mentor/mentee disagreement

[gszes]

IMPS BOTH VUL FIRST HAND

stayman jacoby/texas smolen

North hand

 

T8

K86543

85

KT8

 

 

South opens 1n no interference how should n approach the bidding?

[diana_eva]

Transfer, then pass.

[eagles123]

trans then pass seems standard, only likely to have game on opposite a max NT that should super accept anyway

[hrothgar]

IMPS BOTH VUL FIRST HAND

 

T8

K86543

85

KT8

 

AQ63

A7

A43

J642

 

South opens 1n how should the bidding proceed??????

 

Red at IMPs I am going to stretch and invite game with the North hand

I suspect that I would fall in love with my Aces with the South hand and accept the invite...

 

1N - 2♦

2♥ - 3♥

4♥

[diana_eva]

Given that this is the novice forum, I am not convinced the mentee was familiar with the concept of vul = forcing to game.

 

Debate was prob whether this is a texas hand or not.

[TylerE]

Red at imps? Texas and GLP

[dustinst22]

Red at imps? Texas and GLP

 

i love aggression, but this seems a bit much for me. Invite seems to be aggressive enough.

 

i think u should have an agreement with partner in these situations, is the inviter going to be aggressive in these situations, or the acceptor? Want to avoid both being aggro.

[nige1]

IMPS BOTH VUL FIRST HAND stayman jacoby/texas smolen North hand ♠ T 8 ♥ K 8 6 5 4 3 ♦ 8 5 ♣ K T 8

South opens 1n no interference how should n approach the bidding?

IMO 4♦ (transfer) = 10, 2♦ (transfer, intending to invite) = 8.

4♥ may make or be a sacrifice against ops' partscore/game.

[TylerE]

i love aggression, but this seems a bit much for me.

 

i think u should have an agreement with partner in these situations, is the inviter going to be aggressive in these situations, or the acceptor? Want to avoid both being aggro.

 

The only thing you invite red at IMPs is slam... (not totally serious, but close to it...)

[dustinst22]

The only thing you invite red at IMPs is slam... (not totally serious, but close to it...)

 

Or your invitational range just gets lowered.....

 

The whole "just bid game and hope because we're red" isnt really a good approach.

 

Avoiding bad games is important imo, especially in long matches. These are the type of IMPS that go unnoticed, but are important. 6 imp swings add up.

[TylerE]

I disagree. The IMP equities favor bidding games that are well under 50%, or even under 40% to make.

 

Equally, I've gotten good results passing with very marginal invites. That's the other side of the coin. Basically at IMPs, especially vuln, you really don't want to be at Game-1. +110 vs -100 is a 5 imp swing.

[dustinst22]

I disagree. The IMP equities favor bidding games that are well under 50%, or even under 40% to make.

 

 

 

This is a given....but I'm talking about bidding reckless games that aren't even close to that just because of vulnerability. Game -1, means 140 vs -100....so 6 imp swing

[ArtK78]

Transfer and pass is clear, even red at IMPs. Give me KT9xxx of hearts and I will consider blasting a game.

 

If partner makes any sort of preaccept, I bid game.

[TylerE]

This is a given....but I'm talking about bidding wreckless games that aren't even close to that just because of vulnerability. Game -1, means 140 vs -100....so 6 imp swing

 

I don't think a 6322 with two kings vs a strong NT is reckless in any way. Aggressive sure, but well below suicidal.

[CSGibson]

Transfer than invite. If partner can't accept an invite, I don't want to be in game. Its very hard to picture hands where partner won't accept an invite that belong in game, frankly, but its very easy to picture 15-17 NT hands where we want to be in game.

[Lord Molyb]

IMO 2♦ -> 3♥ = 10, 2♦ -> P = 7, 4♦ = 5

[kuhchung]

i wouldn't gf or invite...

[mycroft]

Transfer and pass. Which transfer? Ah, that's the question.

 

The issue is whether 2♥ is going to a) make game; b) not make game; or c) going to go -110 or -140 when they find their fit. We have 21-23 combined; all they need is a fit to bid (and they can double 2♦ for diamonds, bid 2♥ for takeout, or bid 2♠ with decent spades). If I Texas, I don't intend to make it (but I won't be too surprised if I do); I intend to go down 1 and push -110 or -140. The vig is "it might make", and "it might need perfect defence, with the key hand closed, to set". The loss is "if they don't have spades, or they don't *find* spades, I'm Lose 6. How likely is that, compared to the vig bonus?)

 

Make it 1=6=3=3, and I'm much more likely to Texas.

[diana_eva]

I think it's reasonable to transfer, pass and in case opps do something, compete to 3H. Why would we preempt when we have the points?

[TylerE]

So, I made this thread...

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/60301-simulation-request/page__pid__726856#entry726856

 

One the example hand, out of 10,000 trials, it made game 41.62% of the time, which is well above the equity point, so that strongly supports just blasting game.

[dustinst22]

So, I made this thread...

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/60301-simulation-request/page__pid__726856#entry726856

 

One the example hand, out of 10,000 trials, it made game 41.62% of the time, which is well above the equity point, so that strongly supports just blasting game.

 

Is Double Dummy analysis really the best way to determine if we belong in game?

[JLOGIC]

So, I made this thread...

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/60301-simulation-request/page__pid__726856#entry726856

 

One the example hand, out of 10,000 trials, it made game 41.62% of the time, which is well above the equity point, so that strongly supports just blasting game.

 

It strongly suggests inviting game (which is what I think is the correct action). There is no way that game will be a good proposition on the subset of hands that partner is rejecting the invite with.

[ArtK78]

So, I made this thread...

 

http://www.bridgebas...856#entry726856

 

One the example hand, out of 10,000 trials, it made game 41.62% of the time, which is well above the equity point, so that strongly supports just blasting game.

But you don't have to rely purely on the odds. You can choose a middle ground, such as transfer and invite or transfer and pass unless partner preaccepts.

 

This would result in getting to game on many of the hands which make game and avoiding getting to game on most of the hands that don't make game. I am sure that this would improve your odds AND YOUR IMP EXPECTATION.

 

Whether it is better to pass unless partner preaccepts or to invite over a non-preaccept is an issue. The invite over the non-preaccept gets you to more making games, but also results in more minus scores (either in game failing or in 3 failing). I would choose to not invite but to accept over a preacceptance, but it is probably a close call.

[rogerclee]

 

One the example hand, out of 10,000 trials, it made game 41.62% of the time, which is well above the equity point, so that strongly supports just blasting game.

This is not an argument for blasting game when you have the option of inviting, this is a pretty basic fallacy.

 

What you should really be simulating is how often game makes opposite a hand that would not accept an invite, not any hand period.

[TylerE]

The thing with inviting, is that when you invite and the invite isn't accepted, you're about 40 pts a board worse off than if you just always passed 2. I've done some additional equity calculations.

 

Basically, at vuln, always passing 2 has an EV of 140.8, always bidding 4 an EV of 178.0, and being in 3 an EV of 102.7. If your invites are 100% perfect, your EV jumps up to 290, but being wrong at all, ever, hurts it quite a bit.