[foo]

At IMPs, a >= 5/11 White game is a good game.
At IMPs, a >= 3/8 Red Game is a good game.
Both of the above assume you are never being X'ed.
At IMPS, assuming you make or go -1 you have to make >= 2/5 of your X'ed games.

At MP's or BAM, you want to always be bidding par or absolute par.

You can't always bid this accurately, and there is always "contempt bridge" or "desperation bridge" where you ignore the odds because you have contempt for the opponents ability or you are desperate, but the above is what we should be striving for if we are trying to play bridge as well as possible.

NOTE: Let me be clear that I do =not= consider such "contempt bridge" or "desperation bridge" to be good bridge.

Now let's look at this issue of never inviting but always playing either 1N or 3N when that is the game we have to decide on.

Let's say 1N= 15-17 and Opener is good enough to make sure that they are opening neither exceptionally poor 15's nor exceptionally good 17's 1N= 15-17. They "have their bid" when they open 1N= 15-17

Let's assume Responder has one of:
a= the minimum invite: an average 8 HCP w/ a 5cm
b= the average 9 HCP w/o a 5cm
c= the average 9 HCP w/ a 5cm
Since We have ways of inviting w/ 8-10 HCP when we have Major suit length, we will ignore responding hands with Major suit length. (We will also ignore for now the possibility of 4M333 and a Responder that does not use Stayman with this shape.)

When GOP opens 1N=15-17 odds of what they have are approximately
15 HCP 44%
16 HCP 33%
17 HCP 23%
These odds are =not= accurate, but the ratio between them is close enough for this discussion.

A "good" game is one based on 26 combined HCP w/o a fit or 25 HCP w/ a fit.

This means that
1= If you are ResponderA, you should always pass 1N since the odds of having 25 HCP =and= a fit are considerably less than 23%. You will be wrong ~12% of the time.
2= If you are ResponderB, you basically have darn close to a 50% guess. At Imps, you bid 3N. At MP's or BAM, you flip a coin. Good Luck.
EDIT: 4333 9 counts should usually be downgraded. Odds of fit are less.
3= If you are ResponderC, you have ~40% chance that you belong in Game, and so should always bid 3N Red at IMPs, flip a coin White at IMPs, and pass 1N at matchpoints or BAM. You will be wrong ~60% of the time.

If your opponents are equally skillful as you are and play a structure where they have to guess less in this situation than you do, They have a clear advantage.

In short, this method of not having invites boils down to a form of "contempt bridge" or "desperation bridge" since you are basically gambling then hoping for a lucky lie of the cards and/or for the opponents to make mistakes when you are in the wrong spot.

[mikeh]

foo: your analysis is fundamentally flawed. You are completely ignoring the basic reality that the defence is far more difficult after 1N 3N than after 1N 2♣ 2M 2N 3N.

And it is nonsense to claim that the 1N 3N school relies upon poor defence for its gains: the best defenders in the world will make more 'leads that do not work out' after the direct auction than after the slower, informative auction. As (I think it was) Reese once wrote: 'there is no such thing as a blind lead, only a deaf leader'. The more info you give a good defender, the more accurately he will defend.

Thus the truth is that a 'poor' game will make more often after a blast to game than after an invite...while my belief is that this edge is not large enough to warrant this blast approach at mps, it is definitely a benefit at imps... and I am far from alone and a heck of a long way from being the best player to espouse this approach

BTW, I also reject your notion that one needs 26 hcp to make for a 'good' game contract. I have not done the research myself but I read some years ago of a study of hands played in 3N in world championships and the conclusion was that a balanced 12 opposite a balanced 12 gave approximately a 50% chance for game. Meckwell have made a (very good) living out of 23 point 3N contracts. Yes, at that level, declarers are better than average , but so are the defenders.

I think that for a moderately skilled declarer, a combined 25 is more than enough, without the need for a long suit source of tricks.

[foo]

24 HCP split exactly 12+12 is an odds on game.

24 HCP split 15+9 is not and it gets progressively worse as the disparity increases to 16+8 or 17+7.

25 HCP =and a fit= is an odds on game as long as the HCP disparity between the two hands is not too extreme.

W/o a fit, 26 HCP are the minimum for an odds on game as long as the HCP disparity between the two hands is not too extreme.

The studies on this go back to at least Bobby Goldman's computer sims when he was on the Dallas Aces.

EDIT: At IMPs, especially Red, we should bid Game more aggressively and there are plenty of 24+ HCP games that should be bid under these circumstances.

Eric Rodwell is probably the best ATT player in the world today. The vast majority of us are not going to do well in events if we make a habit of bidding 23 HCP games that are not based on "something special" going on...

"something special" includes all the stuff we talk about as grounds for bidding light games: big fits, double fits, control richness, exceptionally well fitting hands, exceptionally pure hands, etc, etc.

Obviously, the Opening Lead is the most difficult and most likely to be wrong choice in bridge. But Reese's comment is accurate here as well. If you are playing such methods vs competent defenders, they should interrogate you as thoroughly as possible about your systemic agreements and discussions regarding what is allowed to open 1N and what the expectations of Responder are in these situations.

If They hear 1N-allpass or 1N-3N;allpass when you are playing such methods and they just put a card on the table, They have not used all the information available to them in making their decision.

I may not get it right, but by the time I lead against such methods it will be as =UN= blind as I can manage.

[awm]

Nonetheless, if you hear 1NT-3NT, and are told:

1NT shows 15-17 hcp balanced or semi-balanced, could contain a five card major.

3NT shows either 9-13 hcp balanced or semi-balanced, which could contain a four or even five card major with any pattern, or less than 9 hcp with a six card suit (could even be a major) that potentially might run.

How much does this help you on lead? Either opponent could have four or even five cards in any major you choose to lead. They could be bidding on sheer power, or on a hopefully-running suit, or pushing to a borderline game on two balanced hands. They could be in the field contract, or they could have a nine (or even ten) card major fit that they missed because they don't bid stayman on balanced game force hands without slam interest.

I submit that no matter how good a player you are, making the best lead against this auction is hard. It would be much easier if you saw an auction like:

1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 2NT; 3NT with the explanation:

Opener has shown a good 16-17 balanced including four hearts. Responder has a balanced or semi-balanced good 8 to a bad 10 with no four-card major. Now you know that opponents both have balanced hands, are in the borderline game zone (maybe pushing). You know that opener has four or more hearts (probably heart lead is not the best idea) and that responder doesn't have as many as four spades. Of course, a bad player may not make good use of this information, but I think a strong player is much better positioned to succeed on opening lead here than on the first auction, don't you?

Of course there are tradeoffs -- the less informative path is more likely to get you to a bad spot (either because you missed a major fit, or because you really don't have the strength for the game you bid, or because some suit is wide open and you didn't diagnose it, etc). But even the best player in the world is going to be hard-pressed to make the best lead against the less informative auction. So you have to weigh the gains and losses. Sometimes blasting is best.

Recently my opponents produced the auction 1♥ - 2NT - 4♥ - 6♥. The explanations were that 1♥ was natural (five-card majors, 11-20 or so hcp), 2NT was a game-forcing heart raise, 4♥ showed a bad hand with no singleton or void, and 6♥ was to play. I held:

Jxx xx xxxx Txxx

What do I lead? How do I know? This is pretty much a pure guess, and I doubt that Meckstroth, Garrozzo, Hamman, Helgemo, Fantoni, or whoever else you want to name has a much better chance of going right here than I did. Turns out opponents are off a cashing AK in one of the suits, but if I don't lead it they have 12 top tricks. Sometimes blasting just works. Of course, if I had been on lead with the cashing AK they would have felt silly for not bidding more "scientifically..." but certainly if they had a cuebidding auction to the same 6♥ my chances of finding the right lead would improve dramatically.

[jdonn]

There is another issue in favor of overbidding to game instead of inviting. 1NT p 2NT p 3NT p p and you hold QJT9x Ax x JTxxx. It is 100% clear to double, especially if that asks for the lead of partner's shorter major. The opponents are getting terrible breaks, and even more importantly you know they have nothing to spare. However if the auction went 1NT p 3NT you couldn't risk it since they could easily have extra values.

This concept needn't even be as extreme. In the mold of what Adam was talking about, 1NT p 2NT p 3NT, and you have xx KT8xx xx QJT9. You better believe I'm leading a club. The opponents probably will have to work for every trick and I intend to give nothing away. However 1NT p 3NT and I may well lead a heart that is riskier but has more upside, because of the likelihood that the opponents will otherwise have nine tricks too soon. If the opponents were overbidding 3NT on an 'invitational' hand, then you are likely to regret your risky lead. Keeping information away from opponents in close games is to your advantage.

[foo]

awm, on May 19 2006, 04:03 PM, said:

Recently my opponents produced the auction 1♥ - 2NT - 4♥ - 6♥. The explanations were that 1♥ was natural (five-card majors, 11-20 or so hcp), 2NT was a game-forcing heart raise, 4♥ showed a bad hand with no singleton or void, and 6♥ was to play. I held:

Jxx xx xxxx Txxx

What do I lead? How do I know? This is pretty much a pure guess, and I doubt that Meckstroth, Garrozzo, Hamman, Helgemo, Fantoni, or whoever else you want to name has a much better chance of going right here than I did. Turns out opponents are off a cashing AK in one of the suits, but if I don't lead it they have 12 top tricks. Sometimes blasting just works. Of course, if I had been on lead with the cashing AK they would have felt silly for not bidding more "scientifically..." but certainly if they had a cuebidding auction to the same 6♥ my chances of finding the right lead would improve dramatically.

Yep. We've all been there. Thankfully that sort of thing evens out in the long run.
(My guess is a D.)

Not so the rest of the discussion we are having.

Basically, the debate is between more accurate and constructive bidding where we risk telling Them more than we'd like VS less accurate bidding where We guess more often and hope They guess even more poorly. Particularly on Opening Lead.

It is a debate that has been going on in general a long time and I do not expect it to be settled in general any time soon. If ever.

Let's be clear that I completely agree that saying too much about the closed hand (and sometimes even about dummy) is a Bad Thing. However, like most other things there are extremes in both directions of the issue that IMHO are best avoided.

There is no way around or to "sugar coat" the fact that the "pass or blast" crowd, particularly in auctions that begin 1N, are counting on defensive errors to make up for lack of constructive bidding accuracy.
Also, there are plenty of contracts where the defense could be told =exactly= or =nothing= about what the declaring side had and it would make no difference. Some contracts are cold, and some contracts are doomed.

For the hands where it does matter, it is as it has always been: try like heck not to blow up a trick on defense. Flat hands opposite flat hands where the outcome is not foreordained usually have some significant work needed to bring them home.
Making Declarer work for all their tricks is usually the best the defense can do.

In addition, because "pass or blast" methods are "rolling the dice" more often than more constructive methods, there should be a vigorish in favor of the pair/team not using them when they compete against each other as long as the constructive side is not "wearing their cards on their sleeves".

[foo]

jdonn, on May 19 2006, 04:21 PM, said:

This concept needn't even be as extreme. In the mold of what Adam was talking about, 1NT p 2NT p 3NT, and you have xx KT8xx xx QJT9. You better believe I'm leading a club. The opponents probably will have to work for every trick and I intend to give nothing away. However 1NT p 3NT and I may well lead a heart that is riskier but has more upside, because of the likelihood that the opponents will otherwise have nine tricks too soon. If the opponents were overbidding 3NT on an 'invitational' hand, then you are likely to regret your risky lead. Keeping information away from opponents in close games is to your advantage.

Call me a simpleton, but w/ xx.KT8xx.xx.QJT9 I don't care whether they got 3N via 1N-3N or 1N-2N;3N, I'm leading the CQ.

The Hx rates to blow up the H suit way too often.

[jdonn]

foo, on May 19 2006, 04:55 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 19 2006, 04:21 PM, said:

This concept needn't even be as extreme. In the mold of what Adam was talking about, 1NT p 2NT p 3NT, and you have xx KT8xx xx QJT9. You better believe I'm leading a club. The opponents probably will have to work for every trick and I intend to give nothing away. However 1NT p 3NT and I may well lead a heart that is riskier but has more upside, because of the likelihood that the opponents will otherwise have nine tricks too soon. If the opponents were overbidding 3NT on an 'invitational' hand, then you are likely to regret your risky lead. Keeping information away from opponents in close games is to your advantage.

Call me a simpleton, but w/ xx.KT8xx.xx.QJT9 I don't care whether they got 3N via 1N-3N or 1N-2N;3N, I'm leading the CQ.

The Hx rates to blow up the H suit way too often.

Ok if you don't like the example, but you are totally missing the point, or at least skirting around it. When the opponents have an invitational auction that shows they have nothing extra, you usually want to make a safe lead and give nothing away. When the opponents have an auction that indicates extra values, you usually want to make an aggressive lead as your only hope of setting them before they have enough tricks.

If they blast 3NT on both types of hands, you can't lead as accurately.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

BTW, this approach is NOT recommended for matchpoints. While you will steal some games, and pick up big chunks of mps when you do, you will overbid too many hands to make it a matchpoint approach.

I don't think this is true. One just blasts game more conservatively at MP to account for the odds being offered. Invites should be pretty rare anyway, over a std NT range the optimal invite range is something like 1 point wide at most. And most of this time you end up in the same contract. Certainly you will end up anti-field occasionally, but I definitely like my MP expectation when I am in 1nt and the field is in 2nt (freeroll, hope 2nt goes down because of bad breaks/losing finesses), or when in 3nt after 1nt-3nt rather than the field's 1nt-2nt-3nt or 1nt-2c-2?-2nt-3nt. I think anti-field is good if your expectation is positive, easier to win events that way. & this approach won't leave you in an anti-field contract very often anyway.

You just have to make sure the bid you gain gets you more MP than the occasional loss on your inv hands, if indeed you are losing anything in the net.

[bid_em_up]

Stephen Tu, on May 19 2006, 06:23 PM, said:

.....but I definitely like my MP expectation when I am in 1nt and the field is in 2nt .....


Invites should be pretty rare anyway, over a std NT range the optimal invite range is something like 1 point wide at most.  And most of this time you end up in the same contract.

Herein lies the crux of what isnt being addressed. It is one point. A Jack for cryin out loud. Combine that with what you gain by not inviting on bad 8 counts (the field is in 2N going down) along with what you gain by bidding 3N directly on good 8 counts without giving away any information whatsoever, and you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy ahead.

Additionally, given that according to foo's own figures:

15+8=44%
16+8=33%
17+8=23%

you will hold the values for game 56% of the time at a minimum and what you lack the other 44% will more than be made up from the lack of information passed in an invitational auction. It isnt a matter of blasting, contempt bridge, desperation, wanting defensive errors, or whatever else you choose to call it.

It is a matter of experience. It works, and it works well. It works at any level including the highest caliber. Try it and see.

Since the opponents do not know if they need to be passive or aggressive on 1N-3N auction, they will get it wrong more often than they get it right, which is more than can be said for any invitational sequence you care to construct. The invitational sequence is also at a big DISADVANTAGE when opener accepts the invitation, as now defenders know that dummy isnt that strong. It is also at the same disadvantage (or worse) when the invitation isnt accepted and 2N is passed out.

This is simply a fact of bridge, that even you appear to recognize.

Contrary to what is being argued, most expert theory that I am aware of these days is that it only requires 24 hcp for 3N to make. And that does not have to be 12 opposite 12, 16 opposite a good 8 works just fine. Any 25 pt NT game should be bid.

As I pointed out earlier, you should be able to tell from your hand when it is correct to bid 3N and when it isnt when holding an 8 count.

K10x 107x KQ1072 94, all day. (I would expect this to make > 85% of the time)

xx xx KQ97 QJ1042, all day (I would expect this to make > 65% of the time).

Q32 Q652 J32 QJ3, never (I would expect this to make 3N about < 15% of the time).

Kxx Qxxx Kxx xxx, no again (see above).

Once you learn to evaluate these hands properly, the odds of 3N actually going down DECREASE dramatically (I dont even remember the last time one actually went down, but I'm sure its happened in the last, umm, 6 months, year maybe??), while the odds of actually making it INCREASE as well (happens every day). Even when on 23 count.

Inviting with 9-10 is absolute and utter nonsense. The odds only improve. Bid the damn darn game already. You will be glad you did.

[david_c]

bid_em_up, on May 20 2006, 07:27 AM, said:

Contrary to what is being argued, most expert theory that I am aware of these days is that it only requires 24 hcp for 3N to make.

I wonder what it is exactly that you're saying here. If partner opens 1NT (15-17) and you have a random 9 HCP, then I believe it's right to bid game. However, if you bid 3NT and opener turns up with a 15 HCP minimum, then your expectation is now worse than it would have been if you'd passed 1NT (unless you're vulnerable at IMPs, in which case 1NT and 3NT are very close). 24 HCP does not make game good in this sense.

[foo]

Actually, 8 HCP + a 5card suit is a reasonable invite opposite a =16-18= NT.

The average 8 HCP w/ a 5card suit should not invite opposite 1N= 15-17 or weaker.

...I'll see if I can get the numbers to prove that 24 HCP split 15+9, 16+8, or 17+7 doth not usually a good 3N make.

[mikestar]

Doesn't this debate depend on what "15-17" really means to the partnership? If you liberally downgrade 15's and upgrade 17's then your effective range is 15 1/2 to 16 1/2 and there is no point in inviting. On the other hand, if you liberally upgrade 14's and downgrade 18's your effective range is 14 1/2 to 17 1/2 and invitations seem resonable in spite of the downside. Since most partnerships are some where between these extremes, it is a highly debatable question and niether side should be questioning the others rationality.

It is no question at all for those of us who use nominal 4-point ranges, for example 12-15 in Precision, allowing all our suit openings to be unbalanced. We need 2NT invitational or its equivalent. (I rather like 2♠ range ask.) The 4 point range loses a bit but there are compensating gains in the suit opening sequences--in particular, artifical or semi-artifical 1NT and 2NT rebids by opener can clarify many otherwise difficult sequences.

[mike777]

meckwell said it all, downgrade almost never, upgrade almost always. IF you accept on 23 hcp then the game seems to slow down and bidding seems easier. The game on every hand theory seems to make these decisions easier,yes, game on every hand.

[bid_em_up]

david_c, on May 20 2006, 07:17 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on May 20 2006, 07:27 AM, said:

Contrary to what is being argued, most expert theory that I am aware of these days is that it only requires 24 hcp for 3N to make.

I wonder what it is exactly that you're saying here. If partner opens 1NT (15-17) and you have a random 9 HCP, then I believe it's right to bid game. However, if you bid 3NT and opener turns up with a 15 HCP minimum, then your expectation is now worse than it would have been if you'd passed 1NT (unless you're vulnerable at IMPs, in which case 1NT and 3NT are very close). 24 HCP does not make game good in this sense.

First of all, you must understand that I am not talking about casual or pick-up partnerships, but instead regular partnerships where you are aware of the others strengths, weaknesses and tendencies. Is partner a strong declarer? Is he a weak declarer? Is he the kind of partner who always accepts an invite no matter what he has? Is he prone to opening 14 counts 1N? All of these are, of course, factors in what I am saying. Given that I try to play with competent (at least, in my opinion) players, I expect partner to be reasonable about these things.

On the off chance that partner is on a bad 15 count, then yes, I am worse off. But if partner has enough sense not to open A53 A764 A32 K84 as 1N, (since it is better either for suit play, or if in NT, to have the lead going to the other hand), then I (usually) dont have much to worry about. If 3N goes down, it goes down.....but then again, I see 27/28 point NT hands go down as well.

Whenever partner is on a normal 15 count (a hand that actually has tenaces), then opposite any 9, 3N will usually have reasonable play (read as more than 50%). As long as partner is a competent declarer, there isnt much to worry about.

This doesnt even begin to include the mental energy the partnership saves over the long term by not agonizing over these decisions.

[awm]

I'm starting to lose track of the many boards partner and I have lost imps on when we avoided a no-play game only to find that the game was bid and made at the other table. Trust me, there have been a lot of such boards. Perhaps we need better teammates... but I suspect this is more a sign that defense can be a lot harder than declarer play.

[ArcLight]

>Contrary to what is being argued, most expert theory that I am aware of these days is that it only requires 24 hcp for 3N to make. And that does not have to be 12 opposite 12, 16 opposite a good 8 works just fine.

I asked Marty Bergen about this and he disagreed.

About responding to 1NT, he said:

pass 1NT w 8
bid 2NT w 9
bid 3NT w 10

[bid_em_up]

ArcLight, on May 20 2006, 05:52 PM, said:

I asked Marty Bergen about this and he disagreed.

Unfortunately, if I were to respond to this the way I would like to, I probably could be held liable for slander, and I really cant afford it......

I knew there was a reason my profile says "NO BERGEN", I just couldnt remember why. Thanks for reminding me.

ROFLMAOWPIMP

[ArcLight]

>Unfortunately, if I were to respond to this the way I would like to, I probably could be held liable for slander, and I really cant afford it......

>I knew there was a reason my profile says "NO BERGEN", I just couldnt remember why. Thanks for reminding me.


I know Mike Lawrence is not a fan of Bergen raises, or using the LAW at high levels.

But you seem to be implying that Marty Bergen is not a good bidder (not talking about preempts) or player. Considering that he is a multiple national champion, that would imply he is a strong player. Another way to look at it is to ask "Is Larry Cohen a strong player"? I think the answer is yes. And why would Cohen have played with Marty Bergen for all those years if Bergen was not around his level (or at least in the ball park, even if not quite as good).

[jdonn]

ArcLight, on May 20 2006, 11:25 PM, said:

>Unfortunately, if I were to respond to this the way I would like to, I probably could be held liable for slander, and I really cant afford it......

>I knew there was a reason my profile says "NO BERGEN", I just couldnt remember why. Thanks for reminding me.


I know Mike Lawrence is not a fan of Bergen raises, or using the LAW at high levels.

But you seem to be implying that Marty Bergen is not a good bidder (not talking about preempts)  or player.  Considering that he is a multiple national champion, that would imply he is a strong player.  Another way to look at it is to ask "Is Larry Cohen a strong player"?  I think the answer is yes.  And why would Cohen have played with Marty Bergen for all those years if Bergen was not around his level (or at least in the ball park, even if not quite as good).

Not that he wasn't a good player, but he is hardly the first person I would ask about this kind of theoretical point. In any case if he is so amazing, why does he not play in big tournaments any more? (perhaps there is actually a good reason, I really don't know, but my guess would be the best players just don't want to play with him any more)

Also let it be clear, the strategy he mentions of passing with 8 always or almost always is strictly a matchpoint strategy (not surprising coming from him). Lets say, hypothetically, your trick expectation with 8 opposite a strong notrump is as follows, and from the perspective of always bidding 3NT or passing but never inviting (mostly to simplify the analysis):

9+: 40%
8-: 60%

At matchpoints you would want to pass with your 8 because you will go down by bidding game, and thus ruin your score, over half the time. At imps you would want to bid 3NT since the gain for bidding game when it makes is 6 or 10, but the loss for going down in game instead of making 1NT+1 is -5 or -6, so you don't need to make the majority of the time to be gaining.

The actual analysis is more complicated when done thoroughly and without my simplifying assumptions, but it follows the same logic. My point is that these discussions in general don't pertain to matchpoints in particular, but I strongly suspect his advice does.