[straube]

I like 2S, too.

[mike777]

edit


wrong thread

[han]

In your first post your simulation suggested that if we pass and partner also passes, we have a 35% of having missed a making game. That's more than I expected. Given that we have no guarantee of getting to the best contract if partner does reopen, it makes pass far from ideal. This clearly is an ugly hand with no attractive alternative, and I really hate doubling without 4 hearts. In fact, I'm not even sure what I would do and I can imagine choosing different actions on different days. What is clear though is that, if you act, you don't have to force to game. If you only invite (and I don't think the hand is worth a gameforce) then you only get to game on the hands where partner has a sound opening. If 3NT has 35% to make if partner passes out 1S, then surely it has a considerably higher chance on the subset of those hands where partner rebids 1NT over our double and accepts an invite. Perhaps the chance of reaching those games makes it worthwhile to risk ending in a silly contract.

[PhantomSac]

I made this conversation into a play in my mind, not-so-loosely paraphrased it is:

Mikeh: Game makes 35 % of the time that partner is passing out 1S; conclusion: it's a good thing when partner passes out 1S!

Han: No it's a bad thing when partner passes out 1S if that is true.

Mikeh: I do not understand [gee thats an understatement --JL]. 35 % games are bad! *sarcastic comments such as:

Last I heard, that makes bidding game a losing proposition at imps.

There I was, thinking all this time that one area where your knowledge was indisputably greater than mine was mathematics or, more precisely, arithmetic

Or are you revealing your masochistic side....you would feel 'really bad' about a good decision?*

Han: *said in a sarcastic but clear way* If game is 35 %, and you have room to invite, you can often avoid the bad games. In this way you might play 3N making over 50 % of the time on this subset of hands that passing out 1S is bad, and play 2N the other times, often making (and sometimes failing).

Mikeh: *among other nonsense* You then responded with a post that said that missing a 35% contract was a bad thing...only when you were called on it did you resort to sarcasm while advancing a new argument.

But wait, wasn't it mikeh who first resorted to rude sarcastic comments (much more than han). And wasn't it mikeh who added no argument with his, while Han made the obvious point that it is not an all or nothing thing that you have to bid game on all hands that partner would pass out 1S with if you start with a double? That's a good and obvious point, but mikeh by his own words "did not understand."

Mike, here is an analogy. It goes 1S p 2S p ? Game makes 35 % of the time. Should you game try? Of course, despite 35 % games not being good, when game is bad you will often play 3S making, meaning when you bid game it will often be over 50 %. This case is the exact same, and where your "logic" has failed you. I hope that clarifies to you where you were going wrong.

Yes you might double and get to 2N going down, or partner might have a max and game still might be bad, but it's a game of percentages. Your own argument of "game makes 35 %" is the perfect argument for starting with a double. Yes it matters how often 2N goes down also, but it's pretty clear that 2N will make a fair amount of the time that you stop there.

And as han has pointed out, it's not like passing and cuebidding will automatically get you to the right spot, against that neither will doubling. But 35 % is a LOT when we have room to invite still, and is compelling enough for me to feel comfortable thinking that PASS will lead us to missing way too many games. Thanks for the simulation, it was very illuminating!

[mikeh]

PhantomSac, on 2010-November-25, 10:32, said:

I made this conversation into a play in my mind, not-so-loosely paraphrased it is:

Mikeh: Game makes 35 % of the time that partner is passing out 1S; conclusion: it's a good thing when partner passes out 1S!

Han: No it's a bad thing when partner passes out 1S if that is true.

Mikeh: I do not understand [gee thats an understatement --JL]. 35 % games are bad! *sarcastic comments such as:

Last I heard, that makes bidding game a losing proposition at imps.

There I was, thinking all this time that one area where your knowledge was indisputably greater than mine was mathematics or, more precisely, arithmetic

Or are you revealing your masochistic side....you would feel 'really bad' about a good decision?*

Han: *said in a sarcastic but clear way* If game is 35 %, and you have room to invite, you can often avoid the bad games. In this way you might play 3N making over 50 % of the time on this subset of hands that passing out 1S is bad, and play 2N the other times, often making (and sometimes failing).

Mikeh: *among other nonsense* You then responded with a post that said that missing a 35% contract was a bad thing...only when you were called on it did you resort to sarcasm while advancing a new argument.

But wait, wasn't it mikeh who first resorted to rude sarcastic comments (much more than han). And wasn't it mikeh who added no argument with his, while Han made the obvious point that it is not an all or nothing thing that you have to bid game on all hands that partner would pass out 1S with if you start with a double? That's a good and obvious point, but mikeh by his own words "did not understand."

Mike, here is an analogy. It goes 1S p 2S p ? Game makes 35 % of the time. Should you game try? Of course, despite 35 % games not being good, when game is bad you will often play 3S making, meaning when you bid game it will often be over 50 %. This case is the exact same, and where your "logic" has failed you. I hope that clarifies to you where you were going wrong.

Yes you might double and get to 2N going down, or partner might have a max and game still might be bad, but it's a game of percentages. Your own argument of "game makes 35 %" is the perfect argument for starting with a double. Yes it matters how often 2N goes down also, but it's pretty clear that 2N will make a fair amount of the time that you stop there.

And as han has pointed out, it's not like passing and cuebidding will automatically get you to the right spot, against that neither will doubling. But 35 % is a LOT when we have room to invite still, and is compelling enough for me to feel comfortable thinking that PASS will lead us to missing way too many games. Thanks for the simulation, it was very illuminating!

welcome back

It's good to see you haven't lost your charming personality

You're right about at least one thing in your post....I was the one who started and overdid the sarcasm, which I now regret.

[Phil]

In all this back-and-forth, I still do not know what Han would bid here, but I appreciate his ambivalence. If he doubles, I await his continuations over a 2♥ response from partner. The idea about inviting is sound however, we are very awkwardly placed in this not-so-unlikely case. Mike, how many of your 65 cases had partner rebidding 2♥?

Sarcasm aside, I think this is a very tough hand, but I've always liked the pass / 2♠ over a double approach, and I strongly disagree that partner will have a harder time deciding what to do if we take this route as compared to anything else, since this is a great description.

Having said that I realize that I am in really bad shape if LHO raises to 2♠ by passing initially.

[mikeh]

Phil, on 2010-November-25, 12:03, said:

Having said that I realize that I am in really bad shape if LHO raises to 2♠ by passing initially.

Are you? Is double purely penalty? I can't see that as a useful treatment, given that there has been a raise. I would see this hand-type as far more relevant: not necessarily 4=3=3=3...what would we be bidding with 3=3=4=3 and the same values?

It seems to me that if we knew LHO was raising to 2♠, we might well prefer pass to double....we surely don't want to encourage partner to bid aggressively with 4 hearts on such hands....and won't he bid aggressively with a stiff or void spade?

On the actual hand, of course, an aggressive approach by him in hearts works very well, but on the actual hand, the odds of a raise by LHO seem low....LHO will almost always have a very flat weak hand with, in all likelihood, a poor 3 card spade holding.

As for how many hands, in my simulation, bid 2♥, I can't say....I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't look at that nor did I save my sample.

[Phil]

mikeh, on 2010-November-25, 12:28, said:

Are you? Is double purely penalty? I can't see that as a useful treatment, given that there has been a raise. I would see this hand-type as far more relevant: not necessarily 4=3=3=3...what would we be bidding with 3=3=4=3 and the same values?

It seems to me that if we knew LHO was raising to 2♠, we might well prefer pass to double....we surely don't want to encourage partner to bid aggressively with 4 hearts on such hands....and won't he bid aggressively with a stiff or void spade?

On the actual hand, of course, an aggressive approach by him in hearts works very well, but on the actual hand, the odds of a raise by LHO seem low....LHO will almost always have a very flat weak hand with, in all likelihood, a poor 3 card spade holding.

As for how many hands, in my simulation, bid 2♥, I can't say....I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't look at that nor did I save my sample.

Without any type of advanced discussion, I would think pass/double is penalty. I hope no one suggests "pard can figure it out" because in every case pard will have short spades. Pass/double to show this hand type is a little weird but useful here, but I would say that it is more useful to play x as 2353 type hands that have no useful bid over 1♠, especially since when partner has very short spades a lot of the time he can find a x over 2♠ himself.

While we are at it, what's 2N after 2♠?

[mikestar13]

2♠ is the best of of bad lot--partner will likely bid NT with a ♠ stop. I hate 4-3s when short hand has no ruffs, 5♣ seems to unlikely opposite this shapeless mess.