[jtfanclub]

I'll reply in detail this afternoon- I don't want to misquote. But there was one thing you said I found interesting....

Quote

If you have something like a prime 5431 16 count you will usually have a game opposite a fit and some high cards. The hand is not nearly as good opposite no fit and you don't even have 3 level safety.

So on the auction 1♥-1♠-P, would you bid 2♠ with...

♠ 9xx
♥ xx
♦ Axxx
♣ 8xxx

I'm extrapolating here, so maybe I just misunderstand where you are coming from. But is it your position that a hand like this should raise in competition, and that it has 3 level safety across a 5431 16 count?

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Jul 18 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

I never said I would raise with this hand on this auction.

And I never said you would. I was careful to point out that I was extrapolating, and that I didn't know if this was your position or not. You did not, however, answer my question.

Logically, I figured that if you'd try for game with a 5431 16 count after

1♥ 1♠ P 2♠ P

you would also try for game with a 5431 16 count after

1♠ 2♣ 2♠ P

Am I wrong?

To me, the 2♠ on the first example auction needs to be wider than on the second auction, at least from a game try perspective. If I pass on the first auction, that may end it.

It seems odd to me that you'd criticize the raise with 2 card support as not safe for the 3 level across an invitational hand, while at the same time criticizing somebody else for not raising with 3 card support on a differenct auction, which looks to me to be not safe for the 3 level across an invitational hand.

For you, is a 2♠ call on these auctions primarily obstructive, and you don't really have any interest in game unless partner's got an 18 count or a 6 card suit? Or is it primarily constructive, and you want to give partner as much detail as possible in hopes that you have game across a 16-17 hcp hand? Or is one of the 2♠ bids constructive, and the other obstructive?

I don't understand where you're coming from.

[Fluffy]

SoTired, on Jul 18 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 18 2007, 08:47 AM, said:

SoTired you are wrong, I would explain it but I'm sure our math pro cherdano can put it in more concrete terms than I

So you having 4♣ with opener does not make the odds higher that partner has spade support. Is that right? Then why did Mike Lawrence say club length makes the 4-card overcall more attractive? Is it just the unlikelyhood of a club overruff?

I don't know if Mike said that, actually I am not even sure who Mike is. But if he did the reason is quite simple: You have no better way to enter the auction.

[awm]

Here are some simulation results. The constraints are:

East has at most four spades, at most four hearts, at least as many clubs as diamonds. If east has five or more diamonds, then clubs must be longer than diamonds. This gives East effectively a one club opening shape.

South has either 4-2-3-4 or 4-4-3-2 distribution (exactly in that order).

I measured the frequency of north holding various numbers of spades under these assumptions. Here are the results:

1. South has 4-2-3-4. Partner's number of spades:

0 spades: 0.94%
1 spades: 7.83%
2 spades: 23.74%
3 spades: 33.01%
4 spades: 23.13%
5 spades: 9.22%
6 spades: 1.90%

Expected (average) number of spades is 3.0595

2. South has 4-4-3-2. Partner's number of spades:

0 spades: 0.88%
1 spades: 7.57%
2 spades: 23.02%
3 spades: 32.49%
4 spades: 24.05%
5 spades: 9.72%
6 spades: 2.01%

Expected (average) number of spades is 3.0982

This is over a lot of trials. The result:

More clubs in my hand after a 1C opening on my right makes partner less likely to have a fit for me when I overcall a four-card spade suit. However, the effect is very slight.

There are, of course, advantages in the play because of likely shortage in partner's hand and who's ruffing what, which make 4-3 fits play better when I have a bunch of clubs than when I have few. But my holding a bunch of clubs does not make partner more likely to have spades with me -- in fact slightly the opposite.

[han]

To see that it won't be equal you could take it to an extreme. If you have 4 spades and 9 clubs then you know opener has at most 4 clubs and likely has 2-4 spades (unless he has exactly 1444 shape). But if you have 4 spades and 0 clubs then opener likely has club length and therefore is more likely to have short spades. The non-spade cards in our hand are the same so don't influence the likelyhood for partner to have spades, but the more spades opener has the less likely it is that partner has spade length.

So the more clubs we have, the fewer support we should expect from partner, just like Adam has said all along (and I suspect for the same reason). I didn't read all the post in this thread in great detail. Apologies if someone has given a similar argument before.

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Jul 18 2007, 01:01 PM, said:

Quote

Logically, I figured that if you'd try for game with a 5431 16 count after

1♥ 1♠ P 2♠ P

you would also try for game with a 5431 16 count after

1♠ 2♣ 2♠ P

Am I wrong?

No. I never said this was not the case. WTF is your point?

My point is that I see both auctions as primarily obstructive. The object here is to make the opponents make the last guess. the objective is not to find find game, unless partner has an extreme hand.

My point is that I think that a 3+244 4 count with one ace and a 2+254 well supported 7 count with one ace are about equal in offense. If you don't think that's true, then up the point value to where they're equal, there's nothing magical about 7. While the auctions are not the same, partner's going to invite with the same hand in both cases. I think that if anything, partner should expect a weaker hand from 1♥ 1♠ P 2♠ because the bid may be the best of a bad set of choices, while after 1♠ 2♣ 2♠ you had both pass and X available to you.

My point was that if you can see the parallel strengths of the hands, and the parallel objectives in bidding the two hands, then hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. I obviously was not successful.

On the auction 1♥ 1♠ P, would you bid 2♠ with 9xx xx Axxx 8xxx?

If the answer is yes, then the parallels between the two bids should be obvious. If the answer is no, then the parallels don't immediately apply, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Quote

That is because you are equating 2 non similar auctions from different threads and looking at only one aspect of my argument.

That the best bid combined with the best bid can get you to a bad place? I thought that was self-evident.

Quote

1) When you have 2 trumps and a random 7 count then getting to the 3 level in the 5-2 fit is pretty much a disaster.

Cohen's rule is 'eight never, nine ever'. I was going to grab more quotes to explain where I was coming from, but I never got the chance.

I agree that getting to the three level in a 5-2 to fit would be a disaster. However, if you follow Cohen's rule, the original overcaller will never bid 3♠ without 6 cards in the suit. If the raise can be two cards, then it's extra sure that the original overcaller will never bid 3♠ without 6 cards in the suit. So you may end up in a 6-2, which violates Cohen's rule, but never a 5-2.

Take the 5431 16 count across the 2254 7 count. If the singleton is in opener's suit, then to try for game the overcaller bids 3 of his longer minor, and now you're playing in a 4-4 or a 5-4 fit. If the overcaller instead has the singleton in a minor and the opponent's suit well stopped, he bids 2NT, and with a 23 count and a fit in the minors that's hardly a horror. If the overcaller doesn't have shortness in opener's suit but doesn't have the stoppers for NT, he can pass or bid the minor. Game tries, in other words, are easily handled without any real loss. What else were you using those bids for?

Quote

2) You cannot take arguments as a whole and then zone in on one aspect of that argument and compare it to the same aspect from another thread.

The others aspects I think I can argue through pretty easily. This is the only negative aspect I'm worried about.

Quote

I have stated already that I think raising with 2 trumps is bad because it will cause partner to misjudge. He may try for game assuming we have a fit and upgrading for that. He may misjudge a competitive auction. We may get to the wrong strain. These are all downsides.

Let's start with the idea that you're not fooling partner. Partner's going to assume you have three cards, but he's aware that you might have 2 and will factor that into the auction when it doesn't cost anything. That you've discussed this possibility before the game. Surprising partner is a bad thing regardless.

A) Trying for game: I don't think that partner trying for game assuming a fit is a problem as long as the minimum for two card support is signifanctly stronger than the minimum for 3 card support. If partner thinks we have 21+ hcp and a 5-3 fit, I don't think it'll be a disaster when we turn up with 24+ hcp and a 5-2 fit. Obviously, partner can't just bid 3♠ with 5, but there are far cheaper ways to try for game.

Misjudging a competitive auction: I think this is far more likely to happen to the opponents. Overcaller has already shown 5, there is no reason for him to show it again. If you follow the eight never principle, overcaller shouldn't be tempted to compete further with 5. If partner things we're 6-3 and we're actually 6-2, this can be an issue, sure. But the opponents don't even have that much information. If opener has 6, can he be sure partner has 2? If responder has 3, can he be sure partner has 6? 6-2 is not a bad fit.

C) Wrong strain: I think it's actually tougher to get to another strain without the raise. Obviously, if it gets passed out, you're not finding another strain. After the raise, you can afford to show an alternate strain if you also have interest in game. After 1♥ 1♠ P P 2♥, can you even find 3NT when it's right? I doubt I could.

Quote

If you still do not understand why I think raising with 2 trumps and random hands is a good idea, you never will.

Yeah, I get it. It's the same old argument used for everything from not opening a weak 2 without 2 of the top 3 honors to 1♦-1♠-2♠ with 3 card support to overcalling with 4 card suits to your call. How many times can you name where you've gotten that same argument from somebody else?

But if you start thinking about the LOTT and eight never, you can see why raising with 2 card support with certain hands fits with those rules and doesn't cause major problems. These hands are not random- that's why you don't do it with 2344 shape, or with the same minimum strength that you'd bid it with 3 card support.

[awm]

Bidding needs to be based on offense-to-defense ratio (ODR) and not just offensive value. While it's true that a hand with three-card support and lousy values may be equivalent offensively to a hand with two-card support and an extra ace, the second hand is much better defensively than the first.

Take the following three hands:

Jxx xx Axxx xxxx

Jx xxx AKxx xxxx

Jxx xx AKxx xxxx

It's certainly true that the first two hands will be worth close to the same number of tricks in a spade contract (the extra diamond king in the second hand compensates for the missing trump). The third hand is worth about one trick more than either of the first two. But the issue is, the first hand is much worse defensively than the second and third. If the auction continues with a competitive bid by opponents and partner has to decide whether to bid 3♠, he will be right to bid on either the first hand (3♠ likely down one, but their three level contract probably making) or the third hand (3♠ probably makes, their three level contract probably down one). He will be wrong to bid on the second hand (3♠ and their contract both probably down).

There is an additional issue when partner has "game try" values. On the first hand, it's generally right to reject a game try, and on the third hand it's generally right to accept. Easy enough. But the second hand is a pain -- if partner is bidding simply on power than you can probably make 3NT (but 4♠ can easily be hopeless). If partner is bidding on shape then 3♠ could easily be the limit (partner's shape not worth as much opposite only two trumps).

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Jul 18 2007, 03:44 PM, said:

Bidding needs to be based on offense-to-defense ratio (ODR) and not just offensive value. While it's true that a hand with three-card support and lousy values may be equivalent offensively to a hand with two-card support and an extra ace, the second hand is much better defensively than the first.

I agree with what you said, and I think it applies here. However....

Let's take the following FOUR hands.

1. Jxx xx Axxx xxxx

2. Jx xx AQJxx xxxx (remember, no 2344s- gotta have some shape).

3. Jxx xx AQJx xxxx

4. Jxx Qxx AJx xxxx

Do you agree that most people will bid 2♠ with hand 4?

Quote

It's certainly true that the first two hands will be worth close to the same number of tricks in a spade contract (the extra diamond king in the second hand compensates for the missing trump). The third hand is worth about one trick more than either of the first two. But the issue is, the first hand is much worse defensively than the second and third. If the auction continues with a competitive bid by opponents and partner has to decide whether to bid 3♠, he will be right to bid on either the first hand (3♠ likely down one, but their three level contract probably making) or the third hand (3♠ probably makes, their three level contract probably down one). He will be wrong to bid on the second hand (3♠ and their contract both probably down).

But the ODR for hand 4 is, I believe (I don't know the math) actually lower than the ODR of hand 2. The combination of very defensive shape (no side suit, no ruffing value) and impurity (honors in the opponent's suit) is extremely defensive. So while he would probably be wrong to continue on with hand 2, he would also be wrong to continue on with hand 4.

Quote

There is an additional issue when partner has "game try" values. On the first hand, it's generally right to reject a game try, and on the third hand it's generally right to accept. Easy enough. But the second hand is a pain -- if partner is bidding simply on power than you can probably make 3NT (but 4♠ can easily be hopeless). If partner is bidding on shape then 3♠ could easily be the limit (partner's shape not worth as much opposite only two trumps).

But you run into the same problem with hand 4. If partner's bidding on shape, you're screwed- the queen of hearts is probably worthless, and you have no ruffing values or long suits. If he's bidding on power, you've got nice points and fillers for him, 3NT should be great.

2♠ doesn't show a high ODR like 3♠ does. In my opinion, if you compare the 2 card raise with the 3 card high ODR raise, you're absolutely right. But if you compare the 2 card with with the 3 card low ODR raise, they come out about the same, with the same benefits and flaws.

[helene_t]

SoTired, on Jul 18 2007, 04:13 PM, said:

So you having 4♣ with opener does not make the odds higher that partner has spade support. Is that right? Then why did Mike Lawrence say club length makes the 4-card overcall more attractive? Is it just the unlikelyhood of a club overruff?

Thanks to Adam we now know that the chance of a fit is negatively correlated with your club length but that the correlation is extremely weak. It's possible that Mike Lawrence is a victim of the urban legend about the positive correlation. But I can see four cases for overcalling with club length:
- P may have ruffing value
- LHO may be more obstructed by the overcall because he doesn't have primary club fit.
- You don't have an alternative such as a t/o dbl
- RHO is likely to be balanced so even if LHO has a trap pass there's a good chance that RHO won't reopen with a double.

Two cases against:
- P has ♣ shortness so if the the board belongs to us he'll reopen
- LHO may ruff my club winners. Of course this issue depends on the texture of my clubs.

[barmar]

jtfanclub, on Jul 18 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

Cohen's rule is 'eight never, nine ever'. I was going to grab more quotes to explain where I was coming from, but I never got the chance.

Just make sure they're relevant. "8 ever, 9 never" refers to whether to finesse for a queen versus play for the drop, and has little to do with bidding decisions.

[jtfanclub]

barmar, on Jul 19 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 18 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

Cohen's rule is 'eight never, nine ever'.  I was going to grab more quotes to explain where I was coming from, but I never got the chance.

Just make sure they're relevant. "8 ever, 9 never" refers to whether to finesse for a queen versus play for the drop, and has little to do with bidding decisions.

"8 never, 9 ever" is Cohen's rule for competing to the three level. It's a play on words from the finessing rule. I think it should be 5-3 never, 6-2 occassionally, but that doesn't sound as good.

http://www.larryco.c...S/following.htm

[barmar]

Oops, sorry.

Although I thought he recommended competing to 3♥ over 2♠ if both sides have 8-card fits. The LOTT says that if they could make 8 tricks, you're only going down 1, which is better (assuming you're non-vul or they don't double, and the latter tends to be rare in these auctions). "8 never" applies to whether to bid 3 over 3, not 3 over 2, although there are frequent exceptions due to LOTT adjustments.

[SoTired]

awm, on Jul 18 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

1. South has 4-2-3-4. Partner's number of spades:
Expected (average) number of spades is 3.0595

2. South has 4-4-3-2. Partner's number of spades:
Expected (average) number of spades is 3.0982

This is a difference of 4 parts per 1000. That is probably within the margin of error and, even if accurate, it is close enough to zero difference to not affect our bidding approach.

So our holding length in the enemy suit does not change our chance of having a fit with partner.

So.... overcalling a 4-card suit at the 1-level if:
1) hand not suitable for 1N overcall or t/o dbl
2) Suit is particularly strong
3) Hand is full opening bid
Partner still treats it as 5-card suit.

Is that a final consensus?

[skjaeran]

Count me in on the consensus.

[ralph23]

I'm in on the consensus although (just like a dang lawyer, isn't it ..) I quibble a little bit with number 3. I'm not going to be a fanatic on insisting on full opening hand. I do think it should be a "good" hand but "full opening" is just a bit too lofty for my relatively low (as my partner will eagerly attest ) standards.

Partner is entitled to expect 5+ and overcaller must remember this in all subsequent decisions.

[awm]

I agree with SoTired on the general principles.

However, the difference in spade length is four cards per hundred and not per thousand, which means basically one hand in 25 has fewer spades for partner when you've got club length. The number of trials is over 500,000 for each hand pattern so a 4% difference should in fact be statistically significant.

[awm]

This effect (partner has fewer cards in support if you have length in RHO's suit) is actually much more significant when the opening bid shows real length. Suppose this time that RHO opened 1♥ instead of 1♣, playing five card majors. Now partner's expected spade length:

If I am 4-2-3-4 is 3.33.

If I am 4-4-3-2 is 3.00.