How high?

[the hog]

Imps all vul

 

(1C) P (1H)

 

KQJTxxx

x

Txxx

Q

 

And your bid is?

[hrothgar]

They have Clubs and Hearts

I have self sufficient spades. Odds are that partner has some help in Diamonds.

 

I'm going to bid 4S immediately and force the last guess on the opps

[EricK]

 

They have Clubs and Hearts

I have self sufficient spades. Odds are that partner has some help in Diamonds.

 

I'm going to bid 4S immediately and force the last guess on the opps

 

I am not sure I understand your post.

 

One of them has clubs and one of them has hearts, but your partner might have clubs and hearts (eg 1-4-3-5).

 

Also, whether you bid 3S or 4S, you force the last guess on the opps

 

I find that when I bid 4S vulnerable on a hand which isn't quite worth it, then the opps make the final guess to double me, and they turn out to be right!

 

3S is my bid

 

Eric

[inquiry]

I agree with Erik. This is a 3Spade bid at most. Your partner, with 3 spades or more might take the push to 4Spades.

[the hog]

Would partner push to 4S with

xxx

xxx

Qx

Kxxxx

 

This is a flat hand with no redeeming features and no quick ruffing ability.

Fwiw put me in with Richard. Vul vs not I agree, this is worth 3S only, but 4S has a few things going for it

 

It might make if pd has a suitable hand

It puts max pressure on the opponents

7-4s should be played in Game, (Marston's Rule)

 

Interestingly enough if the Majors were reversed, I would only bid 3H, as bidding 4 too often goads them into 4S

 

Anyway this goes for 500 as opposed to 650 in 4H

[Codo]

Hi all,

 

you have a hand with much offense (6 loosers) and zero tricks in defence. Another clue for a high bid. I had bid 4 Spades.

 

But unlike Ron, with majors reversed I had bid 4 Heart. Even with 4 card support in Spade my lho may have an ugly guess whether to bid or to double.

I doubt, that after 3 Heart they will stop often enough in a partial.

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[luis]

I'd bid 3s. They may have a game or they may not but I don't want to force them into the right decision, being vul I prefer to present more options to my opps so they can choose a wrong bid (double 3s, bid 4h, let me play 3s, bid 3n, bid 5c, bid a slam.....) 4s puts a lot of pressure and in this particular situation they may just make take the right choice.

Ben: Ins't it an implicit fit situation from the R&S book, then maybe they would recommend a 4s bid if they have a heart fit they are forced into the 5 level.... I just feel that 4s is too unilateral .....

[inquiry]

This is not a sure fit situation. Your partner can have 6 or 7 hearts. Who knows, your partner maybe have

0-6-2-5 distribution. Earlier assumption that partner has both diamonds and spades just because they bid your two singletons is speculation...of course, the odds favor it, but a direct 4S bid is asking for trouble if they do not have the expected fit. In fact the actual hand given for partner bears this out a little bit, as partner had only two diamonds.

 

xxx

xxx

Qx

Kxxxx

 

 

The likely outcome, as Ron said is 4Sx down two, but if the defense forces a diamond ruff before the club king is set up, and then can play two round of trumps (ace and another) without the dummy's spade x being an entry, then it will be down three... losing 3D, 1C, 1H, and 1S. Not an easy defense to find.

 

As for will partner raise to 4S with this hand. It is not impossible, but difficult because he may not allow full credit to the club king (exchange the stiff club Q and 4S is surely down three). But being vul, and applying the law, he may RAISE to 4S when holding 3 card support on this and similar hands. Since, vul, he will play you for 7 spades. 7+3=10. Now he just has to try to judge their degree of fit, and any minor honor problems.

 

LUIS: I don't think this is an implicit fit from R/S. There is nothing so far that allows you to know for certain that they have a fit. There are some auctions where you know they have a fit, but they don't know it yet, but I don't think this is one of them. And I agree with you (or you agree with me) that 3S is the right bid, and then you are out of the auction. Partner will have all the necessary information to "do the right thing." As you said, a 4S bid with this hand is too unilateral.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Does anyone have access to a good dealing simulator?

[i normally use Dealer, however, I haven't been able to get it to run on XP]

 

Ideally, it should be possible to do the following

 

Create a script defining

 

(A) A standard 1C opening bid

(:) A standard 1H response

 

Predeal the hand in question to North and then generate 1000 boards consistant with the bidding.

 

THEN input all of this into a double dummy analyzer and identify the "par" contract.

I'd be interested to see a histogram of the results, however, my intuitions say that the most common result is either 4SX -2 for 500 or 5H = for 650

 

Either way, I think that 4S will put the most pressure on the opponents.

[csdenmark]

How about Pavlicek Richard?

 

http://www.rpbridge.net/rpbr.htm#12

[inquiry]

however, my intuitions say that the most common result is either 4SX -2 for 500 or 5H = for 650

 

Either way, I think that 4S will put the most pressure on the opponents.

 

Richard,

 

Your hand is worth 6 tricks. Old fashion rule of 2/3 would suggest that with 6 tricks, you can only preempt as high as 2S (down two). Even my wild polish friends who play the rule of 5321 [some use the rule of 4421]. The 5321 rule states that down five if they vul and you not, down 3 if both not vul, down 2 if both vul, and down 1 if you vul and they are not), would only bid 2S with hand using their formulas. Some also use 4-4-3-1, but again, at both vul, they would bid only 2S. However, making concessions to the possible diamond fit, the quality of the spade suit, I, and most of the 5321 guys would bid 3S with hand I think.

 

When you are right when you bid 4S and they can make 4H and you are down only two, you pickup 3 imps (-120) or 4 ims (-150). But when you are wrong, and they can set you three or four, then you lose 7 or 10 imps. And of course, if they can't make game in hearts or clubs, and you go down, the damage is worse.

 

The puzzle you propose with the dealer, to deal a 1000 hands to see what works best is also flawed. The flaw is, that most of the time when it is right to take a 4S sac over 4H, if you BID 3S now, your partner will take the push. After all, that is the point of a partnership, and the point behind Luis's comment that 4S is "too unilateral", when 4S is right, you can get there by bidding 3S then having partner confirm it is right by bidding 4. After all this should be a partnership game. It may give you a wonderful feeling of being so very clever when you bid 4S and get wacked and it works out to be a nice save because partner fits for you. But again, most of the time when you would have done that and got away with it, if you had bid 3S, your partner will find the right bid. And when partner holds....

 

S-x

H-JT83

D-KJ3

C-KT932

 

and you go down two in 4Sx (losing 2D, 1C, 1H, 1S) versus them going down two in their 4-4 heart fit at game at the other table, losing 2C, 1H, 1D, and 1S, will not be such a happy result. And look... pretty much as the law predicted... you have an 8 card spade fit, they have an 8 card heart fit. (opener S-xxx H-KQxx D-Axx C-AJx, his partner a very reasonable SAx H-A9xx D-Q9xx C-xxx). Bidding 4 with only 6 winners, is simply two risky. The risk verus the reward schedule is all wrong, and it ignores the fact that you have a partner at the table.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Different strokes for different folks Ben.

 

I am a strong advocate of a bidding style based on minimizing the amount of information available to the opponents. I deliberately jack up the bidding as high as I am willing to go, as quickly as I can. Please recall, I also advocate systemically opening 2D on

 

62

KT42

K942

972

 

for much the same reason.

 

Biddingly slowly provides partner with the chance to evaluate his hand, however, it allows the opponents many more opportunities to convey information. Suppose that I make a nice disciplined 3S bid and partner takes the plunge and converts to 4S over their 4H contract. The opponents are in a much better position to decide whether they should drop the axe or compete further. I prefer that the opps need to decide at the 5 level whether or not they have a fit.

 

On this deal, partner is a passed hand. Following a preempt by me, partner is expected to remain a passed hand. We are in a pre-balancing situation. I am going to make assumptions about partner's likely holdings and make the bid that I expect to pay off in the long run. If partner does make some sort of bid, it is only because he is off on the tail end of his possible distributions. I agree that this is unilateral, however, it is also how you place the maximum amount of pressure on the opponents. There are hands to walk the dog. A 7-4 with pure values in the primary suit is not one of them.

 

You claim that bridge is a partnership game, and I agree. However, we have very different ideas how this principle is applied.

 

I understand that on occassion I will get nailed for 500 or even 800 with nothing our way.

Against that, I'll win significantly when the opponents are forced to sell out to 4S undoubled or land in the wrong contract.

 

The main issue here is probably the requirement that players understand their partner's style. In this case, I am thankful that The_Hog and I are typically in agreement about the different bidding problems that crop up [including this one]

[mishovnbg]

Hi friends!

The level and the way of bidding depend on the system and the partner too. If I play with a unknown p and play SAYC I will bid 3SP of course.

With my regular partners i play weak overcalls at 1 level, so my p cannot have 2+QT and 5+ side suit. It is unlikely he had trap pass, because the bidding leave for him few hcp. So my idea for this board will be to make a cheap sacrifice. I have enough for 4SP sacrifice and I am afraid only about i can push them to slam. In my opinion is right time for a bluff. The only suit opps didnt bid and i dont have is DI, so my bid will be 3DI ;D. It is not so stupid bid as it looks, because I will receive information from the opps and my p about this suit. It is critical for my decision for the high level of competition, say 6HE/CL. I didnt expect from my regular p to raise my DI preempt without exceptional hand like 4+DI fit and singleton (it this case probably singleton/void SP). If the opps start to dbl me for penalty i will rebid 3HE and 3SP at last. I havent any special agreements except after pass the p becomes a COMMANDER (as after limited opening).

Misho

[inquiry]

 

Different strokes for different folks Ben.

 

I was just suggesting that in your (or others) analysis of optimal contract/results, one consider the hands where the bidding goes...

 

(1C)-P-(1H)-3S

(any)-4S......

 

That is, in those 1000 hands you proposed, the results be balanced.... it is not an option of only getting to 4S if you bid it now. But on a lot of those hands, where you do bid 4S now and get doubled, the highest the 3S bidders get too (due to lack of spade fit) will be 3S, or whatever the opponents bid. And it is this ability to "walk the dog" when you fit, and stay off telephone numbers when you do not, that makes 3S a big winner IMHO...but as you said, different strokes.

 

BTW, I opened 3S yesteday on a dog....

S-Jxxxxx H-xxx D-xxx C-x with a bunch of kibitzers in first seat (white versus red, of course), so I am not opposed to bidding a bunch on a little.... but it after the given auction and at the given vul, I would not bid 4S. Anytime you catch RHO with four spades to Ace and a poor heart fit, you are just asking for trouble.

 

Ben

[the hog]

As a reply to Luis: I actually think they have more scope for making the wrong decision over a 4S bid; 3S gives them too many options. If the bidding goes

 

(1C) P (1H) 3S

(4H) 4S

 

A double or a forcing pass here gives the opps the opportunity to make the right choice.

 

Over an immediate 4S bid, opener has to make an immediate decision, and in tempo. 5H or a X MAY be right, as indeed may a pass. Who says I am not bidding to make? A slow pass really puts partner on the spot. And what over 5H? Responder still has chances to get this wrong by passing when 6 is on, or by bidding 6 when it isn't.

[EricK]

As a reply to Luis: I actually think they have more scope for making the wrong decision over a 4S bid; 3S gives them too many options. If the bidding goes

 

(1C) P (1H) 3S

(4H) 4S

 

A double or a forcing pass here gives the opps the opportunity to make the right choice.

 

Over an immediate 4S bid, opener has to make an immediate decision, and in tempo. 5H or a X MAY be right, as indeed may a pass. Who says I am not bidding to make? A slow pass really puts partner on the spot. And what over 5H? Responder still has chances to get this wrong by passing when 6 is on, or by bidding 6 when it isn't.

 

If your "Who says I am not bidding to make" is a valid comment, then over 5H by LHO, partner may get it wrong by bidding 5S, as he doesn't know at this stage who is sacrificing over whom.

 

This hand is all about partnership agreements. Playing with a pick-up partner, I would bid 3S. Playing with a regular partner I would bid whatever pre-empt fitted in with the style we agreed.

 

BTW, for those who bid 4S, what would a 3S bid look like?

 

Eric

[the hog]

If your "Who says I am not bidding to make" is a valid comment, then over 5H by LHO, partner may get it wrong by bidding 5S, as he doesn't know at this stage who is sacrificing over whom.

 

Absolutely not, or perhaps I should say not the partners I play with. If I was bidding to make, I would X 5H by righty and allow pd to make the correct decision. Over 5H by my lho, show me a hand where pd has a 5S bid and I actually bid bid to make where I don't have a play for the contract. Remember to bid 5S pd will have primary S cards and some feature; a meaningless 5S noise on nothing but trump support is a classic way to drive them to a making 6.

 

Clearly the whole tempo of the post is that you are bidding in a regular partnership.

 

In answer to your question: A 3S bid would not be a 7-4 shape, though the quality of the suit at this vulnerability would be about the same.

[EricK]

If your "Who says I am not bidding to make" is a valid comment, then over 5H by LHO, partner may get it wrong by bidding 5S, as he doesn't know at this stage who is sacrificing over whom.

 

Absolutely not, or perhaps I should say not the partners I play with. If I was bidding to make, I would X 5H and allow pd to make the correct decision. Clearly the whole tempo of the post is that you are bidding in a regular partnership.

 

A 3S bid would not be a 7-4 shape, though the quality of the suit at this vulnerability would be about the same.

 

Is partner allowed to make a decision over X? Well obviously on very offensive hands he is, but on most hands he will pass the double.

 

And what about hands where you are bidding to make 4S, but have no real reason to believe that you can defeat 5H? Do you double anyway?

 

Anyone who posts on the "Advanced and Expert" forum would have agreements with a regular partner as to what a pre-empt shows, so would have no reason to ask others what he should bid. Or so I thought. So it wasn't at all clear to me that the post was in the context of a regular partnership.

 

Eric

[the hog]

Is partner allowed to make a decision over X? Well obviously on very offensive hands he is, but on most hands he will pass the double.

 

Certainly. Partner should have a fair idea of the hand type I hold. I agree most times he would pass, especially with some scattered values.

 

And what about hands where you are bidding to make 4S, but have no real reason to believe that you can defeat 5H? Do you double anyway?

 

Valid question - depends on hand type. On most hands, "Yes", but the above situation is extremely rare and would require in the vicinity of 21 combined trumps according to tnt. Bidding would probably be different on those hands - incidentally, this is one reason why fsj are SO important in competitive auctions. As a matter of interest, we would play more doubled and redoubled contracts than anyone else in my acquaintance.

 

Re regular pds or not - most who post here play in at least some semblance of semi regular partnerships. I was curious as to how many felt this was worth 4S at the prevailing vulnerability, holding that most wonderful of shapes - a swan. Obviously playing with a pup, little of the above applies.

[Free]

I'm doubting about bidding 1NT or 3S. In my partnership 1NT in this situation means "no opening, but with the other suits". Like that I don't give away a possible D-fit, but as I allways want to play 4S with something in partner's hand, I give opponents too much space to bid on. On the other hand, partner has more information about when he can support later on to 4S if he at least gets the chance...

But I'd probably bid 3S. Not 4S, because V with 6 losers, it's level 3. If they double and partner has some kings or queens, you go -3 (and you might even go -4), which is way too much. NV I'd bid 4S.

[Codo]

Hi Ben, hi free,

 

you both are afraid about 4 Spade X -3.

Okay, lets think about that: They will get at most a Spade a Heart and a club. To beat you 3 times, they need exactly 3 diamond tricks.

But if all this will happen, then they have a big chance of even making a grand slam in hearts or clubs.

 

And then it will be nice to steal as much bidding space as possible.

Of course you cannot always win and I had enough hands, where I sacrificed 4 Spade X -2 agains 4 H -1.

But maybe we really need a good silmulation to get the right result. For me 7411 always looks like an eight card suit.

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[chronos]

Imps all vul

 

(1C) P (1H)

 

KQJTxxx x Txxx Q

 

If you where the opener would you open the 74 4S?

Generally 74 like to be bid at the 4 level so I would be looking at opening this 4S.

 

I'm happy with (and a going to bid 9/10 times) 4S.

 

Chronos.

[inquiry]

Hi Ben, hi free,

 

Codo said that if they can beat you 3 doubled, they have a great chance to make grand slam in clubs or hearts. Well, that assumes that they have a fit and spade shortage. If that is the case, they will be bidding more rather or not you bid 3S or 4S. But imagine West with a modest hand like (when you have no fit)...

S-A9x

H-xxx

D-Ax

C-Axxxx

 

They may very well get 3D, a C, a H, a S and a trump promotion on the fourth round of diamonds, so 4S could be down not 3, but 4. Imagine his partner holding something like... S-x H-AJxxxx D-KQxx C-Jxx. If you bid 3S, when your partner is looking at 3 or 4S, he can safely bid 4S. When he has a singleton or void, he can pass. It is the missfits that lead to down 2, 3, 4 your way with only game or maybe not even game on their way. In reply 7 I gave a tame little misfit hand where both sides win exactly 8 tricks. 4Sx rates to be a huge loser then.

 

Several people, among them Richard and Misho, suggested that once partner passed in first seat, the bidding is left up the "preempter". Misho manifested this theory by preempting in diamonds, with the certainty that his partner would not pull back to diamonds if he is doubled and he runs. Richard bars his partner from bidding 4S if he (richard) bids only 3S. I guess playing that crazy way, bidding 4S is better than 3, but that is no way to bid. Bridge is a partnership game. I like to describe to my partner my holding, let him look at his hand, and apply the Law of Total Tricks to see how high we should compete. If I bid 3S vul, he plays me for a great 7 card suit, and now he does the math. It seems to me to counter productive to try to apply the law from one side without any input from partner. The 4S bidders assume that their partner has to fit their suit. While the odds are fair that he does, Spades is the master suit and you can invite his participation with a 3S bid. I never bar my partner from showing support if the law allows it.

 

"EricK" suggest, they don't know if you are bidding 4S to make or not...but that is actually a deteriment. Look at the vul again. If West has a nice heart fit, very short spades, and he is thinking you are bidding 4S to make, he is likely to take the "save". Even if he passes, his partner knows that they hold most of the deck, and if he doubles, Opener passes holding 3 or 4S and pulls to game at the five level if he is short in spades.

 

Codo, Richard, and a few others comment on how "great" it is to steal as much bidding space as possible. Well, I agree... as much as possible on this hand is 3S. If you really wanted to steal space, why not 5S or 6S? I mean, this statement by itself is not sufficient to justify any preempt because one hasn't applied a metric to determine how to calculate what the "as possible" bid is. I think vul with the risk of down 3 or 4 makes 4S not possible.

 

IMPORTANTLY, Codo and Richard both suggested needing a good simulation to compare the results of the hand to examine 4Sx-2 versus 4H-1 as the losing proposition. One really can add 4Sx-3 to 4H making, etc. But here is the problem with the proposition. If you bid 3S it doesn't mean your PARTNERSHIP will not be bidding 4S over 4H. Your partner will bid 4S with a fit, and pass (or double perhaps) with a misft. The assumption if you bid 3S that is as high as your side can go is wrong (even Misho allows his partner to raise, it is Richard and a few others that bar their passing partner from using bridge judgement.... which is wrong in my mind. People who bid like that assume they can mastermind the hand during the auction, I think Bridge is best when played as a partnership game).

 

If you bid 3S, the bidding might go....

 

(1C) P (1H) 3S

(?) 4S

 

Now partner may be bidding to make (trap type pass over 1C perhaps) or as a reasonable sacrafice -- one where he fits spades. Or it might go...

 

(1C) P (1H) 3S

(4H) P

 

When he is looking at a spade void or stiff. Seems like reasonable bridge to me. Let partner know your suit legnth and general stregth (given the vul), and let him apply the law and bid logically.

 

Ben

 

[Codo]

Hi Ben,

 

you are right: Bridge is a partnership game.

But you are wrong if you think that your way is partnership friendly and ours is not.

It is absolute consistent with partnership bidding to have hands which you bid 3 Spade and hands where you bid 4 Spade.

 

I learned, that to bid 3 Spade with a solid suit and a 74 hand does very often backfire.

Your pd can never judge your hand or you are not allow to preempt 3 Spade anymore with KQJxxxx,x,xxx,xx.

Pd simply cannot judge the hands. As I told before: The 7/4 distribution is a very significant part of the descirbiton of this hand. With 7321 f.e. 3 Spade is the big favourite.

 

Your examples did just proove nothing. You gave the opps all quick tricks and in another hand your pd the kings in your short suits.

Okay, you will loose then. But then change it, give your pd f.e xx,xxxx,AQx,Axxx

wow, you are making 4 Spade even without a real fit.

Will my pd bid 4 Spade over my 3 Spade preempt?

I doubt that. He will be lucky to give me so good cards, so I will be not down too many tricks or even make it. Will he bid 4 Spade over their 4 Heart?

Maybe/maybe not, he has much defence and does not want the 4 Spade -1 opps. 4 Heart-1 defence either.

 

So, no real sense in giving examples.

 

With 3 Spade you are safer, if there is no fit.

With 4 Spade you make it much more diffcult for them to reach their best fit. Esecially a 5-4 fit in hearts or club is difficult, a 5-3 fit is nearly impossible.

 

So: With a 4 Spade bid, you very often reach: 4 Spade X.

With a 3 Spade bid, they are better placed to locate their fit and make a discission according to your loved LOTT.

 

Nobody said, that 3 Spade will prevent our side to reach 4 Spade.

But maybe one round too late. You give the opps at least one more opportunity to show fit or strength.

 

The argument: They do not know, if you bid 4 Spade to make it or not is still valid.

If they think, you can make it, they have serious trouble with no fit established.

If you bid 3 Spade and pd raises, the story is over:

They know for certain, that you guys just preempted.

 

Of course, you have to pay with a risk for your higher preempt. With misfits all around and valuable opps, you sometimes pays a number opps. nothing.

But what does this proofe?

 

We all have our "own" simulations running: In your world, it does not pay to bid 4 Spade here, in Richards and mine it does.

(In my small experience it was not even close, 4 Spade for me was much better in similar situations. But I know, that memory is not real an exact tool. Defenitly mine is far away from perfectness...)

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

I will try again.

 

I do not explicitly "bar" partner from bidding opposite my preempt.

However, I do have very tight standard regarding when it is appropriate for partner to raise.

 

This situation is very much analagous to bidding in the balancing seat.

If my partner has just balanced, I don't raise him simply because I am sitting on 5-6 HCP and three card support. Partner's bid was based on the asusmption that I hold this hand type.

 

To go back to Ron's example, if the auction starts

 

(1C) - P - (1H) - 3S

P - ???

 

I'm going to pass 3S holding any number of hands where you (presumably) would bid 4S

From what I can tell, you preempt much less aggressively but raise more freely.

I prefer to preempt more aggressively, but I am much more conservative about raising.

 

Please don't trot out inane statements like "Bridge is a Partnership Game".

I have issues with this for a couple reasons:

 

First, and foremost, this is an exceptionally parochial North American view. Cathy Chua’s book “Fair Play or Foul: Cheating Scandals at Bridge” [recently referenced in another thread] does a very nice job analyzing this issue; describing the North American fetish of “constructive bidding”. I consider this book to be one of the most important in my collection.

 

Second, as I have tried to point out, this is not an issue of “partnership” trust, but rather one of bidding style [if anything, the style that I employ requires more trust in partner's judgement] Larry Cohen and Marty Bergen’s work in popularizing the Law of Total Tricks was an extremely significant development in competitive bidding. Cohen and Berkowitz provided a simple tool that dramatically improved the ability of ordinary players to make accurate competitive decisions under controlled circumstances. The LTT fanatics promote simple, mechanistic bidding that uses fixed rules in the hopes of generating deterministic results:

 

1M opening must promises a 5+ card suit

The raise to 2M promises exactly 3 card support

The raise to 3M promises exactly 4 card support

…

 

Modern competitive bidding theory is all about neutralizing the ability of the opponent’s to successfully employ the Law of Total Tricks. Bid to an acceptable contract as quickly as possible, maximize the opponent’s uncertainty about total tricks, and force the last guess on the opponents.

 

I hope that phrase has some resonance with you given the extent to which you idolize Robson and Segal.