[Cascade]

rhm, on 2012-November-09, 04:33, said:

What pressure?

Trying to talk good opponents out of their combined assets they can see by looking at their own hands works rarely when one opponent has already bid.
West has an easy double with values over 2♠ or can bid with values and a good suit. Most use Lebensohl or similar to differentiate various strengths.

But most likely North has a good hand in context of current opening bid requirements and the bidding will continue:

---

-800 against nothing, next board.

Rainer Herrmann

This is completely outside reality, that the "most likely" result from raising here is -800.

I did a simulation and for simplicity just assumed partner had 16-19 hcp for a blast to 4♠, yes partner may have less but partner may simply invite on some of those hands. Game was made 1.5 times for every time there was an 800 available. The most common result was that 9 tricks were available.

[rhm]

Cascade, on 2012-November-09, 13:15, said:

This is completely outside reality, that the "most likely" result from raising here is -800.

I did a simulation and for simplicity just assumed partner had 16-19 hcp for a blast to 4♠, yes partner may have less but partner may simply invite on some of those hands. Game was made 1.5 times for every time there was an 800 available. The most common result was that 9 tricks were available.

My statement

But most likely North has a good hand in context of current opening bid requirements and the bidding will continue: was misleading.

What I wanted to say is

But most likely North has a good hand in context of current opening bid requirements and the bidding might continue

I did not want to imply that -800 is the most likely outcome, only a real possibility, for example if trumps break badly, lack of dummy entries being detrimental etc.
I also doubt that opener will wait for 18 HCP before he will bid game.
If opener has more than enough for bidding game than you may reach game even if you pass for now.

The interesting scenario is the one where you reach game after an immediate raise but not after an initial Pass.
I am sure the vast majority of these games will be poor ones. Poor might be an understatement.

Rainer Herrmann

[quiddity]

mikeh, on 2012-November-09, 10:41, said:

Let's assume, and I think this is a valid assumption, that each method will reach an equal number of good games that the other will miss. For example, there will be many hands on which both methods warrant an invite by opener where mine gets to game and jb passes. This will be balanced by games where both of us would accept, but I don't invite and jb does.

Not to quibble with the main point (which I agree with) but I think this is clearly not a valid assumption since the invite carries some descriptive value. You will get to 0% of the light games where you don't have the values to invite (in this simplified model); jb will get to some of the light games where typically she would not accept but she does when the invite fits well with her hand.

[mikeh]

quiddity, on 2012-November-09, 16:34, said:

Not to quibble with the main point (which I agree with) but I think this is clearly not a valid assumption since the invite carries some descriptive value. You will get to 0% of the light games where you don't have the values to invite (in this simplified model); jb will get to some of the light games where typically she would not accept but she does when the invite fits well with her hand.

We are getting into more complex analysis here, and I won't suggest that a thorough analysis results in the assumption being 100% accurate. But the factor you identify, tho valid, is offset (whether exactly or not) by the fact that the game try, because it is so descriptive, will lead to more accurate defence such that declarer will fail at the 3-level even on hands where I, at the 2-level, am allowed an easy route to 9 or even 10 tricks.

I am already winning the partscores on which both approaches lead to 8 tricks: now I am winning more hands where descriptive bidding leads to more effective defence.

This is not merely a mp issue....6 or 7 imp swings at imps really hurt as well.

[jillybean]

Thanks Mike, you often leave me with more questions than I started with in my original post.

I see where my “invite aggressively, accept conservatively” could be flawed and when I think about it there are many steps that I have not fully considered.

First we have the opening hand, we open most 12 counts and some 11 counts. I know other partnerships who open most 11's and others who open only “good 12 counts”. I wouldn't say our openings are aggressive, for want of a better word let's call them modern.

The next step is often a response rather than an invite. I would say that I tend to respond aggressively with Axx as a minimum. I can add another response in here too. If we have opened a minor and partner has responded a major we will stretch to respond on xxx if we have shortage somewhere.

Next comes the invitation. If we open with less than a conservative style and responded aggressively then it makes sense to invite conservatively.

That leaves us with the hand deciding whether to accept the invitation. I'm not sure where I am going with all this but it makes for interesting questions and analysis of our style.

Time to go get ready for the first KO game of the sectional here this weekend.

[MrAce]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-09, 05:54, said:

I think 1 is an easy raise and 2 is an easy pass. But the real reason I posted in this thread is to express my disappointment that mr ace didn't go nuts at the idea of passing on the first hand.

Sorry to disappoint you bro ! I don't think i can go nuts on anything lately due to work, i have basically 30 mins left to me to read forums.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

jillybean, on 2012-November-08, 20:26, said:

Here's a couple of recent hands where I feel I have made poor judgement calls.
Let's say playing against world class opponents. One hand is from the JEC match the other from a weak game but
I really don't want to perpetuate the bad habits I think I pickup playing weak games.


Hand1

---

Hand2

---

I have 3 partners : Conservative, aggressive, in-between .

Even my aggressive partner would have expected a little more from me if I responded to either of these -- especially Vul .

If they didn't expect much in competition & non-vul, then I'd make simple 2M raise.

[lycier]

jillybean, on 2012-November-08, 20:26, said:

Here's a couple of recent hands where I feel I have made poor judgement calls.
Let's say playing against world class opponents. One hand is from the JEC match the other from a weak game but
I really don't want to perpetuate the bad habits I think I pickup playing weak games.


Hand1

---

Hand2

---

1- I would bid pass.2♠ was an overbid.

What bid is 2♠? I think 2♠ bidder maybe promise that he has the ability to withstand pardner's game tries in next turn,unfortunately responder can't be able to do it,so pass is a good option in this case.

2-pass .If my H suit is KXXX,I am willing to bid 3H as a preemptive raise.

[phil_20686]

JLOGIC, on 2012-November-09, 02:27, said:

I would pass on both, but I would bid nv with both. Not surprised to be in the ,minority on hand one but I think people are generally too aggressive in that spot. Whatever though its a borderline hand.

I bid 2S on the first one, and pass on the second.

On the first one, it is not so much that my hand is "good enough" as that when you raise partner he will lead his own suit fairly often, when you dont raise he will almost never lead his own suit. With Axx I really want him to lead his one suit from QTxxx or KTxxx or other broken holdings, so I should raise for that reason.

It could easily be their hand and LHO will bid 3N over whatever I bid, in which case I will regret not bidding 2S.

Conversely, holding xxx in the spade suit would be a good reason not to raise in a hand like xxx xx Axxx xxxx even though I still hold "an ace and a ruffing value".

Otherwise agree with Justin that people are in general too aggressive. Though I would bid the same NV. I really strongly hate bidding 3H with hand two. Just seems absurd to me.

[phil_20686]

On the invite/accept thing.

I think the main parts of inviting conservatively are: firstly, is that it allows you to widen the ranges for a first response. Secondly, that 10 counts are much more common than 14/15 counts, so you play at the three level a lot less often playing conservative invites. Ten is the most common number of points, so you want the hand that needs to be furthest from ten to be making the first move.

I strongly advocate moving to kokish game tries, where the first bid up asks responder "in what suit would you accept a game try", firstly because they seem to work better, and secondly because when you do play in 3H you have not given away any specific information at all except that opener has an invitation.

[JLOGIC]

phil_20686, on 2012-November-12, 05:04, said:

I bid 2S on the first one, and pass on the second.

On the first one, it is not so much that my hand is "good enough" as that when you raise partner he will lead his own suit fairly often, when you dont raise he will almost never lead his own suit. With Axx I really want him to lead his one suit from QTxxx or KTxxx or other broken holdings, so I should raise for that reason.

It could easily be their hand and LHO will bid 3N over whatever I bid, in which case I will regret not bidding 2S.

Conversely, holding xxx in the spade suit would be a good reason not to raise in a hand like xxx xx Axxx xxxx even though I still hold "an ace and a ruffing value".

Otherwise agree with Justin that people are in general too aggressive. Though I would bid the same NV. I really strongly hate bidding 3H with hand two. Just seems absurd to me.

I agree that having the ace of spades is and out is a good reason for raising spades