZPs so all right.

2. Agreed.

3. I disagree. You have 1.5 quick tricks - that's not what I consider "good defense" against a 3-level contract.

4. Agreed.

5. Irrelevant.

 

To date no one has addressed any of the objections I made. Quite simply, there isn't a good reason to think there are enough trumps on this deal to push forward. As such, the double is going to end up being penalty most of the time and it isn't likely to work out well for you unless LHO has made an undisciplined call.

 

Even if we assign your partner 2.5 quick tricks, adding in your 1.5 you reach 4 defensive tricks and that means the contract is likely to make.

 

Best case scenario you set it one trick and pick up an extra 100 (+3 IMPs) or you scramble out to 4 of something undoubled down 2 for a 40 point gain (+1 IMP). The more likely scenario is 3 hearts doubled making. I'm not the best scorer in the world, but I think that's -730 (590 difference) for an 11 IMP loss. So since you are, in essence, wagering 11 IMPs hoping to gain only 2, you'd better be sure that what you're hoping to do is more than 80 percent likely to occur (because even at 80% you're losing out).

 

Additionally the above doesn't take into account the other bad possibilities that might happen because you or your partner (not having perfect information) makes a mistake. What happens if:

 

1. Your partner, holding 3 spades, figures you for a stiff and bids when he should have passed?

2. The opening lead totally screws the pooch?

3. Your partner doesn't have hearts with you and scrambles out into a 4-3 fit?

4. You're not a world class bridge defender and you or your partner makes a defensive error allowing them to make?

 

Sorry but, as I said, it's too rich for me.

Furthermore, I don't see why my saying: I would feel very uncomfortable doubling... is a call for everyone to pile on and try to convince VillaMaria to buy his "WWJD" T-shirt.

[aguahombre]

Just for future reference "CHO" is partner. Center-Hand Opponent basically refers to when I make a call which is meant to give the opponents trouble; but, in doing so I have disregarded the problems it might create for my partner who believes my bid.

[gwnn]

VM1973, in my opinion the three best scenarios that will occur reasonably often are

 

3Sx-2 vs 3S-2 and

3NT= vs 3S-1..3

4H= vs 3S-1..3

 

You seem to be saying that we are aiming for 3Sx-1 whilst juggling with 3Sx=. I think we will usually set them when partner passes and we will often find a nice 3NT or 4H game when he pulls. In my opinion, you are underestimating the upsides (that we can set them 2 or 3 times doubled and that we can find very nice games) and overestimating the downsides (that maybe we play 4m-1 when 3S would not have made, that maybe partner leaves it in and they make).

 

Unfortunately there is little scope of demonstrating this logically, which I know you would prefer me/us to do. Objective/logical demonstration would be to organise very long teammatches between people who balance liberally vs people who balance only with a singleton, and to somehow make sure that their abilities otherwise are equal. Presently this is only possible with robots but results based on their paltry abilities are unreliable.

 

edit: Perhaps we disagree on the frequency on which partner should be pulling our double. You are saying double is going to end up penalty most of the time, I definitely disagree with that assessment. I would be surprised if doublers in this thread would expect double to be left in more than 50% of the time.

[the_dude]

I posted this hand because at the time it seemed kind of out there to double with a flat 11 passed hand .. but it also seemed so right.

 

I don't have an opener, partner couldn't bid, and RHO couldn't find a raise to game opposite a Red V White 3S bid. I figured either:

 

1. RHO has a good hand but no spades .. in this case partner will probably leave the double in and we will probably beat it.

2. Partner had a good but balanced hand with no bid. In this case we can likely make something. The bonus is when we can make 4H.

 

Partner held: xx AQxxx Q10x Axx. 4H made exactly 4 .. turns out LHO was the liar (AJ10xxxx and out). Seemed kind of lucky tho...

[VM1973]

VM1973, in my opinion the three best scenarios that will occur reasonably often are

 

3Sx-2 vs 3S-2 and

3NT= vs 3S-1..3

4H= vs 3S-1..3

 

You seem to be saying that we are aiming for 3Sx-1 whilst juggling with 3Sx=. I think we will usually set them when partner passes and we will often find a nice 3NT or 4H game when he pulls. In my opinion, you are underestimating the upsides (that we can set them 2 or 3 times doubled and that we can find very nice games) and overestimating the downsides (that maybe we play 4m-1 when 3S would not have made, that maybe partner leaves it in and they make).

 

Unfortunately there is little scope of demonstrating this logically, which I know you would prefer me/us to do. Objective/logical demonstration would be to organise very long teammatches between people who balance liberally vs people who balance only with a singleton, and to somehow make sure that their abilities otherwise are equal. Presently this is only possible with robots but results based on their paltry abilities are unreliable.

 

edit: Perhaps we disagree on the frequency on which partner should be pulling our double. You are saying double is going to end up penalty most of the time, I definitely disagree with that assessment. I would be surprised if doublers in this thread would expect double to be left in more than 50% of the time.

I'm assuming that the preempter has about 9 HCPs. Something like:

♠KQJ10xxx

♥xx

♦Kx

♣xx

 

And unless my math is wrong, your hand adds up to 11 HCPs. Accordingly I can only assume that the remaining 20 HCPs are most likely divided evenly between the other two people. Now, people with 21 HCPs don't usually bid and make 3NT and they don't normally set their opponents 2 tricks when said oppoents have a 9-card fit.

 

Even if we assign your partner an opening hand, something like:

♠Ax

♥AQxx

♦Qxxx

♣Jxx

 

You're not defeating 3♠ and you're not making 4♥ so the gain you get is small, as I said - maybe 3 IMPs max. If his hand is stronger than that like:

♠Ax

♥AQxx

♦Qxxx

♣KJx

 

then I think it's quite possible that he may take action over 3♠ in direct seat.

[gwnn]

Why can't partner have 5 hearts? You don't even mention the possibility. As I said, all these discussions boil down to one side drumming on about the wins of their action and the losses of the other action, and in a way it's normal to have it like that because it's difficult to objectively compare them. And it is very easy to come up with example hands where any single bridge action (that is at least remotely reasonable) works, so that isn't that productive either.

 

edit: As for your specific points, I'd like to point out that 9 hcp is the absolute maximum that most people preempt with (AQTxxxx and a singleton and out suffices for many people) and that the king of diamonds is the most unpleasant outside card he can have, so your example hand is very friendly just to prove your point.

Edited September 9, 2011 by gwnn

[Finch]

Sure, I might lose a partscore swing or even a game swing, but I can't lose the match by passing.

 

I think you need to be careful about that sort of thinking. Maybe it's a consequence of playing online too much, when matches are always very short? Most IMPs matches are at least 24 boards, usually much more (including Swiss events scored by VPs, though not win-loss). Most of the time you should be taking the action with the best expected result, not worrying about losing the match 'on one board', or you just end up being far too conservative. If you are 50 up with 8 to play, that's the time to start being conservative!

[Phil]

While VM doesn't know how to use the 'signature' function, I've never learned how to 'manage blocked users'.

 

I've never had a need to. Until now.

[Finch]

 

{added by FH: JLOGIC SAID}

-Complete max non opener

-No spade honor

-Good defense

-Four hearts

-Not vulnerable

 

1. Well you have 24 ZPs so all right.

2. Agreed.

3. I disagree. You have 1.5 quick tricks - that's not what I consider "good defense" against a 3-level contract.

4. Agreed.

5. Irrelevant.

 

Vulnerability is hugely relevant. One thing I've changed a lot in my bidding over the last few years is to take much more account of vulnerability, not just in opening pre-empts and marginal game decisions (the 'traditional' times) but in 1-level openings, overcalls... everywhere.

 

Being NV here is very important. One of the things that can go wrong with doubling is when partner has a weak-NT type hand (like some of the ones you've been suggesting) and you have no real fit and go 2 or 3 off undoubled - undoubled because you have quite a few high cards and trumps don't fall over, but you are just lacking length tricks and have too many spades. NV that is -100 or -150 which might be basically flat against 140, or cost 5 imps against 3S-1; if you are vulnerable it's now -200 or -300 and the downside is noticeably worse. And if they are going to double, I'd definitely prefer to be NV.

 

I voted for double, but the thing that makes me most nervous about it is the doubleton spade; that's what I really hate. Partner knows that I nearly always have a singleton and will evaluate accordingly. But then I'd have opened this hand, so it's much rarer for me to have a hand with a doubleton for a protective double... if we are conservative openers, then partner will act accordingly.

 

p.s. I'd have opened this hand as we are NV. I probably wouldn't have opened vulnerable. Another example.

[MrAce]

Vulnerability is hugely relevant. One thing I've changed a lot in my bidding over the last few years is to take much more account of vulnerability, not just in opening pre-empts and marginal game decisions (the 'traditional' times) but in 1-level openings, overcalls... everywhere.

 

Imo