Another high level decision

[mfa1010]

I agree that 4♣ doesn't set up a force, but still partner should expect a good hand opposite and feel involved. I don't think he needs a majestic misfit to double. I'm pulling this but not with confidence.

[Phil]

As for the original auction, I'm also in the pass-is-not-forcing camp and hence partner's double is a fairly strong penalty opinion. Still strikes me as a tough decision, but I think I'd pass.

 

I am in the 'pass is forcing' camp along with MikeH. Since double under this construct doesn't carry the same penalty message as it does if pass is non-forcing, then the 5♣ bidders aren't as worried about finding a useless, defensive minimum across.

[Fluffy]

II don't think 4♣ created a forcing pass, either.

 

I disagree on this, 4♣ bid is encouraging partner to bid to the 5 level, I don´t think it makes any sense to do that on defence vul vs not. Unless your metha-agreements clearly say that competitive picture bids don´t create forcing pass I think this one should be taken as such.

[MrAce]

Here is the entire deal

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sthaj8765dcaq9765&w=sakj82h92dqj98ckj&n=sq97ht43dak62ct32&e=s6543hkqdt7543c84]399|300[/hv]

 

if you are a bidder you get -50 or - 100

 

if you are a passer you get +500 ( at the table claimed -800 and accepted)

 

EW were Greco and Hampson, NS were Gittelman and Moss

 

South (Fred) after a reasonable tank, passed. After the hand he commented something like " I am not sure if i could pass in real life"

 

But regardless, the difference between bidding and passing was huge on this deal, and he got it right.

[JLOGIC]

This hand is very convincing!

[nige1]

My guess: 5♣ = 10, 5♦ = 9, Pass = 8.

[Finch]

I disagree on this, 4♣ bid is encouraging partner to bid to the 5 level, I don´t think it makes any sense to do that on defence vul vs not. Unless your metha-agreements clearly say that competitive picture bids don´t create forcing pass I think this one should be taken as such.

 

The argument for playing it as non-forcing is that there is no need to play it as forcing. This does need you to be playing 3NT as artificial, however. So on this auction we play:

 

4H = to play, no forcing pass

3NT = good 4H bid, sets up a forcing pass if they bid again, no serious second suit

4m = natural, usually 5-5, invites partner to pass, double or bid on with a suitable hand

 

If you have a 4m hand that wanted to set up a forcing pass, you bid 4m then double if partner passes - not showing defence particularly, but saying you really meant it.

 

This way you learn more about responder's hand: he can pass, bid or double and they all give stronger opinions than if he was in a forcing pass auction.

You don't seem to give up much; you make opener's re-opening double a little less well defined is all.

[jogs]

Here is the entire deal

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sthaj8765dcaq9765&w=sakj82h92dqj98ckj&n=sq97ht43dak62ct32&e=s6543hkqdt7543c84]399|300[/hv]

 

 

How did Marty Bergen convince the bridge community that 3♠ is the correct bid with the East hand? There is no statistical evidence to support his view.

East 5 points are in the short suits. 5 points in hearts means N-S will probably lose only one heart trick even when they have 5-3 hearts. No singletons are unlucky for offense. For normalized boards meaning 20-20 in HCP for each pair a 5-4 fit with flat hands produces an expected 8 to 8 2/3 tricks not 9 tricks. This East hand is unlucky for our side and lucky for opponents. 2♠ or even pass is a better bid than 3♠.

[aguahombre]

How did Marty Bergen convince the bridge community that 3♠ is the correct bid with the East hand? There is no statistical evidence to support his view.

East 5 points are in the short suits. 5 points in hearts means N-S will probably lose only one heart trick even when they have 5-3 hearts. No singletons are unlucky for offense. For normalized boards meaning 20-20 in HCP for each pair a 5-4 fit with flat hands produces an expected 8 to 8 2/3 tricks not 9 tricks. This East hand is unlucky for our side and lucky for opponents. 2♠ or even pass is a better bid than 3♠.

Perhaps Greco and Hampson have had better results misbidding by 1/3 trick than others have. But, they have a day and a half to absorb the concept, before they have to play again.

[JLOGIC]

How did Marty Bergen convince the bridge community that 3♠ is the correct bid with the East hand? There is no statistical evidence to support his view.

East 5 points are in the short suits. 5 points in hearts means N-S will probably lose only one heart trick even when they have 5-3 hearts. No singletons are unlucky for offense. For normalized boards meaning 20-20 in HCP for each pair a 5-4 fit with flat hands produces an expected 8 to 8 2/3 tricks not 9 tricks. This East hand is unlucky for our side and lucky for opponents. 2♠ or even pass is a better bid than 3♠.

 

I will point greco and hampson to your advice, thanks.

[jogs]

Perhaps Greco and Hampson have had better results misbidding by 1/3 trick than others have. But, they have a day and a half to absorb the concept, before they have to play again.

 

This 1/3 of a trick underperformance is based solely on pattern. This hand has other negatives. In Larry Cohen's "To Bid or Not to Bid" there is a table on page 216. It includes some variables for positive and negative adjustments. KQ tight in opponents' suit is an additional negative adjustment. Qxxx, xx, Kxxxx, xx

is a much better hand than xxxx, KQ, xxxxx, xx.

[JLOGIC]

Qxxx, xx, Kxxxx, xx

is a much better hand than xxxx, KQ, xxxxx, xx.

 

Agreed, that is why they no doubt would show a mixed raise with the first hand and a weak raise with the 2nd hand.

[JLOGIC]

Jogs, how did this 3S bid work on this hand? If you bid 2S you will no doubt defend 4H making. If you bid 3S, then more than half of the people would bid on to 5H with the south hand apparently, so you would defend 5H down. Some people would judge correctly and get you for 500 instead of 420. So you risk a couple of imps to gain 10 or so, because you applied pressure. Against Mikeh, Phil, loldonn, gnasher, you win 10 imps for bidding 3S. Against fred, you lose 2. That is how bridge is played, that is why bids like 3S work out well. Stop thinking about the law of total tricks lol

[MrAce]

Jogs, how did this 3S bid work on this hand? If you bid 2S you will no doubt defend 4H making. If you bid 3S, then more than half of the people would bid on to 5H with the south hand apparently, so you would defend 5H down. Some people would judge correctly and get you for 500 instead of 420. So you risk a couple of imps to gain 10 or so, because you applied pressure. Against Mikeh, Phil, loldonn, gnasher, you win 10 imps for bidding 3S. Against fred, you lose 2. That is how bridge is played, that is why bids like 3S work out well. Stop thinking about the law of total tricks lol

 

Amen

[jogs]

Exchange the kings and queens between North and East.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sthaj8765dcaq9765&w=sakj82h92dqj98ckj&n=s976hkq4da762ct32&e=sq543ht3dkt543c84]399|300[/hv]

 

The patterns and total trumps are unchanged. The total tricks

increase from 17(7+10) to 20(9+11).

 

The experts love to debate bidding in bridge quizzes. But do

they ever ponder the question, "where do tricks come from?"

Or investigate how tricks are generated?

 

I was once asked if I believe in the Law of Total Tricks. The

answer is yes and no. Yes, I believe trumps is a primary variable

for estimating tricks. No, total tricks is not equal to total trumps.

 

There is a much weaker relationship.

For each pair

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

E(tricks) is expected tricks.

Trumps is the combined trumps of the partnership.

HCP is the combined points of the partnership.

e is the error of the estimates. This error can be as great as

+/- 2.

 

HCP and trumps are the primary variables for generating

tricks. On some skewed boards the secondary variables

play a huge part in generating these tricks. Causing the

original estimates to be off by more than two tricks.

 

In the example board it was possible to increase the tricks

by three by just exchanging a few kings and queens.

Would North bid differently from the original North hand?

Or would North find 5♥ over 4♠? Does the double

of 4♠ show a max 2♥ call or a strong preference to

defend? If only one of North's three honor card were in

the rounded suits, pulling by South would have probably

been correct.

 

jogs

Edited April 30, 2012 by jogs

[quiddity]

In the example board it was possible to increase the tricks

by three by just exchanging a few kings and queens.

Would North bid differently from the original North hand?

 

Of course North would bid differently. His partner invited him to bid on and he has KQx of trumps and a side-suit ace and nothing in the opponent's suit.

[gnasher]

Exchange the kings and queens between North and East.

...

The patterns and total trumps are unchanged. The total tricks

increase from 17(7+10) to 20(9+11).

 

In your layout EW make only eight tricks in 4♥, not nine.

[phil_20686]

In the example board it was possible to increase the tricks

by three by just exchanging a few kings and queens.

Would North bid differently from the original North hand?

 

Yes, that is why a number of good players bid 5c. On this occasion they did badly and fred did well.

 

What point are you making?

[jogs]

In your layout EW make only eight tricks in 4♥, not nine.

 

You're right EW makes only eight tricks in 4♠.

No matter how many times the post is reviewed it

is difficult to edit out all errors.

[jogs]

Yes, that is why a number of good players bid 5c. On this occasion they did badly and fred did well.

 

What point are you making?

 

The correct bid isn't black and white. It is more like

rock, paper, scissors. We choose rock because we think

partner is more likely to have scissors than paper. The

fact that partner has paper this time doesn't necessarily

mean our choice has negative expected value. Considering

the previous bidding is the frequency of paper or scissors

higher? If only one of North's three prime cards were in

our rounded suits(we are 6-6), 5♣ would not have been

a fatal choice.