Invite game?

[Jinksy]

[hv=pc=n&e=sj6543hj943dak75c&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1n(12-14%2C%20may%20be%20any%204441%20or%205422)p2cp2hp]133|200[/hv]

 

Teams. What's your call? 3m is a signoff. We play non-promissory Stayman, so 2♠ would be a NF invite normally with 4♠s. So 3♥ is your only direct invite that also tells P of a fit.

[whereagles]

7-loser hand, opposite just about the same across. Bid 4♥.

 

No guarantees, but it rates to be the percentage auction.

[MrAce]

Teams...if there is a doubt about whether to bid the game or invite, you should probably just bid it.

[PhantomSac]

In general I don't like inviting on hands with voids/stiffs that I cannot show, my partner cannot really evaluate his hand very well (club wastage and a max might make game go down, lack of club wastage and a min and it might make), so why ask him to?

[mikeh]

I would blast game. As Justin notes, we don't really have any way to tell partner how to evaluate his hand...min-max is mostly irrelevant, since a good minimum makes game worthwhile and a misfitting maximum leaves us with very little, and maybe no, play.

 

Meanwhile, apart from the imp odds and the advantage of being on play after a relatively uninformative auction, we minimize the risk of getting doubled when things are really bad for us. When you bid tentatively and the opps can see that things sit badly, they basically get a risk-free double, since they can deduce that you were hoping/needing things to sit well. When you blast with confidence, the opps may think that the bad breaks are what will prevent the overtrick, rather than get the set.

[gnasher]

I would blast game. As Justin notes, we don't really have any way to tell partner how to evaluate his hand...min-max is mostly irrelevant, since a good minimum makes game worthwhile and a misfitting maximum leaves us with very little, and maybe no, play.

 

Meanwhile, apart from the imp odds and the advantage of being on play after a relatively uninformative auction, we minimize the risk of getting doubled when things are really bad for us. When you bid tentatively and the opps can see that things sit badly, they basically get a risk-free double, since they can deduce that you were hoping/needing things to sit well. When you blast with confidence, the opps may think that the bad breaks are what will prevent the overtrick, rather than get the set.

Also, an invitational auction is more likely to attract a trump lead.

[aguahombre]

Does the opposing pair also have 12-14 NT? Or are they strong'rs?

 

We would be competing against 2H by South with a trump lead on:

 

1C-1S

1N-2H. Does our probable small gain which we already figure to have change the NV IMP odds on bidding this game?

 

Then again, North will be declaring 4H if he has five of them.

If that is the case we must blast 4 here. Can our North have five hearts for the 12-14 NT?

[The_Badger]

No point inviting, just bid 4♥s. There's no guaranteeing it will make - especially on a trump lead - and it might be awkward to play, with a number of plays available to declarer, but on probabilities it is reasonable game to bid. The lead is coming up to the slightly stronger hand. Just hope partner doesn't open 1NT with any trashy 12HCPs, and actually has a few controls and useful intermediates. The quality of his ♥ suit may well be a key factor here.

[Jinksy]

Huh. I was way off on this, apparently. I just passed, since it was NV. Vul I'd probably have gone for the punt.

 

Does the opposing pair also have 12-14 NT? Or are they strong'rs?

 

It was actually from bidding practice <_<

[the hog]

Clear 4H bid. This is automatic at any form of the game and at any vulnerability.

[MrAce]

Huh. I was way off on this, apparently. I just passed, since it was NV. Vul I'd probably have gone for the punt.

 

 

 

You passed 2♥? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif Or did you mean "invited"?

[PhantomSac]

I think passing is arguably better than inviting

[Jinksy]

I passed. I figured we were odds against to make game good given an average distribution of HCPs opposite, with controls but no tricks, and didn't see the point in inviting for the same reasons PhantomSac gave. I don't really know how to think about hands like this. It's easy to visualise hands opposite that make game poor, and easy to visualise hands that will make it excellent. How do you tell which are more likely and by approximately how much?

[MrAce]

 

I don't really know how to think about hands like this. It's easy to visualise hands opposite that make game poor, and easy to visualise hands that will make it excellent. How do you tell which are more likely and by approximately how much?

 

Why do you feel the need to think about these hands?

 

In team match you bid the game and try to make it, because the bonus for playing and making game is way too big to ignore with a hand like this. Unless you are swinging. You know they will play this game. Why are you trying to make simulations in your head and waste your energy for it when you know very well that there will be hands where game is poor and where game is excellent spot and all you doing is to waste your energy. Save your energy, believe me you will need it. Imho, looking at the hands you posted, or Eagles123 posted, you are working hard to put your signature in the bidding each time it comes to you. This is also very frustrating for your pds. Even though it may not be your intention, it may eventually look like as if you are stepping on your pd, selfishly, and take actions to put you on spotlight. Perhaps we all went through this phase, but the sooner you start playing bridge, the sooner you may get better results, because this will make positive effects on your pd and you will be using your focus on things that actually makes a huge difference at the table rather than actions like this where the outcome is extremely random or worse than random.

 

 

Cheers! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[Wackojack]

I passed. I figured we were odds against to make game good given an average distribution of HCPs opposite, with controls but no tricks, and didn't see the point in inviting for the same reasons PhantomSac gave. I don't really know how to think about hands like this. It's easy to visualise hands opposite that make game poor, and easy to visualise hands that will make it excellent. How do you tell which are more likely and by approximately how much?

 

Try a simulation KD4970Y: I got

4♥-1 4%

4♥= 52%

4♥+1 33%

4♥ +2 11%

 

I removed those hands where the stayman bid might be doubled and where there was a guess I tended towards getting it wrong otherwise the % would be even more convincing.

[PhantomSac]

Game is 96 % to make with this hand opposite a weak NT? I am gonna say something went wrong with your simulation

[Jinksy]

Why do you feel the need to think about these hands?

 

In team match you bid the game and try to make it, because the bonus for playing and making game is way too big to ignore with a hand like this. Unless you are swinging. You know they will play this game. Why are you trying to make simulations in your head and waste your energy for it when you know very well that there will be hands where game is poor and where game is excellent spot and all you doing is to waste your energy. Save your energy, believe me you will need it. Imho, looking at the hands you posted, or Eagles123 posted, you are working hard to put your signature in the bidding each time it comes to you. This is also very frustrating for your pds. Even though it may not be your intention, it may eventually look like as if you are stepping on your pd, selfishly, and take actions to put you on spotlight. Perhaps we all went through this phase, but the sooner you start playing bridge, the sooner you may get better results, because this will make positive effects on your pd and you will be using your focus on things that actually makes a huge difference at the table rather than actions like this where the outcome is extremely random or worse than random.

 

 

Cheers! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

If you can give me a heuristic for how not to do what you think I'm doing, I'll at least try following it for a few hands and see what happens. That said, you might be overestimating my intuitive judgement - here I just saw a hand with very weak trumps and quick outside losers and passed mindlessly, then only had reason to think about it after I found we'd missed a solid game (P had something like Axx Axxxx xx KQJ).

 

I don't agree about game bonus being overwhelming, though - I think you need close to 50% expectation of making 10 tricks here. IIRC you'd want about 45% normally (after allowing for possible doubles and down twos), and if as PhantomSac thinks this is a choice between 2 and 4, the increased relative difference of making only 8 tricks is going to be a factor.

[biggerclub]

Game is 96 % to make with this hand opposite a weak NT? I am gonna say something went wrong with your simulation

 

Yeah. Perhaps like me he overlooked the yellow coding. Certainly makes the decision to PASS at least more in the ballpark.

 

I do agree with MA here, however, that at teams you know the other table is bidding game. (Also, whereagles is right regarding 7L opposite 7L)

 

Now . . . if you know your opponents to be super conservative or something, there may be something to be said for following along with them in staying low too.

[biggerclub]

(P had something like Axx Axxxx xx KQJ).

 

The fact that P made game with this highly unsuitable (albeit MAX) hand . . . .

 

You bemoan the fact that you cannot give or get information to make bidding game intelligent (or not). Yet on these two hands . . . short of seeing the full hands . . . upon exchange of the most pertinent information (the club void) you and partner will stop short of a sound game.

 

Which, although just one hand, is a strong argument for just bidding game here.

[PhantomSac]

If you can give me a heuristic for how not to do what you think I'm doing, I'll at least try following it for a few hands and see what happens.

 

You're gonna laugh at me but 9 points + 3 for the void with 4 trumps and an 8 card fit. I think that's GOREN? (add infinite with a 9 card fit and 4 trumps for a void). That gets you to 12, your partner has 12-14, so in support points you probably have an invite. However since the downsides of inviting (can't show your shortness, may induce them to double when things are bad, more likely to induce a trump lead, etc) outweigh the gains (stopping in 3H opposite a minimum), just bid game.

 

If you really want some way to quantify what to do here, I think using support points is fine (+1 for doubleton, +2 for singleton, +3 for void with 8 trumps. With 9 trumps +1 +3 +5. Add less if you have only 3 trumps, 3 trumps and a void def not worth +5 obviously, even opp a 6 card suit.) So with a singleton and 7 points and 4 trumps you have a minimum limit raise opp a 1M opener, etc, it's really not that far off from accurate.

[PhantomSac]

The fact that P made game with this highly unsuitable (albeit MAX) hand . . . .

 

You bemoan the fact that you cannot give or get information to make bidding game intelligent (or not). Yet on these two hands . . . short of seeing the full hands . . . upon exchange of the most pertinent information (the club void) you and partner will stop short of a sound game.

 

Which, although just one hand, is a strong argument for just bidding game here.

 

Partner had a fifth heart, that makes our hand much more valuable. Hard to say he had a highly unsuitable hand.

[aguahombre]

It seems as if Jinksy and his partner each made decisions which complemented each other well this time. Even though a five-card major is acceptable in their style for a 12-14 NT opening, it would not have occurred to me to do that with such a suit-oriented hand. So, we would open 1H and get to 4H by North. Oh, well.

[biggerclub]

Partner had a fifth heart, that makes our hand much more valuable. Hard to say he had a highly unsuitable hand.

 

Give him the KQTx in ♥s instead and put the A in ♣s . . . . The point is that you really cannot know what will make . . . even if you have the information. I may have overstated it to say "highly unsuitable" but I remain willing to defend unsuitable, at least. Nearly 43% of his strength is of no use to us whatsoever. And we still make game. On a lucky break, to be sure . . . but certainly no more lucky than having KQJ opposite our void is unlucky.

 

I don't get to play a lot of weak NT here so I am not currently in shape to say whether it's fair for me to expect 2 of 5 honors from partner in Hs after his 2♥ call. . . just if he has them, I think game is on upwards of 75% of the time.

 

Do you think partner will bid on if you are allowed to whisper to him (after his 2♥ call): "I have a club void (that is, a 3 suited hand), and 9 HCP"? He will feel his clubs are wasted and he will be right. Game makes anyway because both players have prime values . . . and yes, the extra trump helps a lot . . . but if that extra trump were removed and another honor replaced one of the other small cards that would help a lot too.

[Free]

here I just saw a hand with very weak trumps and quick outside losers and passed mindlessly, then only had reason to think about it after I found we'd missed a solid game (P had something like Axx Axxxx xx KQJ).

When you have ruffing value, weak trumps are actually an asset (you don't want to ruff with trumps AKQJ right?).

 

Your analysis is very negative, you can also look at the hand from a positive point of view: you have ♦AK which is double control and you also control ♣s completely (with only 7HCP). There are various play strategies that might work: ruff ♣ losers in your hand, develop your ♠s,...

[Wackojack]

Game is 96 % to make with this hand opposite a weak NT? I am gonna say something went wrong with your simulation

 

Very true. I didn't inspect the yellow tab and thought it was 15-17 no trump.