[straube]

imps all white

RHO is first to bid and opens 3H

A.984 K AQ85 KQT97
B. 984 K AQJ8 KQT97
C. Q84 K AQJ8 KQT97
D. Kxx K AQJ8 KQT97
E. Axx K AQJ8 KQT97

[mtvesuvius]

All of em

[akhare]

I might considering passing on A), but not bidding on the rest looks like bridge suicide to me....

[straube]

Mike Lawrence wrote about a rule of thumb that is useful for deciding whether to make a takeout double. Ask yourself if your bid will be safe (likely to make) if partner has a random 7 ct. I assume by random that he means that most of the cards will be working but not all.

Say partner has Axxx Jxx Kx xxxx. Fair enough? Now which hands are safe in 3S?

A.984 K AQ85 KQT97
B. 984 K AQJ8 KQT97
C. Q84 K AQJ8 KQT97
D. Kxx K AQJ8 KQT97

I think some of these hands are dangerous (I would dbl with C personally). Partner is going to preference spades even with 4S/5m. Next hand may have the balance of power and/or spades.

[aguahombre]

Another way of looking at it: Especially for hands without 4 cards in the focus suit, ask yourself if a hand which is just adequate for a 1-level opening or takeout double is enough to force the auction to the 3 or 4-level (in direct seat).

[akhare]

straube, on 2011-March-09, 13:48, said:

Mike Lawrence wrote about a rule of thumb that is useful for deciding whether to make a takeout double. Ask yourself if your bid will be safe (likely to make) if partner has a random 7 ct. I assume by random that he means that most of the cards will be working but not all.

Say partner has Axxx Jxx Kx xxxx. Fair enough? Now which hands are safe in 3S?

A.984 K AQ85 KQT97
B. 984 K AQJ8 KQT97
C. Q84 K AQJ8 KQT97
D. Kxx K AQJ8 KQT97

I think some of these hands are dangerous (I would dbl with C personally). Partner is going to preference spades even with 4S/5m. Next hand may have the balance of power and/or spades.

Does D. bid 3N? In terms of dangerous actions, shouldn't P fall into that category as well (because it could place pard under increasing pressure to act with lighter hands)?

[straube]

akhare, on 2011-March-09, 14:27, said:

Does D. bid 3N? In terms of dangerous actions, shouldn't P fall into that category as well (because it could place pard under increasing pressure to act with lighter hands)?

Things switch dramatically after 3H P P. I can't seem to locate my Lawrence book on balancing but here's an example for a slightly similar auction (I understand the differences) of

2H P 3H ?

He doubles with A873 4 KT53 QJ84. I imagine he overcalls light, too.

The point is after the responding hand fails to bid game one can play partner for more strength. Also, making the direct action stronger is a way to differentiate the direct hand's strength. How else can we find 16 opposite 16 and know when slam is possible? As balancing seat must bid or pass the hand out, balancer is indeed under pressure and his partner needs to give him leeway.

Preempts work and the preemptor isn't stealing from us. He is taking a calculated risk. We need to lose on a significant percentage of these hands (not getting to game for instance when it makes) or we will be buying the contract and going down too often.

[akhare]

straube, on 2011-March-09, 15:11, said:

Things switch dramatically after 3H P P. I can't seem to locate my Lawrence book on balancing but here's an example for a slightly similar auction (I understand the differences) of

2H P 3H ?

He doubles with A873 4 KT53 QJ84. I imagine he overcalls light, too.

The point is after the responding hand fails to bid game one can play partner for more strength. Also, making the direct action stronger is a way to differentiate the direct hand's strength. How else can we find 16 opposite 16 and know when slam is possible? As balancing seat must bid or pass the hand out, balancer is indeed under pressure and his partner needs to give him leeway.

Preempts work and the preemptor isn't stealing from us. He is taking a calculated risk. We need to lose on a significant percentage of these hands (not getting to game for instance when it makes) or we will be buying the contract and going down too often.

Finding games and playable partscores should have more priority than the 16 opposite 16 slams after a high level preempt. To that end, the evaluation should focus primarily on the risk / reward of action in the immediate seat vs. pressuring fourth hand to take action.

Regarding the stealing comment, how is responder supposed to know who's bluffing if the auction goes:

(3♥) - P - (4♥) -- ??

What does responder need to come in after this auction? Should second hand X back in now, having failed to take action over 3♥?

[straube]

Found a Lawrence example of 3H P P dbl with QT87 3 A987 KJ42.

Here's a link to bridgeguys which discusses the standard meaning of a takeout dbl to a 3-level preempt. They differ from Lawrence in that they say the expectancy is 13 pts, but Lawrence's example hand had ideal shape.

http://www.bridgeguy...velPreempt.html

Here's an example of a direct seat takeout dbl hand of 2D that Lawrence gives....KQ7 AJ75 32 AJ76. He plays partner for a random 7 pts. If a weaker hand than this passes, the auction is not necessarily over. Partner is not required to have nearly so much. He also writes regarding the difference between the 2 and 3 level preempts "Because you are a level higher, you will need a tad more than you did to double at the two-level". In our situation, doubler is asking partner to bid 3S or higher.

After an opening preempt, it's likely that direct seat has a decent hand with shortness in the preempted suit. Cramped for room, we need to attach more meaning to our bids here, reserving them for something better.

I disagree with you if you're saying that slam bidding is not a consideration after an opening preempt. It's very important to differentiate hand strengths for direct seat to help with both game and slam decisions. It's necessarily more difficult to differentiate balancing seat. In balancing seat, especially after a game has not been bid, balancer has to play partner for more and bid accordingly. I haven't seen a rule of thumb, but I would hazard that balancing seat will play partner for about 10 points. A hand that might overcall 3S in direct seat will bid 4S in balancing seat as long as the suit warrants.

Regarding 3H P 4H...Yes, that can get us. The 4th to bid has more license in this auction than the direct seat bidder when he is short, but he certainly needs more than after 3H P P P. Responder cannot always raise with impunity; he knows that 3H P 4H dbl is a possibility as is 3H P 4H P P dbl for penalties.

[mtvesuvius]

The hand with shortness acts is my general principle.

If I'm in 4th seat after 3H - P - P, I want to be able to let it go comfortably. Therefore with a stiff/void in opener's suit I'll double very aggressively. I think conservative on balanced hands and aggressive on unbalanced hands is the way to go.

I consider all these hands an easy double. Yes, I'll get burned sometimes, but we'll also get to the right spot quite often as well, and we won't have to worry about bidding this hand later... After all, what DO you do when partner reopens? Does partner have to take a call on every random 13 count in 4th chair in fear that we passed a hand like this?

It all comes back to a very basic principle: Get in fast, get out fast.

[akhare]

straube, on 2011-March-09, 17:58, said:

I disagree with you if you're saying that slam bidding is not a consideration after an opening preempt. It's very important to differentiate hand strengths for direct seat to help with both game and slam decisions. It's necessarily more difficult to differentiate balancing seat. In balancing seat, especially after a game has not been bid, balancer has to play partner for more and bid accordingly. I haven't seen a rule of thumb, but I would hazard that balancing seat will play partner for about 10 points. A hand that might overcall 3S in direct seat will bid 4S in balancing seat as long as the suit warrants.

Regarding 3H P 4H...Yes, that can get us. The 4th to bid has more license in this auction than the direct seat bidder when he is short, but he certainly needs more than after 3H P P P. Responder cannot always raise with impunity; he knows that 3H P 4H dbl is a possibility as is 3H P 4H P P dbl for penalties.

Here's what a simulation showed for hand B.

Spade fit: 7.02513
Club fit: 8.06228
Diamond fit: 7.41436
Their heart fit: 9.50177
Average combined HCP: 23.9649
Average combined losers: 14.0615

Here's the combined HCP distribution assuming the X has has 15+ HCP and no other restriction.

Do you still think that bidding slam is very important consideration based on these statistics?

15 0.02%
16 0.22%
17 0.67%
18 1.59%
19 2.59%
20 4.06%
21 6.20%
22 8.70%
23 10.28%
24 11.19%
25 11.51%
26 10.98%
27 10.16%
28 8.03%
29 5.93%
30 3.72%
31 2.38%
32 1.15%
33 0.45%
34 0.12%
35 0.05%
36 0.00%
37 0.00%

[straube]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-March-09, 18:17, said:

The hand with shortness acts is my general principle.

If I'm in 4th seat after 3H - P - P, I want to be able to let it go comfortably. Therefore with a stiff/void in opener's suit I'll double very aggressively. I think conservative on balanced hands and aggressive on unbalanced hands is the way to go.

I consider all these hands an easy double. Yes, I'll get burned sometimes, but we'll also get to the right spot quite often as well, and we won't have to worry about bidding this hand later... After all, what DO you do when partner reopens? Does partner have to take a call on every random 13 count in 4th chair in fear that we passed a hand like this?

It all comes back to a very basic principle: Get in fast, get out fast.

"The hand with shortness acts" is a good principle.

"Get in fast, get out fast" is better suited to low level overcalls and doubles. We're at 3H! Double steps us into the auction and puts most focus on spades. With likely few spade hands in preemptor's hand and only three spades in direct seat's hand, it is quite likely that partner has four or more spades. Once he bids spades, we will own the contract.

No, partner doesn't have to protect with every 13 pt hand, but with those that are suited... Here's a couple hands that Lawrence balances with....
After 3D P P ?

.....3H with A3 T87642 3 KJ97
After 3H P P ?
.....3S with KJ873 84 AQ6 A73
but after 3H P P
.....he passes with AKQJ8 76 854 J73

Obviously, if I had that last hand and partner had xxx K AQJx KQT9x then we want to be in game. That's the cost of preempts. We have to lose to them sometimes or we'll be guessing all the time.

[mtvesuvius]

Get in fast, get out fast still applies here, just not as much. I'd rather double the first time than consider acting later, or have to describe this hand after partner takes a call.

[straube]

akhare, on 2011-March-09, 18:24, said:

Here's what a simulation showed for hand B.

Spade fit: 7.02513
Club fit: 8.06228
Diamond fit: 7.41436
Their heart fit: 9.50177
Average combined HCP: 23.9649
Average combined losers: 14.0615

Here's the combined HCP distribution assuming the X has has 15+ HCP and no other restriction.

Do you still think that bidding slam is very important consideration based on these statistics?

15 0.02%
16 0.22%
17 0.67%
18 1.59%
19 2.59%
20 4.06%
21 6.20%
22 8.70%
23 10.28%
24 11.19%
25 11.51%
26 10.98%
27 10.16%
28 8.03%
29 5.93%
30 3.72%
31 2.38%
32 1.15%
33 0.45%
34 0.12%
35 0.05%
36 0.00%
37 0.00%

I said that differentiating strengths was very important for both game and slam decisions. I assume that you're suggesting that this point count diagram supports that slam is not a consideration. I'm thinking that I bid and make a slam maybe once a session on average. Maybe more than that. Maybe someone has a figure for how often they occur and should be bid. After someone has shown length in a suit and a weak hand, I think the odds on slam must go up significantly. My excellent partner bid (and I made) a slam just last night after a preempt.

I think a rule of thumb that gets overlooked is that we need a better hand for direct seat to act against a preempt than against an opening hand. If your partnership allows for a double of 1S in the direct seat with x Kxxx Kxxx KJxx then that's playable. Opener has announced something like 11+ of the hcps after all and less are available. After a preempt which confines that hand to probably an average of 8 hcps, there are many more points distributed amongst the remaining 3 players. One's average expectancy is something like 11 hcps. That double is an important tool and it's only available one time between the partnership. For the direct seat to take it, it ought to show something pretty good.

Certainly shortness is a very important consideration. So, too, is spade length in this situation. So, too are points.

I've cited Mike Lawrence as an authority. Do you have a supporting reference for a direct double with hands as light as A or B?

[quiddity]

I would pass A and maybe B. With 3 bad spades I feel less pressure to act.

[akhare]

straube, on 2011-March-09, 19:12, said:

I've cited Mike Lawrence as an authority. Do you have a supporting reference for a direct double with hands as light as A or B?

My authority is called dealer.exe. I have already noted that A) is marginal, but the rest of the hands warrant a bid.

Here's a sample set of 50 E and S hands and my interpretation of E and S actions after N make a X with B.

Let's tally up how they fare if "Mike Lawrence" passes with B. and then compare.

1) P, 4D
2) P, 3S
3) P, 4C
4) P, 4H
5) P, 3S
6) P, 3S
7) P, 3S
8) P, 3N?
9) P, 4S
10) P, 3S
11) P, 4S
12) P, 6S
13) P, 4S
14) P, 4S
15) P, 4S
17) P, 3S
18) 5H, 5S
19) P, 5C
20) 4H, 4S
21) P, 3N
22) P, 3S
23) P, 4S
24) P, 3S
25) P, 3N
26) 4H, 5C
27) P, 3S
28) P, 3N
29) P, 4C
30) 4H, P
31) P, 4D?
32) 4H, 4N
33) P, 4C
34) P, 3S*
35) P, 3S
36) P (trap), 3S
37) P, 3S
38) P, 4S
39) P, 4S
40) P,5C?
41) P, 4S
42) P, 4S
43) P, 3S
44) P, 3S
45) P, 3N?
46) P, 3N
47) P, ??
48) P, 3N/5C
49) P, 3N?
50) P, 4S

East hands (note: not in sequential order):

1.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

5.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

9.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

13.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

17.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

21.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

25.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

29.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

33.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

37.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

41.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

45.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

49.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

2.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

6.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

10.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

14.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

18.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

22.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

26.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

30.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

34.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

38.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

42.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

46.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

50.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7


3.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

7.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

11.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

15.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

19.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

23.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

27.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

31.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

35.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

39.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

43.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

47.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7





3.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

7.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

11.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

15.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

19.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

23.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

27.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

31.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

35.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

39.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

43.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

47.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7


South hands:

3.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

7.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

11.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

15.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

19.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

23.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

27.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

31.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

35.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

39.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

43.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7

47.
9 8 4
K
A Q J 8
K Q T 9 7



14.
A K J T 7 5 3 2
J 3
K 4
6

18.
A Q J T 7 6 3 2
3 2
4
8 3

22.
Q T 7 6 2
8 6 4
K 7 6 5
A

26.
Q 7 6 5
3
K 9
J 8 5 4 3 2

30.
T 6 2
6 5
K 9 7 5
J 8 5 2

34.
K Q 7 3
6 5 2
9 4
J 8 6 5

38.
K Q 7 5
7 2
K 7 5
A 6 5 4

42.
A K 6 5 3 2
A
6 4 2
8 5 3

46.
Q T 6
A 6 3
K T 7
A 8 5 4

50.
K T 7 6 5
A Q 7
K 9 5
5 2


14.
A K J T 7 5 3 2
J 3
K 4
6

18.
A Q J T 7 6 3 2
3 2
4
8 3

22.
Q T 7 6 2
8 6 4
K 7 6 5
A

26.
Q 7 6 5
3
K 9
J 8 5 4 3 2

30.
T 6 2
6 5
K 9 7 5
J 8 5 2

34.
K Q 7 3
6 5 2
9 4
J 8 6 5

38.
K Q 7 5
7 2
K 7 5
A 6 5 4

42.
A K 6 5 3 2
A
6 4 2
8 5 3

46.
Q T 6
A 6 3
K T 7
A 8 5 4

50.
K T 7 6 5
A Q 7
K 9 5

5 2


14.
A K J T 7 5 3 2
J 3
K 4
6

18.
A Q J T 7 6 3 2
3 2
4
8 3

22.
Q T 7 6 2
8 6 4
K 7 6 5
A

26.
Q 7 6 5
3
K 9
J 8 5 4 3 2

30.
T 6 2
6 5
K 9 7 5
J 8 5 2

34.
K Q 7 3
6 5 2
9 4
J 8 6 5

38.
K Q 7 5
7 2
K 7 5
A 6 5 4

42.
A K 6 5 3 2
A
6 4 2
8 5 3

46.
Q T 6
A 6 3
K T 7
A 8 5 4

50.
K T 7 6 5
A Q 7
K 9 5
5 2

[aguahombre]

i don't think I have the life span to read that

[straube]

Aren't you relying on your interpretation of the ensuing bidding? Double is a conventional bid, too, and I'm advocating that double mean something different (stronger) than do you. We'd have to sift through hundreds of deals, bidding them under two sets of meanings for what double shows, play the deals out and then assess whether the more conservative or liberal versions of double were successful. In short, it's not at all doable. I'd much rather ask the experts and if we find that they conflict with what Lawrence suggests or what I've learned to be standard, then I'll be open to revising my thinking.

[aguahombre]

Not doable. because we would also have to agree on what advancer thinks a double should mean, and all the times advancer bids too much or too little because he/she is totally in the dark regarding the wide range of the double.

[mtvesuvius]

Simulations for competitive auctions are questionable at best. If you gave a set of 50 hands to people, and asked them "What do you think would happen, and how would the auction go if East opens 3♥ and South doubles? What about passes?"

I'm confident that there would be different answers on a bunch of these, and I'm even confident that if I were to give the same people the exact same problems a couple hours later, I would get different answers for at least 5 hands.