Hand evaluation, help me with these 2 hands.

[jillybean]

Here's a couple of recent hands where I feel I have made poor judgement calls.

Let's say playing against world class opponents. One hand is from the JEC match the other from a weak game but

I really don't want to perpetuate the bad habits I think I pickup playing weak games.

 

 

Hand1

[hv=pc=n&s=sa52ht7d9762ct986&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1s2c]133|200[/hv]

 

Hand2

[hv=pc=n&s=s93hj962dt32c9864&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1h1s]133|200[/hv]

[Cascade]

2♠ looks normal to me on the first - an ace and a ruffing value I think is a fine minimum.

 

Pass on the second. I know some people play 3♥ is 0-6 or whatever but the range is wide and it puts too much pressure on partner who will sometimes have a good hand and want to consider bidding more. I prefer a little more constructive mixed raise.

[inquiry]

I'm almost in complete agreement with Cascade. On the first hand will depend upon the game being played. At Matchpoints, I will bid 2♠. At imps, I will pass. The reason why is at imps, and these colors, partner might get us too high. Perhaps this is making too fine a line here between bidding and passing, but that is how I feel.

 

The second one, I am afraid I am in the pass group even if I have 3♥ as a weak preemptive bid (which I do). Don't tell Larry Cohen I said that.... i know there is sound reasons why many advocate bidding 3♥ with this hand, but I can't bring myself to do it with this hand.

[CSGibson]

2♠ on the first. They probably have a heart fit, and this helps make it harder to find, and I have enough values for a vul call with the ace & potential ruffing value.

 

On the 2nd, I don't think I have enough to bid anything. I'm vul, flat, and anything I do will help them better judge their fit or cause partner to over compete.

[anthony1]

For myself:

Hand 1 I immediately bid 2♠; and hand two I immediately bid 2♥

In both cases you need partner to know you are weak with support.

Partner should respect that fact and bid accordingly.

I would pass hand one if opps. were Vul. and I Not Vul. 4♣

balances it slightly in favour of Pass.

If LHO now bids 2♥ passed out I would bid 2♠

Or if LHO bids 2♦ passed out I would pass.

[JLOGIC]

I would pass on both, but I would bid nv with both. Not surprised to be in the ,minority on hand one but I think people are generally too aggressive in that spot. Whatever though its a borderline hand.

[Fluffy]

I would pass on all vulnerabilities, I never understand when people say I have a ruffung value when all you have is a doubleton

[rhm]

Bidding on both is asking for trouble.

How opener ever will know what to do later if you bid with that rubbish vulnerable escapes me.

The most likely outcome is that opener will bid too much.

Whether that gets doubled depends on circumstances, but the chances are good you will go for a telephone number.

 

Non vulnerable your chances for a favorable outcome are better, but I would not do it either.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

I'd bid 2♠ on hand 1.

 

I'd definetely pass on hand 2. +1 to Cascade, in addition to what he already wrote, bidding 3♥ with such a weak and balance hands, not only puts too much weight on pd to evaluate the hand but also it gives "free splinter info" to opponents most of the time. Why would i do that with a hand where we are unlikely to buy the contract ? Perhaps it would make more sense if our suit was spade and theirs heart in case it maybe right to bid over 4♠ but thats not the case here .

[Codo]

I bid 2 ♠ on the first with nearly any partner I can imagine.

 

I pass with the second hand, but I know at least one better player then me that would bid. The pressure on opps is higher then on partner.

[the hog]

2S and pass.

[rhm]

I bid 2 ♠ on the first with nearly any partner I can imagine.

 

I pass with the second hand, but I know at least one better player then me that would bid. The pressure on opps is higher then on partner.

What pressure?

 

Trying to talk good opponents out of their combined assets they can see by looking at their own hands works rarely when one opponent has already bid.

West has an easy double with values over 2♠ or can bid with values and a good suit. Most use Lebensohl or similar to differentiate various strengths.

 

But most likely North has a good hand in context of current opening bid requirements and the bidding will continue:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa52ht7d9762ct986&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1s2c2sp4sppd]133|200[/hv]

 

-800 against nothing, next board.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

YOu do not say whether this is IMPs or MPs - I think this is important on competitive decisions. Anyway, 2♠ on Hand 1 - my partner knows this can be light. 3♥ on Hand 2 if not vul; Pass at Game All.

[Codo]

So Rainer, your partner bids game with 6 tricks in his own hand and belives that you provide 4 more for your simple raise to 2 ♠? Possible in your world, not in mine, I do not play inverted majors.

[lalldonn]

I think 1 is an easy raise and 2 is an easy pass. But the real reason I posted in this thread is to express my disappointment that mr ace didn't go nuts at the idea of passing on the first hand.

[mcphee]

pass both hands. I see no reason to get involved with what is a "my turn" raise. After all we expect partner will reopen should 2C be passed. I would hate to raise to 2S and have partner make a game try.

 

The 3H bidders on hand 2 have my blessings.

[ArtK78]

pass both hands. I see no reason to get involved with what is a "my turn" raise. After all we expect partner will reopen should 2C be passed. I would hate to raise to 2S and have partner make a game try.

 

The 3H bidders on hand 2 have my blessings.

Blessings, as in "May God have mercy on your soul?"

 

I suspect that I would pass on both hands, but I am more willing to bid on the first. Bidding on the second is just too much to stomach. If anything, it makes the hand easier for the opps to evaluate, not harder.

 

I remember that Dave Treadwell once chose not to raise one of my preempts with 5 card support. The opps did not realize how well their hands fit and they stopped too low. Something to consider. (Of course, it could have just been an insult to my ability to play the hand :))

[jillybean]

Thanks all. The nice thing about never getting unanimous responses on here is that we get a lot of discussion, the comments are very helpful.

 

I know I will rarely get all of these decisions right but I hope I can avoid the obvious mistakes. My regular partner and I have have

a rule "invite aggressively and accepted conservatively" but I still tend to take the invite aggressively to ridiculous extremes.

[mikeh]

Thanks all. The nice thing about never getting unanimous responses on here is that we get a lot of discussion, the comments are very helpful.

 

I know I will rarely get all of these decisions right but I hope I can avoid the obvious mistakes. My regular partner and I have have

a rule "invite aggressively and accepted conservatively" but I still tend to take the invite aggressively to ridiculous extremes.

I would pass on both hands. I think bidding is just asking for a poor score when partner can't (and shouldn't) take the joke on the 1st one, and we're just too flat on the second. In essence I agree with Justin on both.

 

So I could have simply upvoted his post, but I wanted to comment on the 'invite aggressively, accept conservatively' thought, which is, imo, exactly the opposite of the right way to bid.

 

 

On many hands we would bid identically, since the hands will fall in the middle and we'd both invite/accept.

 

Let's assume, and I think this is a valid assumption, that each method will reach an equal number of good games that the other will miss. For example, there will be many hands on which both methods warrant an invite by opener where mine gets to game and jb passes. This will be balanced by games where both of us would accept, but I don't invite and jb does.

 

So in terms of which approach is best for reaching game, it's a wash.

 

What tips the scales in favour of invite conservatively/accept aggressively is the 3-level.

 

JB will have opener stretching to reach the 3-level. When responder rejects, she is at the 3-level on hands on which I am at the 2-level.

 

It's another wash when we always make 9 tricks, but there will be many hands on which responder has a poorly-fitting minimum and/or the breaks are bad, and now jb is playing consistently 1 trick higher, with no reward when she makes and a big loss, at imps or mps, when she doesn't.

 

On most hands, the methods won't matter. She reaches the same number of good and bad games as I do, altho on different hands. But I avoid playing at the 3-level unless opener has a good hand...a conservative invite, while she plays more often and on weaker combined hands. Therefore there is, in the long run, a clear and consistent loss from this approach.

[Phil]

I can live with pass or 2♠ on the first. I probably tilt a little toward 2♠ because I have short hearts and I'd like to preempt them off the suit.

 

The 2nd is a completely obvious pass.

 

edit - I see csgibson said essentially the same thing on the first so he gets a +

[Cascade]

What pressure?

 

Trying to talk good opponents out of their combined assets they can see by looking at their own hands works rarely when one opponent has already bid.

West has an easy double with values over 2♠ or can bid with values and a good suit. Most use Lebensohl or similar to differentiate various strengths.

 

But most likely North has a good hand in context of current opening bid requirements and the bidding will continue:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa52ht7d9762ct986&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1s2c2sp4sppd]133|200[/hv]

 

-800 against nothing, next board.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

This is completely outside reality, that the "most likely" result from raising here is -800.

 

I did a simulation and for simplicity just assumed partner had 16-19 hcp for a blast to 4♠, yes partner may have less but partner may simply invite on some of those hands. Game was made 1.5 times for every time there was an 800 available. The most common result was that 9 tricks were available.

[rhm]

This is completely outside reality, that the "most likely" result from raising here is -800.

 

I did a simulation and for simplicity just assumed partner had 16-19 hcp for a blast to 4♠, yes partner may have less but partner may simply invite on some of those hands. Game was made 1.5 times for every time there was an 800 available. The most common result was that 9 tricks were available.

My statement

 

But most likely North has a good hand in context of current opening bid requirements and the bidding will continue: was misleading.

 

What I wanted to say is

 

But most likely North has a good hand in context of current opening bid requirements and the bidding might continue

 

I did not want to imply that -800 is the most likely outcome, only a real possibility, for example if trumps break badly, lack of dummy entries being detrimental etc.

I also doubt that opener will wait for 18 HCP before he will bid game.

If opener has more than enough for bidding game than you may reach game even if you pass for now.

 

The interesting scenario is the one where you reach game after an immediate raise but not after an initial Pass.

I am sure the vast majority of these games will be poor ones. Poor might be an understatement.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[quiddity]

Let's assume, and I think this is a valid assumption, that each method will reach an equal number of good games that the other will miss. For example, there will be many hands on which both methods warrant an invite by opener where mine gets to game and jb passes. This will be balanced by games where both of us would accept, but I don't invite and jb does.

 

Not to quibble with the main point (which I agree with) but I think this is clearly not a valid assumption since the invite carries some descriptive value. You will get to 0% of the light games where you don't have the values to invite (in this simplified model); jb will get to some of the light games where typically she would not accept but she does when the invite fits well with her hand.

[mikeh]

Not to quibble with the main point (which I agree with) but I think this is clearly not a valid assumption since the invite carries some descriptive value. You will get to 0% of the light games where you don't have the values to invite (in this simplified model); jb will get to some of the light games where typically she would not accept but she does when the invite fits well with her hand.

We are getting into more complex analysis here, and I won't suggest that a thorough analysis results in the assumption being 100% accurate. But the factor you identify, tho valid, is offset (whether exactly or not) by the fact that the game try, because it is so descriptive, will lead to more accurate defence such that declarer will fail at the 3-level even on hands where I, at the 2-level, am allowed an easy route to 9 or even 10 tricks.

 

I am already winning the partscores on which both approaches lead to 8 tricks: now I am winning more hands where descriptive bidding leads to more effective defence.

 

This is not merely a mp issue....6 or 7 imp swings at imps really hurt as well.

[jillybean]

Thanks Mike, you often leave me with more questions than I started with in my original post. :)

 

I see where my “invite aggressively, accept conservatively” could be flawed and when I think about it there are many steps that I have not fully considered.

 

First we have the opening hand, we open most 12 counts and some 11 counts. I know other partnerships who open most 11's and others who open only “good 12 counts”. I wouldn't say our openings are aggressive, for want of a better word let's call them modern.

 

The next step is often a response rather than an invite. I would say that I tend to respond aggressively with Axx as a minimum. I can add another response in here too. If we have opened a minor and partner has responded a major we will stretch to respond on xxx if we have shortage somewhere.

 

Next comes the invitation. If we open with less than a conservative style and responded aggressively then it makes sense to invite conservatively.

 

That leaves us with the hand deciding whether to accept the invitation. I'm not sure where I am going with all this but it makes for interesting questions and analysis of our style.

 

Time to go get ready for the first KO game of the sectional here this weekend.