[bill1157]

My partner opened 3♠ with this hand and I passed with:
♠ 8 2
♥ K 7 5 2
♦ A K Q 10 6
♣ J 5

so I guess the next question is: if partner opens 3♠ do you raise to 4 with this hand (same conditions, MP's)?

[wyman]

no

[ahydra]

I open 4S. As for whether to raise 3S to 4 with the 2452 hand, I'm not sure. Depends if partner is known for crazy pre-empts or not - I play a fairly solid style, particularly in 2nd seat, and so would raise hoping for something like 6 spades, 3 diamonds and the HK, without 4 quick losers. At MPs you need to take 50% chances and here the 50% chance is that the HA is onside, I guess.

ahydra

[mikeh]

bill1157, on 2011-August-03, 08:43, said:

My partner opened 3♠ with this hand and I passed with:
♠ 8 2
♥ K 7 5 2
♦ A K Q 10 6
♣ J 5

so I guess the next question is: if partner opens 3♠ do you raise to 4 with this hand (same conditions, MP's)?

No and it isn't close

KQJ109xx xx x xxx Is there a bridge player with a pulse who wouldn't open 3♠ at favourable even in 2nd seat?

Mps is about plus scores: if I held this hand and one of my partners opened 3♠ at favourable I would be far more concerned that we are going -50 against air than that we have just missed a game.

Even at imps, I'd pass...now red v white, 2nd seat, imps...I'd bid...ony because a 40% chance of making makes it a good call

[semeai]

bill1157, on 2011-August-03, 08:43, said:

My partner opened 3♠ with this hand and I passed with:
♠ 8 2
♥ K 7 5 2
♦ A K Q 10 6
♣ J 5

so I guess the next question is: if partner opens 3♠ do you raise to 4 with this hand (same conditions, MP's)?

Not at favorable or equal. At unfavorable, yes. This is all assuming a modern but middle-of-the-road style.

[daveharty]

the hog, on 2011-August-02, 20:31, said:

Passing this hand is a joke.

Quit sugarcoating, Hog, and tell us what you really think.

[VM1973]

Phil, on 2011-August-02, 17:08, said:

(Actual text deleted)

No, I don't see what you mean because somehow I don't worry about my opponents bidding and making slam when their first contribution to the auction is "Pass."

As for "missing the preempt class" why don't we revisit it now? Let's take that eager preempter Marty Bergen and get his opinion. It's right here at http://www.bridgehan...schmoints10.htm

"...do not open at the three level with a suit headed by the AKQ.
A solid seven-card suit is too good. Open 1 with:

♠6 ♥53 ♦J72 ♣AKQ10865"

Firstly, if you preempt more aggressively than Marty Bergen, you are way out in left field, pal.

So for all those people who said: If you got a bunch of experts together and asked them what to bid with this hand, none of them would agree with you, here's my response: Talk is cheap. When you come up with experts supporting your POV, let me know. Until then, I've got an expert right here on my side so that makes Villa Maria 1 - Blowhards 0.

As I said, a 1♠ bid is much better than 2, 3, or 4 spades. The only problem with 1♠ is A) opening 1 banana with less than 10 HCPs is banned in most junior rooms and B) If you have agreed to open 1 with less than 11 HCPs you are supposed to pre-alert your opponents when they sit down. If I were in a superchart event, I might well open it 1♠ as it easily meets the rule of 20. Last I checked, however, this is Beginner and Intermediate Bridge Discussion.

The reason why you don't open 4♠ on a hand like this is because partner, holding:

♠x
♥Axxx
♦Axxx
♣AJ10x

is thinking, "I hope I've got enough for him to make it." not "Wow, we have a great shot at 6!"

Now if partner opened 3 or even 4♠ 3rd seat, I'd say he made a fine call. If he did it in 1st seat, I'd accept it with good grace for the sake of the partnership. However, this kind of undisciplined BS in 2nd seat is a bad idea.

As for those who argued: Well, maybe there are only 17 trumps, but there still often is 18 tricks under circumstances like this, I should like to point out that it is very possible for both sides to both get 9 tricks, for 18 total tricks on the deal. Considering that now it's confirmed that it's matchpoints, I think I'd rather try to double 4♥ for +200 than advance sacrifice in 4♠ for -50.

Admittedly on this hand a 4♠ bid works out reasonably well, but hindsight is always 20/20. Both a 1♠ opener and a P-P-P-1♦-P-2♠ auction could easily result in reaching a 4♠ contract.

Finally for those who said they'd open this hand 4♠ red against white... I hope they aren't playing for money.

[mikeh]

VM1973, on 2011-August-03, 11:37, said:

No, I don't see what you mean because somehow I don't worry about my opponents bidding and making slam when their first contribution to the auction is "Pass."

As for "missing the preempt class" why don't we revisit it now? Let's take that eager preempter Marty Bergen and get his opinion. It's right here at http://www.bridgehan...schmoints10.htm

"...do not open at the three level with a suit headed by the AKQ.
A solid seven-card suit is too good. Open 1 with:

♠6 ♥53 ♦J72 ♣AKQ10865"

Firstly, if you preempt more aggressively than Marty Bergen, you are way out in left field, pal.

So for all those people who said: If you got a bunch of experts together and asked them what to bid with this hand, none of them would agree with you, here's my response: Talk is cheap. When you come up with experts supporting your POV, let me know. Until then, I've got an expert right here on my side so that makes Villa Maria 1 - Blowhards 0.

As I said, a 1♠ bid is much better than 2, 3, or 4 spades. The only problem with 1♠ is A) opening 1 banana with less than 10 HCPs is banned in most junior rooms and B) If you have agreed to open 1 with less than 11 HCPs you are supposed to pre-alert your opponents when they sit down. If I were in a superchart event, I might well open it 1♠ as it easily meets the rule of 20. Last I checked, however, this is Beginner and Intermediate Bridge Discussion.

The reason why you don't open 4♠ on a hand like this is because partner, holding:

♠x
♥Axxx
♦Axxx
♣AJ10x

is thinking, "I hope I've got enough for him to make it." not "Wow, we have a great shot at 6!"

Now if partner opened 3 or even 4♠ 3rd seat, I'd say he made a fine call. If he did it in 1st seat, I'd accept it with good grace for the sake of the partnership. However, this kind of undisciplined BS in 2nd seat is a bad idea.

As for those who argued: Well, maybe there are only 17 trumps, but there still often is 18 tricks under circumstances like this, I should like to point out that it is very possible for both sides to both get 9 tricks, for 18 total tricks on the deal. Considering that now it's confirmed that it's matchpoints, I think I'd rather try to double 4♥ for +200 than advance sacrifice in 4♠ for -50.

Admittedly on this hand a 4♠ bid works out reasonably well, but hindsight is always 20/20. Both a 1♠ opener and a P-P-P-1♦-P-2♠ auction could easily result in reaching a 4♠ contract.

Finally for those who said they'd open this hand 4♠ red against white... I hope they aren't playing for money.

May I suggest that you step back a moment and accept that maybe you are mistaken and, having entertained that possibility, review why others suggest that you are.

Let me start by suggesting that it is an error to compare the Bergen example of x xx Jxx AKQ10xxx with this hand of AKQxxxx x x xxxx.

With the Bergen hand, the problem is that few would play that 3♣ will deliver that suit, thus partner will often fail to bid 3N with a smattering of hcp. While opening 1♣ is no guarantee of success, it does aim at the most likely game...3N.

With our hand, however, while 3N is certainly a plausible contract, I suspect that you would agree that one's thoughts, in terms of a game contract, turn more directly, strongly and immediately towards 4♠.

Now, if we were assured of a smooth auction, with little interference, opening 1♠ is demonstrably superior to 4♠...we can hardly reach 3N after opening 4♠.

There are issues with 1♠ even in a smooth auction, but I think we'd all accept that on some hands, 1♠ rates to do wel compared to 4♠.

But we have opponents and we have a slight lack of defence.

To most of us, this hand suggests that it will frequently prove more important to deprive the opps of bidding space than to aim for staying low or reaching 3N or any of the less probable outcomes attainable after a 1♠ opening.

Conjuring up example hands to 'prove' a point (rather than to illustrate a possibility) is futile. For every hand you create where 1♠ is the probable winner, we can all come up with one or more on which it proves second-best or worse.

If you want to do this semi-scientifically, do a simulation, but publish your constraints and don't expect that everyone will agree with them. Even then, the simulation will be of limited assistance because no simulation will tell you what an opp might do over your 1♠ opening, or after you Pass (?!) or bid 4♠. Yes, on many hands, you'll be able to predict with some assurance what they would do, but on many more, you'll be guessing....because on borderline hands, even experts disagree on action.

The point is that by reading and posting to these fora, you get the benefit of the collective and individual experiences of a wide range of players, some of whom have significant credentials as real life experts. Steadfastly clinging to and defending your 'minority-of-one' view suggests either that you think you are by far the best player here, in terms of bidding theory, or that you aren't interested in learning from others. Which is regrettable...I can tell you that, if you are open to learning, this is a wonderful place to do it. I have, personally, learned a lot from these forums and have changed my views on a number of issues precisely because some intelligent and knowledgeable posters challenged my ideas.

[G_R__E_G]

VM1973, on 2011-August-03, 11:37, said:

When you come up with experts supporting your POV, let me know.

You really have no clue what type of players are giving their feedback on this thread already, do you? I have a policy that I often teach and always live by; it's okay to be wrong but don't be wrong loudly.

[jjbrr]

Also I won't offer my opinion on what is right or wrong on the actual hand, but you have to be very, very careful citing a hand from a book that was written 15 years ago by a man who retired from competitive bridge in 1993.

Bridge is constantly changing, and people's opinions evolve over time. What Bergen and many others may have thought was objectively best 15 years ago may have much stronger opposing arguments today. Perhaps Bergen feels as you say he does, but until he comes here and posts his current opinions, it is unfair to us and to him to assert that he agrees about the actual hand presented in this thread.

You should also be careful using as evidence a hand with a long minor when the discussion is about a hand with a long major, as MikeH points out. They really are quite different animals.

[vuroth]

wyman, on 2011-August-02, 15:42, said:

This is a hand with no defense (hence 1S is out)

mikeh, on 2011-August-03, 12:49, said:

...we have opponents and we have a slight lack of defence.

That was my first thought when weighting 1 spade.

mikeh, on 2011-August-03, 12:49, said:

The point is that by reading and posting to these fora, you get the benefit of the collective and individual experiences of a wide range of players, some of whom have significant credentials as real life experts. Steadfastly clinging to and defending your 'minority-of-one' view suggests either that you think you are by far the best player here, in terms of bidding theory, or that you aren't interested in learning from others. Which is regrettable...I can tell you that, if you are open to learning, this is a wonderful place to do it. I have, personally, learned a lot from these forums and have changed my views on a number of issues precisely because some intelligent and knowledgeable posters challenged my ideas.

I'm far from good enough to know who's right and wrong on this issue, but well said.

[sfi]

VM1973, on 2011-August-02, 11:34, said:

You didn't mention the scoring.

I think you should pass.

I like partners who pass these sorts of hands only to unilaterally take control of the auction later. It frees me up from the bother of having to remember a bidding system, because my opinion is simply not useful in the "partnership".

For 18 months I played with a guy who bid like this all the time and the game is much more relaxing when I don't have an effect on the scores. If you're aiming for good results then pass is a terrible action, but it really depends what your aim is.

[VM1973]

mikeh, on 2011-August-03, 12:49, said:

May I suggest that you step back a moment and accept that maybe you are mistaken and, having entertained that possibility, review why others suggest that you are.

Let me start by suggesting that it is an error to compare the Bergen example of x xx Jxx AKQ10xxx with this hand of AKQxxxx x x xxxx.

With the Bergen hand, the problem is that few would play that 3♣ will deliver that suit, thus partner will often fail to bid 3N with a smattering of hcp. While opening 1♣ is no guarantee of success, it does aim at the most likely game...3N.

With our hand, however, while 3N is certainly a plausible contract, I suspect that you would agree that one's thoughts, in terms of a game contract, turn more directly, strongly and immediately towards 4♠.

I disagree. Holding what appears to be 7 solid tricks and thinking it is unlikely that partner will have any ruffs available, my thoughts turn naturally to 3NT especially at MPs.

mikeh, on 2011-August-03, 12:49, said:

Now, if we were assured of a smooth auction, with little interference, opening 1♠ is demonstrably superior to 4♠...we can hardly reach 3N after opening 4♠.

There are issues with 1♠ even in a smooth auction, but I think we'd all accept that on some hands, 1♠ rates to do wel compared to 4♠.

But we have opponents and we have a slight lack of defence.

You have 2 Quick Tricks.

mikeh, on 2011-August-03, 12:49, said:

To most of us, this hand suggests that it will frequently prove more important to deprive the opps of bidding space than to aim for staying low or reaching 3N or any of the less probable outcomes attainable after a 1♠ opening.

Conjuring up example hands to 'prove' a point (rather than to illustrate a possibility) is futile. For every hand you create where 1♠ is the probable winner, we can all come up with one or more on which it proves second-best or worse.

In that I agree.

mikeh, on 2011-August-03, 12:49, said:

If you want to do this semi-scientifically, do a simulation, but publish your constraints and don't expect that everyone will agree with them. Even then, the simulation will be of limited assistance because no simulation will tell you what an opp might do over your 1♠ opening, or after you Pass (?!) or bid 4♠. Yes, on many hands, you'll be able to predict with some assurance what they would do, but on many more, you'll be guessing....because on borderline hands, even experts disagree on action.

It's not a question of science, it's a question of math. With a sufficiently powerful computer we could create every conceivable combination of opposing hands and run an analysis. But since we're talking math, let's make a generous assumption and think that the passer is the most die-hard Roth Stoner out there - a man who would not dream of opening 14 HCPs and 4-3-3-3 in 1st seat. Accordingly his pass shows 0-14 (average 7).

Now anyone can count my hand and see that it contains 9 HCPs. For those who are math challenged, I'll let you know that we are up to 16. Considering that there are 40 points in the deck if those points are evenly divided between the two other players will give them each 12. Accordingly we can calculate that the hand should belong to our side some 52.5 percent of the time (21 hcp / 40). These odds are of the type that make casinos enormous fortunes.

mikeh, on 2011-August-03, 12:49, said:

The point is that by reading and posting to these fora, you get the benefit of the collective and individual experiences of a wide range of players, some of whom have significant credentials as real life experts. Steadfastly clinging to and defending your 'minority-of-one' view suggests either that you think you are by far the best player here, in terms of bidding theory, or that you aren't interested in learning from others. Which is regrettable...I can tell you that, if you are open to learning, this is a wonderful place to do it. I have, personally, learned a lot from these forums and have changed my views on a number of issues precisely because some intelligent and knowledgeable posters challenged my ideas.

There are a large number of possible hands in bridge. This number is sufficiently large that I would not attempt to calculate it. Anyone who thinks that their life experience (even if it be 50+ years) is a statistically representative sample of all bridge hands available is rather foolish. People here may think, "I've seen some hands like this before and they worked out in the following manner...therefore the next hand like this I see will also work out in the same manner."

This is a logical fallacy because the logic is circular. These people believe that the future will resemble the past but if you ask them why they think that, they will only quote the past as 'proof' that the future resembles the past. In short, they are assuming their conclusion as the premise of their argument.

So a 1,000 hand simulation might be amusing but, as you have already mentioned, it would prove nothing at all.

However, I do appreciate the courteous tone of your post.

[mikeh]

VM1973, on 2011-August-03, 17:09, said:

I disagree. Holding what appears to be 7 solid tricks and thinking it is unlikely that partner will have any ruffs available, my thoughts turn naturally to 3NT especially at MPs.


You have 2 Quick Tricks.


In that I agree.

It's not a question of science, it's a question of math. With a sufficiently powerful computer we could create every conceivable combination of opposing hands and run an analysis. But since we're talking math, let's make a generous assumption and think that the passer is the most die-hard Roth Stoner out there - a man who would not dream of opening 14 HCPs and 4-3-3-3 in 1st seat. Accordingly his pass shows 0-14 (average 7).

Now anyone can count my hand and see that it contains 9 HCPs. For those who are math challenged, I'll let you know that we are up to 16. Considering that there are 40 points in the deck if those points are evenly divided between the two other players will give them each 12. Accordingly we can calculate that the hand should belong to our side some 52.5 percent of the time (21 hcp / 40). These odds are of the type that make casinos enormous fortunes.



There are a large number of possible hands in bridge. This number is sufficiently large that I would not attempt to calculate it. Anyone who thinks that their life experience (even if it be 50+ years) is a statistically representative sample of all bridge hands available is rather foolish. People here may think, "I've seen some hands like this before and they worked out in the following manner...therefore the next hand like this I see will also work out in the same manner."

This is a logical fallacy because the logic is circular. These people believe that the future will resemble the past but if you ask them why they think that, they will only quote the past as 'proof' that the future resembles the past. In short, they are assuming their conclusion as the premise of their argument.

So a 1,000 hand simulation might be amusing but, as you have already mentioned, it would prove nothing at all.

However, I do appreciate the courteous tone of your post.

I am trying not to be rude, but you really don't know what you're talking about.

Firstly, while there are hundreds of billions of hands that can be dealt, anyone who has played 100,000 or so hands, as I have and as a number of posters will have (if not more), will have encountered, several times, almost all hand-types.

And I have certainly seen 'freaks' like AKQxxxx x x xxxx enough times that my experience actually counts for something.

But far more to the point is that no good bridge player bases his or her judgment solely on his or her experience. My personal experience, which is, I suspect, not only more than yours but includes competition at higher levels than you have so far enjoyed, is a minor component of what influences my decisions at the table, and I suspect that is true for almost all good players.

The path most experts follow includes reading, talking and playing with and against stronger players. Reading, in particular, can give you access to the accumulated views of some of the best players in the game...subscribe to the Bridge World and you will see what I mean.

The forum here isn't of the calibre of the MSC in the Bridge World, but we've got some pretty fair players here. I could easily see players like gnasher and frances being on the MSC panel and it's only a matter of time, and his willingness, before Justin is on it, not to mention a couple of the less frequent posters. And the 'lesser' lights here include some very thoughtful players with wide experiences, which will include far more than just the hands they've played.

You really are missing out on a great experience with your attitude...but it is you who are losing, not us.

[MrAce]

Its a 4♠ to me , in any seat or vulnerability. My reasons are already explained by a lot of previous posters.

[the hog]

bill1157, on 2011-August-03, 08:43, said:

My partner opened 3♠ with this hand and I passed with:
♠ 8 2
♥ K 7 5 2
♦ A K Q 10 6
♣ J 5

so I guess the next question is: if partner opens 3♠ do you raise to 4 with this hand (same conditions, MP's)?

I would definitely pass 3S with this.

[JLOGIC]

I do not agree that this is a 4S opener r/w, but w/r it is easily a 4S bid.

[billw55]

VM1973, on 2011-August-03, 17:09, said:

You have 2 Quick Tricks.

Since you seem to be big on math, I expect you can make a pretty close estimate of the odds that the ♠AK will cash when defending a suit contract. Please do so and let us know the results.

[bill1157]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-03, 22:15, said:

I do not agree that this is a 4S opener r/w, but w/r it is easily a 4S bid.

So: if you were r/w would you open 3♠ then?

[VM1973]

mikeh, on 2011-August-03, 18:24, said:

I am trying not to be rude, but you really don't know what you're talking about.

Firstly, while there are hundreds of billions of hands that can be dealt, anyone who has played 100,000 or so hands, as I have and as a number of posters will have (if not more), will have encountered, several times, almost all hand-types.

And I have certainly seen 'freaks' like AKQxxxx x x xxxx enough times that my experience actually counts for something.

But far more to the point is that no good bridge player bases his or her judgment solely on his or her experience. My personal experience, which is, I suspect, not only more than yours but includes competition at higher levels than you have so far enjoyed, is a minor component of what influences my decisions at the table, and I suspect that is true for almost all good players.

The path most experts follow includes reading, talking and playing with and against stronger players. Reading, in particular, can give you access to the accumulated views of some of the best players in the game...subscribe to the Bridge World and you will see what I mean.

The forum here isn't of the calibre of the MSC in the Bridge World, but we've got some pretty fair players here. I could easily see players like gnasher and frances being on the MSC panel and it's only a matter of time, and his willingness, before Justin is on it, not to mention a couple of the less frequent posters. And the 'lesser' lights here include some very thoughtful players with wide experiences, which will include far more than just the hands they've played.

You really are missing out on a great experience with your attitude...but it is you who are losing, not us.

Well this portion of the thread is really veering quite far from the point at hand and into the realm of epistemology, which is the philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. I'm afraid I cannot agree with your assessment.

Firstly, I would refer you to http://en.wikipedia....isdom_of_Crowds and I submit that we would get a better response by just polling a large number of people (let's say the subscriber base of Bridge World) and getting their opinion and averaging it as compared to consulting an expert.

Secondly, I disagree that your experience with 100,000 or so hands (or having seen this hand or hands like it before) counts for much for reasons adequately documented on my blog for example http://scienceisbs.b...ang-theory.html and independently at http://faculty.unlv....1/Induction.htm

Personally I would enjoy arguing the finer points of the Hempel's paradox (see http://en.wikipedia....i/Raven_paradox ) but I rather suspect you wouldn't so I will simply close my epistle by relating this story.

I was at the Bridge Academy in Tarzana one day and there was some sort of hubbub about a director's call and the right decision and an appeal the details of which I never found out. But suffice it to say the auction had gone:

1 minor-Pass-Pass-1NT and then something had gone awry, but the the guy in charge there (named Jay Brown) asked a visitor to the club what he thought that bid should mean. He replied that it should show 15-18 with a stopper in the suit.

Now I will tell you that I think that's a pretty lousy opinion and I expressed that at the moment he said it to which Jay said, "You can't criticize his opinion. That's (insert some name of some guy who was apparently an expert on something but I don't remember his name and it didn't mean anything to me anyway)!"

Just because someone is an expert doesn't make them right.