Can you get higher?

[Hanoi5]

[hv=pc=n&w=sj8732hak43daca32&e=skthjt752d8762cj9&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1sp1n(forcing)p2hppp]266|200[/hv]

 

X-imp's, opponents didn't help, but could we get to game? Should we?

[carnivales]

Game's not impossible here. But it seems unlikely to reach unless it's a sacrifice. Even if you open 1NT and super-accept a heart transfer, can East really accept?

 

Many people I'm sure would pass the 1♠ opening.

 

We have at least 1 ♠ loser, at least 1 ♣ loser, and at least 1 ♦/♥ loser if the Q♥ isn't singleton.

 

I figure it's got to be worth it at MPs and IMPS, but not one I could ever conceive reaching.

[Cascade]

not sure exactly where the boundary is but I am very tempted to raise with five trumps and a fitting spade honour. We could easily have ten tricks on hands where partner will not accept.

[BillPatch]

[hv=pc=n&w=sj8732hak43daca32&e=skthjt752d8762cj9&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1sp1n(forcing)p2hppp]266|200[/hv]

 

X-imp's, opponents didn't help, but could we get to game? Should we?

The only rational choices are pass and a false preference to 2♠. Even with a slightly sound opening style, (rule of 20, 2QT)we will often go

down on the 11-13 hcp hands in ♠. If I need to make up ground, game heavily odds on if partner can rebid NT, (16-17 hcp)or ♥.

I think it is slightly imp negative, but the high skew would often be good, so I might try it 30% of the time. In a short imp pairs such as on BBO

these swing boards are often useful.

[PhilKing]

Standard raise to 3♥. What are you waiting for? 10 HCP?

[gwnn]

3H from W is preposterous, 3H from E is plausible but a bit too much for me.

[Zelandakh]

The problem here seems to be the F1NT response. A 3♥ raise has to cover many hands with more hcp strength making this one something of a stretch. After a traditional 1NT response (or a non-forcing 2♦ for that matter) it would be easy to raise to 3♥. So 100% blame to system.

[gwnn]

The problem here seems to be the F1NT response. A 3♥ raise has to cover many hands with more hcp strength making this one something of a stretch. After a traditional 1NT response (or a non-forcing 2♦ for that matter) it would be easy to raise to 3♥. So 100% blame to system.

With (9)10-11 and 4 hearts (and appropriate upgrades with 5-6 hearts) you should bid 4H so 3H is approximately the same in both systems.

[Zelandakh]

I love BBF - we have one thread telling us that 25hcp and a 4-4 major fit gives a 45% chance of making game and another thread saying that (20)21hcp and a 4-4 heart fit is an autmatic game bid. Perhaps reality should lie between these two somewhere?

[gnasher]

With (9)10-11 and 4 hearts (and appropriate upgrades with 5-6 hearts) you should bid 4H so 3H is approximately the same in both systems.

Playing game-forcing 2/1 responses, you need 1♠-1NT;2♥-2NT as a natural bid. In other systems, 2NT is available to show a good heart raise, so 3♥ can be a courtesy raise.

[gwnn]

I love BBF - we have one thread telling us that 25hcp and a 4-4 major fit gives a 45% chance of making game and another thread saying that (20)21hcp and a 4-4 heart fit is an autmatic game bid. Perhaps reality should lie between these two somewhere?

I don't know about the other thread but the point of raising 2♥ to 4♥ on a 10-count is not to reach the all-important 11+10 hcp games but instead to reach 16+8 or thereabouts. A good 7 or 8 count needs to raise because opener cannot force to game with intermediate hands, especially not when opener is 5-5 and not that strong. So if a good 7-8 count needs to raise, a normal 13-14 count without extra shape cannot accept the raise, so 10-11 counts usually raise to game. This will work out (on average) badly when opener is strictly minimum, but even then at least we know partner is not 3433 but at least 5422 and with a singleton opposite it would work out a good portion of the time.

 

@gnasher: very good point, and egg on my face for not thinking about that because I really like the idea of 2NT=good 3H bid in other circumstances :)

[HeartA]

not sure exactly where the boundary is but I am very tempted to raise with five trumps and a fitting spade honour. We could easily have ten tricks on hands where partner will not accept.

same here. I would certainly raise with 5 trump support and ♠Kx.

[rhm]

Playing game-forcing 2/1 responses, you need 1♠-1NT;2♥-2NT as a natural bid. In other systems, 2NT is available to show a good heart raise, so 3♥ can be a courtesy raise.

I doubt that any sensible player would bid 3♥ at the table whether 1NT is forcing or not. If West can not force, East is finished - five card support not withstanding.

The trouble is that the 2♥ rebid is a wide ranging rebid. West would make the same rebid with an ace less, a very undesirable condition.

For every time you find this West hand you will find ten others where West will accept a "courtesy raise" and 4♥ will be down.

East has little reason to fear opponents since both have passed twice already, so 3♥ can not be a blocking move.

I can see getting you to 4♥ after some versions of Gazzilli.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

How would Gazzilli help? I would expect it to go 1S 1N 2C 2S in the versions I am familiar with.

[gnasher]

I doubt that any sensible player would bid 3♥ at the table whether 1NT is forcing or not.

Does PhilKing qualify as sensible? He seems to think this is a 3♥ bid even when it's your only way to raise hearts.

 

I'd certainly make a courtesy raise if could show one. AQJxx AKxx x xxx is enough to make game a good prospect, and opener can have more than that.

[MrAce]

Interesting

 

Change ♦ A to ♠ A and we may be making slam ♥ on a lucky day.

 

I agree with Zel, this hand is not the strongest ground of 2/1 or FNt.

[PhilKing]

From the database, these were all 3♥ raises at at least one table. "Both" means both players had the same start and raised to 3♥:

 

1) K4.9763.KQ6.J864 Both. Vincent went on to 4♥ with AQJT9.AT42.J9.T2 and went for 1400.

2) K.K43.A85432.753 One. Gotard raised to 3♥. Versace passed in a Gazzilli context. Opener held QJT43.Q652.K7.AQ

3) T9.J753.AT86.AJ6 One. Opener went on to 4♥ with: Q8654.AQ92.K74.Q

4) T5.AQ53.Q8753.T5 Both. Easy game reached opposite: AQJ86.KJT87.2.K8

5) T.J85.AT954.AT42 One. Nickell scored a goal opposite: AJ632.A963.K2.K6, when 4♥ made on a crossruff.

6) J9.QJ954.JT95.Q5 One of one (Jansma). Opener bid 4♥ with K8532.AK83.43.A6.

7) 62.KJ32.QJ93.A83. One of one. Versace raised to 3♥ (Gazzilli partnership). Opener bid 4♥ with AQ843.AT85.7.QJ5.

8) J6.KQ65.862.K832 One. Wolff raised straight to 4♥. Opener held AK872.AJ87.QJ9.5.

9) K3.J654.AJ72.872 Both (Waterlow an Hallberg). Opener bid 4♥ with QJT75.KQ97.6.AK6.

10) 6.K985.J62.KT842 One of one (Burn). Sandqvist went on to 4♥ with K9752.AQT4.K94.J.

11) A76.T653.KT.Q743 One of one (P Hackett). Waterlow bid 4♥ with KJ984.AK42.Q.AJT.

 

A few of the actions above were dubious, to say the least, and I would value hands six and ten as being significanlty weaker than the hand under discussion and would pass on both.

[rhm]

How would Gazzilli help? I would expect it to go 1S 1N 2C 2S in the versions I am familiar with.

I said some versions of Gazzilli.

Your version would not, if you are forced to bid 2♠ with less than 8 HCP and 2 spades.

Some play 2♦ response as a relay not guaranteeing 8 HCP and some would respond 2♥ over 2♣ with this hand.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

From the database, these were all 3♥ raises at at least one table. "Both" means both players had the same start and raised to 3♥:

 

1) K4.9763.KQ6.J864 Both. Vincent went on to 4♥ with AQJT9.AT42.J9.T2 and went for 1400.

2) K.K43.A85432.753 One. Gotard raised to 3♥. Versace passed in a Gazzilli context. Opener held QJT43.Q652.K7.AQ

3) T9.J753.AT86.AJ6 One. Opener went on to 4♥ with: Q8654.AQ92.K74.Q

4) T5.AQ53.Q8753.T5 Both. Easy game reached opposite: AQJ86.KJT87.2.K8

5) T.J85.AT954.AT42 One. Nickell scored a goal opposite: AJ632.A963.K2.K6, when 4♥ made on a crossruff.

6) J9.QJ954.JT95.Q5 One of one (Jansma). Opener bid 4♥ with K8532.AK83.43.A6.

7) 62.KJ32.QJ93.A83. One of one. Versace raised to 3♥ (Gazzilli partnership). Opener bid 4♥ with AQ843.AT85.7.QJ5.

8) J6.KQ65.862.K832 One. Wolff raised straight to 4♥. Opener held AK872.AJ87.QJ9.5.

9) K3.J654.AJ72.872 Both (Waterlow an Hallberg). Opener bid 4♥ with QJT75.KQ97.6.AK6.

10) 6.K985.J62.KT842 One of one (Burn). Sandqvist went on to 4♥ with K9752.AQT4.K94.J.

11) A76.T653.KT.Q743 One of one (P Hackett). Waterlow bid 4♥ with KJ984.AK42.Q.AJT.

 

A few of the actions above were dubious, to say the least, and I would value hands six and ten as being significanlty weaker than the hand under discussion and would pass on both.

It seems to me that except for 6) the hands, which invited with 3♥ were all substantially stronger and the invitation was accepted on much weaker hands than the actual West hand.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

The problem here seems to be the F1NT response... So 100% blame to system.

 

I said some versions of Gazzilli.

 

This is the crux. If you are not playing an artificial strong rebid after a forcing NT then certainly system is to blame. Gazzilli as I play it needs a 17 count, but the opener's 16 is better than some 17s, and qualifies. I, too, need a "good 7" to relay with 2♦, but again, with useful spades and the extra length in hearts, I would probably relay and then support hearts, accepting that it is game forcing, especially at IMPs.

[PhilKing]

It seems to me that except for 6) the hands, which invited with 3♥ were all substantially stronger and the invitation was accepted on much weaker hands than the actual West hand.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Even if you believe 10) is stronger than the hand under discussion, there is a Bayesian inference that the latter will perform better. The opponent's silence makes it more likely that partner is strong AND suitable, and the weaker he is, the greater the chance he has a singleton in diamonds, whereas on 10), the clubs will often be facing a shortage and the opponent's silence is less indicative of partner holding extras.

 

As to the hands on which the invitation was accepted, that tells us nothing we did not already know about most top players.

[CSGibson]

In one partnership we have given up on 3c in this sequence, using it to show a good raise to 3h. In that partnership, this would be worth a courtesy raise, and partner would accept. None of my other 2/1 partnerships would get there

[BillPatch]

The only rational choices are pass and a false preference to 2♠. Even with a slightly sound opening style, (rule of 20, 2QT)we will often go

down on the 11-13 hcp hands in ♠. If I need to make up ground, game heavily odds on if partner can rebid NT, (16-17 hcp)or ♥.

I think it is slightly imp negative, but the high skew would often be good, so I might try it 30% of the time. In a short imp pairs such as on BBO

these swing boards are often useful.

Summary: Mea culpa. (My error). My efforts to simulate the given responder's hand and auction and auction on Jack reveal that the 3♥ raise on responder's rebid is a perfectly reasonable alternative. Also, among the responders the false preference slightly leads pass, which slightly leads 3♥.

A much larger sample size will be required to reach a significant results between each pair.

 

 

Replaced low diamond with the J♦ so that Jack would read responder as a 1 NT in auction. Jack considered actual auction as still "impossible". So I ran starting with opener North in first seat and threw out hands that the hand that West had an opener.

 

Auction: P 1♠ P 1NT P 2♥ P ???

 

First I ran a simulation of sample size 20 comparing my suggested false preference to the auction given in the opening post of this thread. False preference led by 43 imps(2.15/ board.) Since 4 ♥ made so often my next trial I added responder's second round raise to 3 ♥. Repeated with a trial size 20.

 

Result: Comparing responder's rebids: Pass beat 3 ♥ by 8 imps (0.4 imps/bd). Pass beat 2 ♠ by 35 imps (1.75/ Bd). 3♥ beat 2 ♠ by 16 imps (0.8 imps/bd)

 

Combining trials: 2♠ leads pass by 8 imps over 40 bd (0.2 imps/bd), pass leads 3♥ by 8 imps over 20 bd (0.4 imps bd. Looks like a 500 sample needed to determine significant result between any these choices.

 

By the end of the summer I intend to learn enough Windows 7 computerese to simulate using Thomas Andrews Deal, or to do it with Dealmaker Pro on another computer.

 

Bill Patch

[wank]

2NT is available to show a good heart raise

no transfers? surely you can have much more delicate auctions if responder tranfers to the minor where his values are before supporting with 3♥.

[PhilKing]

Summary: Mea culpa. (My error). My efforts to simulate the given responder's hand and auction and auction on Jack reveal that the 3♥ raise on responder's rebid is a perfectly reasonable alternative. Also, among the responders the false preference slightly leads pass, which slightly leads 3♥.

A much larger sample size will be required to reach a significant results between each pair.

 

 

Replaced low diamond with the J♦ so that Jack would read responder as a 1 NT in auction. Jack considered actual auction as still "impossible". So I ran starting with opener North in first seat and threw out hands that the hand that West had an opener.

 

Auction: P 1♠ P 1NT P 2♥ P ???

 

First I ran a simulation of sample size 20 comparing my suggested false preference to the auction given in the opening post of this thread. False preference led by 43 imps(2.15/ board.) Since 4 ♥ made so often my next trial I added responder's second round raise to 3 ♥. Repeated with a trial size

 

Result: Comparing responder's rebids: Pass beat 3 ♥ by 8 imps (0.4 imps/bd). Pass beat 2 ♠ by 35 imps (1.75/ Bd). 3♥ beat 2 ♠ by 16 imps (0.8 imps/bd)

 

Combining trials: 2♠ leads pass by 8 imps over 40 bd (0.2 imps/bd), pass leads 3♥ by 8 imps over 20 bd (0.4 imps bd. Looks like a 500 sample needed to determine significant result between any these choices.

 

By the end of the summer I intend to learn enough Windows 7 computerese to simulate using Thomas Andrews Deal, or to use Dealmaker Pro on another computer.

 

Bill Patch

 

Has your sim accounted for the opponent's silence?