[Chamaco]

I am only a small fish here (not even advanced ) among these stars and expert, so I would like to ask the strong players to comment the following reasonings.

As far I can tell, it seems that *prudence* is the primary factor in the reasoning here.

QUESTION TO THE PASSERS

I understand the prudence of passers.
However, I think that the expectation that "pard will reopen bidding our values" is expecting too much, bacause of the shape.

If this hand screams prudence, balancer with 8-9 hcp and xxx in their suit should pass anyways, in the same name of prudence (xxx in opps suit usually spells trouble).

If any action can be taken, it can be taken only by us.
So, IMO, it is the last chance to compete.
So I think that passers should accept that if they pass, the auction is more than likely to end.

Here I disagree with the possibility outlined by Ben that both 2H and 2S will be down: I am not a LOTT-bot but usually at this low level, the Law of total tricks rarely fails, and that possibility (2H and 2S down) is definitely not LOTT-compliant.

QUESTION TO THE DOUBLERS

My understanding is that doublers acknowledge this is the last train to compete.
Double is more flexible, but I wonder in the cost -benefit anaklysis, and in the frequency, how often one bid will work better than the other.

However, it seems to me that paradoxically, double may be more dangerous than 2S.

The reasons:

1- we would like to be declarer in the final contract, so that our unsupported Ks and AJ of D are not led through

2- double gives up most hopes for a 5-3 (or even 5-2) fit unless pard has 4+ spades.
With 4 cards in the minor, pard is likely to bid the minor.
Even if pard bids spades, the contract is wrong sided.

3- the increased likelihood that pard bids a minor means an increased likelihood of playing for 9 tricks instead of 8

4- this is an OBAR situation, where i should bid as balancing, basically bidding as if I had a K more: if I were in the REAL balancing seat, would I bid 2S or double ?
Personally I'd bid 2S.

On balance, it seems to me that 2S would avoid major disasters and end up with a positive choice in most hands whare pard's support is at least xx, because it keeps bidding lower and rightside the contract.

As fa as frequency, I think most of the times pard will have support for spades, the more so in these sequence.

It is also true that, in the rare case where this assumption fails, we can go down a lot (assuming opps settle for doubling at the 2-level when they have a fit, even rarer case).

So it seems a matter of magnitude-frequency analysis and form of scoring.

[Walddk]

Chamaco, on Mar 23 2005, 03:54 AM, said:

QUESTION TO THE DOUBLERS

My understanding is that doublers acknowledge this is the last train to compete.
Double is more flexible, but I wonder in the cost -benefit analysis, and in the frequency, how often one bid will work better than the other.

However, it seems to me that paradoxically, double may be more dangerous than 2S unless pard has 4+ spades.
With 4 cards in the minor, pard is likely to bid the minor.
Even if pard bids spades, the contract is wrong sided.

Since I am one of the doublers, if I bid at all, I would like to explain why I think double is better than 2♠:

1. It keeps all unbid suits in play. 2♠ is unilateral.

2. The quality of my spade suit is such that I do not want to insist on spades. I am open to suggestions from partner.

3. As I have pointed out earlier, spades are not necessarily dead and buried even if I double. Partner will often bid a 3-card suit if he is weak, i.e. 3334, 3343, 3244.

4. Opps may even have 9 hearts between them. In that case there is a good chance that partner has 5 in one of the minors if he only has 3 spades. 3253, 3235. If he has less than 3 spades, he has 5+ in a minor as a certainty.

....

I am not saying that 2♠ is wrong, I am not even saying that double and/or pass are right. I am trying to argue for the way I look at the problem. I respect your views, Chamaco, and I like the way you are reasoning.

Most of us agree that this is a real problem hand. That is what makes bridge so fascinating. There is no obvious solution to all problems. That is basically all we must accept.

Taking a view is fine if you have been through all the advantages and disadvantages. It may turn out that one's view didn't work out in real life, but that doesn't make it a wrong view from a subjective perspective; perhaps not even if you look at it as objectively as possible.

Roland

[Chamaco]

Walddk, on Mar 23 2005, 10:21 AM, said:

Most of us agree that this is a real problem hand. That is what makes bridge so fascinating. There is no obvious solution to all problems. That is basically all we must accept.

Taking a view is fine if you have been through all the advantages and disadvantages. It may turn out that one's view didn't work out in real life, but that doesn't make it a wrong view from a subjective perspective; perhaps not even if you look at it as objectively as possible.

Thanks Roland, I was not advertising my view as the only one, just "thinking aloud", asking the opinion of better players.

I like this forum becuse it is an invaluable chance for players like me to get feedback from you sttrong players (this will arrely occur in most real life clubs).

So thanks a lot for taking your time to comment my "thinking aloud" !

[Walddk]

The hand came up in a strong club in Copenhagen, Denmark, about a week ago. It's not really interesting what was right or wrong, much more interesting that of 8 players with that hand, where the bidding went 1♥ pass 2♥, 5 bid 2♠, 3 doubled and none passed.

It's not easy to pass a 14 count I suppose.

Roland

[Brandal]

Walddk, on Mar 23 2005, 06:09 AM, said:

The hand came up in a strong club in Copenhagen, Denmark, about a week ago. It's not really interesting what was right or wrong, much more interesting that of 8 players with that hand, where the bidding went 1♥ pass 2♥, 5 bid 2♠, 3 doubled and none passed.

It's not easy to pass a 14 count I suppose.

Roland

Once upon a time,probably in 1979 I learned not to count
the likes of Kx if my LHO had opened that suit.

I would be much more comfortable bidding 2S or dbl with

K109xx
Ax
AJx
Qxx

I also "know" that what I say here,doesn't always reflect
on reality,meaning I'm not at all sure what I would do at
the table.



Frode

[Edit: It was in 1977] hehe

[whereagles]

Walddk, on Mar 23 2005, 11:09 AM, said:

It's not easy to pass a 14 count I suppose.

Especially when points rate to split 20-20, giving pard a 6-count and long hearts, and consequently an obvious pass to 2H.

If you pass 2H, you're basically selling out. Pass is masterminding that 2H will fail. Talk about unilaterality... Opps will play their 8 or 9 card fit at the 2-level. Theory and experience both know how they are bound to get a good score. You HAVE to bid.

[Walddk]

whereagles, on Mar 23 2005, 06:34 AM, said:

Theory and experience both know how they are bound to get a good score. You HAVE to bid.

Well, perhaps you are thinking too much in MP strategy. At pairs I would bid, surely, but I still doubt that it's clearcut to bid at IMPs. Minus 800 points later it's not easy to tell your team-mates: "But I HAD to bid".

You will lose the occasional 6 IMPs by passing, I agree, but you don't really have to give 12 away. For the record, I am a subscriber to "rather run the active risk than the passive one", but that is not the same as saying that you are not allowed to take stock and consider the different options.

Pass is certainly a reasonable option here.

Roland

[flytoox]

Walddk, on Mar 23 2005, 07:39 AM, said:

ritong, on Mar 23 2005, 01:54 AM, said:

in some recent vugraph, roland declared himself amazed by the fact that people overcall with such " rotten " hands, particularly the italians if i remind well, and get away with it.

I was referring to the apparently modern style of overcalling on very bad suits, i.e. 10xxxx, Jxxxx and the like. That works for the Italians among others it seems, but they only do this at the 1-level at least.

On the actual hand I am pretty sure that not even one Italian would overcall at the 2-level vulnerable if spades had been Jxxxx. I have a feeling that the majority would choose double rather than 2♠ if they bid with the hand in my first post.

Roland

I would say dbl is far worse than 2S. If 2S is hacked, you will be hacked whatever you do. But 2S still gives me chance to redbl and we may find a 5-3 minor fit. If you dbl, pd will not bid 2S almost 100% and he will be forced to bid a 4-card suit minor and you will play a 4-3 fit minor at three level.

I remembered Lawrence said sth like: when you have 5-card spade, bid it. Of course he is not saying it in the exact context. But I think the principle still applys here. I think double with 5 card spade is a very bad practice. If it is heart suit and opps bid 1S and raises to 2S then that is another story.

[the hog]

Interesting regarding overcalls. My current partner who used to partner Nicola Smith for 20 years has told me to loosen up my overcalls, and I thought I played a freewheeling style anyway. He said that Nicola said that it was imperative to bid a 5 card major at the 1 level if you had one.

[whereagles]

Walddk, on Mar 23 2005, 12:35 PM, said:

Well, perhaps you are thinking too much in MP strategy. At pairs I would bid, surely, but I still doubt that it's clearcut to bid at IMPs. Minus 800 points later it's not easy to tell your team-mates: "But I HAD to bid".

You will lose the occasional 6 IMPs by passing, I agree, but you don't really have to give 12 away. For the record, I am a subscriber to "rather run the active risk than the passive one", but that is not the same as saying that you are not allowed to take stock and consider the different options.

Pass is certainly a reasonable option here.

Well, it is my experience that be it matchpoins or IMPS, if you don't play an attacking game, constantly putting on the pressure, you lose.

I can hardly believe I go for -800 here (at best a 5% chance), but it's a near-certainty for me that I go -110/140 if I pass. The only honest risk here, as Ben more or less showed, is pard taking you too seriously. But that's not an issue on a seasoned pard'ship.

[inquiry]

keylime, on Mar 21 2005, 09:40 PM, said:

favorable colors: 2S
at equal colors: depending on opps' quality and feeling
at unfav colors: pass, happily.

This thread may open the eyes of some who have never thought about what affect the type of game (matchpoints or imps) and vulnerabilty of self and opponents might have on the bidding (yes there are a few of these people).

On this hand, most simply bid 2♠ without comment, or "with trepedation" at this vul at imps, but bid it anyway.

Roland and I worry about bidding 2♠ vul at imps (me perhaps slightly more than him). But both agree not vul it is bid at imps (me 2♠, him dbl), and we both would venture a bid at matchpoints.

Keylime introduces a different concept into the bidding decision. Him not vul and opponents vul, he bids rightly enough. With both vul, he is leary of bidding, and I assume against good opposition (or someone with a hair trigger on double), he might not bid, but would against probably the vast majority of players (shooting sitting ducks I guess.... concept is to apply pressure against lessor players as they tend to make more mistakes). Finally if he red and the opponents are white, he will gladly pass.

I certainly see a reason for bidding 2♠ against weak or timid opponents. IF you are into duck shooting, go for it in that situation. My answers never assume weak opponents, but rahter what I think the right bid is if playing in a knockout event with all good players. But the unfavorable vul is an interesting twist.

But Keylime separation on a part score battle hand into if opponents are vul or not when vul is interesting distinction. I might have leaned the other way. At imps, bear in mind that your good opponents will not want to miss a game even if it has slightly less than 50% chance to make. So a pass by you when they are vul is actually safer in one sense to you. Your left hand opponent is more likelly to bid again with anything extra. So if he passes, your partner will know for sure you have a fairly good hand.... making it easier for him to balance. IF they are not vul, your left hand opponent will be more likely to decide not to get too pushy and risk going down in 3♥, so might pass 2♥ with more values. This "extra" value in a pass makes your partner balance more risky. What this means is if both are vul and the bidding goes 2♥-pass-pass to partner, he is more likely to trust that you have some significant values without a useful bid.

This latter point is very fine one. I guess I would not worry about it. I would bid 2♠ if I thought it was right, and I would pass if I thought that was right. The slight increased chance partner will balance if you pass and lho passes at both vul is not worth fretting over imo. But maybe some people when weighing all the bid/don't bid issues do factor this in. If I was going to factor it in, I would factor the alternative way of keylime.

[pclayton]

Pass at IMPs. Sure we have a fit, but who says it has to be in spades?

I'd rather hold a shapely 8 count than this picture gallery. 2:1 that the ♥K is wallpaper.

MP's its tougher, and I probably make a 2♠ call.

[MickyB]

I'd go the same way as you Ben, but your reasons hadn't occured to me. If opps are vul, then we are doing better if 2♥ goes down than if they are NV, therefore there is greater incentive to bid when opps are NV. The typical case for this is deciding whether to bid a minor over opps 1NT at MPs. If opps are vul, we might be trading +100 for +90, or +200 for a partscore. If opps are NV, bidding is more likely to work out.

[Wackojack]

I have really enjoyed and learned from reading this thread, particularly the bridgebrowser analysis done by Ben. Just to add something that hasn't been mulled over already is if the opps are playing 4-card majors. One commonplace opening by Acol players with 15+ balanced 44 in majors is 1H. Now if you come in, particularly with 2S, you will get doubled and find pd with at most 2 spades. Note also your RHO with 6-9 points would raise to 2 with 3 hearts and a doubleton spade most of the time.

[junyi_zhu]

Walddk, on Mar 21 2005, 11:44 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

West opens 1♥, pass from partner, 2♥ by East, and ??

To bid or not to bid. Is it time to get in, or is it better to stay out of this? If you bid, what is your choice?

Roland

It's marginal. Either pass or 2S would be OK. Also, it really depends on who you are playing against. If your opps are very solid in defence, I'd pass, because against solid defenders, this hand would get way less tricks than it looks like. If playing against intermediate to advanced players, 2S is probably OK. Sometimes even if you get doubled, you can escape from -500 and only go down one, or in MP, you may go down 1 instead of down two. Anyway, 2S would create some actions for sure and sometimes you do need it.

[luke warm]

flytoox, on Mar 23 2005, 06:44 AM, said:

~snip~I would say dbl is far worse than 2S. ~snip~

hongjun, you would still say that even with the example hands ben showed?

[flytoox]

luke warm, on Mar 24 2005, 12:37 AM, said:

flytoox, on Mar 23 2005, 06:44 AM, said:

~snip~I would say dbl is far worse than 2S. ~snip~

hongjun, you would still say that even with the example hands ben showed?

Hehe, Jimmy, I tend to think so. Note I said dbl is worse than 2S. I didnt say pass is worse than 2S. I can accept pass, but I really think doubling with 5card spade suit is wrong practice.

[HeartA]

flytoox, on Mar 23 2005, 07:55 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 24 2005, 12:37 AM, said:

flytoox, on Mar 23 2005, 06:44 AM, said:

~snip~I would say dbl is far worse than 2S. ~snip~

hongjun, you would still say that even with the example hands ben showed?

Hehe, Jimmy, I tend to think so. Note I said dbl is worse than 2S. I didnt say pass is worse than 2S. I can accept pass, but I really think doubling with 5card spade suit is wrong practice.

Agree. With the kings needing protection, and 5-card spades, dbl? no way. I would bid 2♠, though pass is second choice.

[mr1303]

Quote

I'd go the same way as you Ben, but your reasons hadn't occured to me. If opps are vul, then we are doing better if 2♥ goes down than if they are NV, therefore there is greater incentive to bid when opps are NV. The typical case for this is deciding whether to bid a minor over opps 1NT at MPs. If opps are vul, we might be trading +100 for +90, or +200 for a partscore. If opps are NV, bidding is more likely to work out.

Mike you'd bid on this like a shot, and on plenty worse hands as well.

[MickyB]

mr1303, on Mar 24 2005, 09:36 AM, said:

Mike you'd bid on this like a shot, and on plenty worse hands as well.

Just cos I would obviously bid at the table doesn't stop me from arguing that bidding is wrong Anyway, I think what you meant to say was "Mike, you'd bid on this in tempo, and on plenty of hands with less points but compensating shape"

I don't actually know what I would do on this hand when vul. Pass or 2♠ - not double. Wouldn't even consider it. Ron said he would prefer to have three hearts; Yes, the hand would probably play better if I had the heart length, but then I could pass and wait to see if pard could balance. I think those that argue that it is clear to bid at MPs and less clear at IMPs are wrong - vul at MPs I'm worried about being clipped for 200, or my bid could tell the opps how to make 3♥ tick instead of 2♥ tick.