[gnasher]

I gave South the hand from this thread, and generated ten deals where North had a pass and East had a 1♦ opening. I threw out one of them, because North would open (he had - KQJ1074 KJ108 J94).

I'll post the full hands later, with the criteria. First of all, here are the West hands. What would you do after pass-1♦-3♠, at adverse?

1) K863 KT843 AQ8 J
2) J4 KJ3 AJT AJT74
3) 8 KQJ83 9 AKQT74
4) J73 KQJ AJ98 Q54
5) KJ4 AJT7 JT9 A87
6) J7 T84 Q74 AK843
7) K74 KT874 74 K98
8) 87 KT8 AJ8 AT984
9) 763 QJ873 Q7 KJ5

[gnasher]

Below is my code. The constraint on the North hand is rather primitive, but I knew that I was going to be going through them by hand.

south is "AQT952 952 62 62"

main {
  if {[hcp north] < 12 && [open_1d east] } {
	accept
  }
	
  reject
}

proc open_1d {hand} {
  set hcp [hcp $hand]
  set s [spades $hand]
  set h [hearts $hand]
  set d [diamonds $hand]
  set c [clubs $hand]

  if {[balanced $hand]} {
	if {$hcp >= 15 && $hcp <= 17} {
  	reject
	}

	if {$hcp < 12 || $hcp > 19} {
  	reject
	}
  } elseif {$hcp < 10 || $hcp > 21} {
	reject
	}
	
  if {$d > 4} {
	if {$d > $s && $d > $h && $d >= $c} {
  	accept
	}
  } elseif {$d == 4} {
	if {$s < 5 && $h < 5 && $c <= 4} {
  	accept
	}
  } elseif {$d == 3} {
	if {$s == 4 && $h == 4} {
  	accept
	}
  }

  reject
}

[pooltuna]

1] pass
2] X
3] 4♠
4] pass
5] 3NT
6] pass
7] pass
8] pass
9] pass

[JLOGIC]

1) X
2) X
3) 4C
4) X
5) 3N
6) X
7) P
8) X
9) P

1 and 6 I felt were interesting and am not sure about my choice, the others I feel are pretty much automatic.

[nigel_k]

1) X
2) X
3) 4C
4) X
5) 3N
6) P
7) P
8) X
9) P

[bluecalm]

I found 3) interesting, what about 4NT ? (as 2suiter).
I think 4♣ just loses heart suit forever.

[bluecalm]

Quote

1] pass
2] X
3] 4♠
4] pass
5] 3NT
6] pass
7] pass
8] pass
9] pass

You have 14 and 12pc respctively in 4 and 8...

[karlson]

1) K863 KT843 AQ8 J 3N
2) J4 KJ3 AJT AJT74 X
3) 8 KQJ83 9 AKQT74 4H
4) J73 KQJ AJ98 Q54 X
5) KJ4 AJT7 JT9 A87 3N
6) J7 T84 Q74 AK843 X
7) K74 KT874 74 K98 P
8) 87 KT8 AJ8 AT984 X
9) 763 QJ873 Q7 KJ5 P

4 is a classic problem, I think 3 and 6 are difficult also.

To be fair, many of these are difficult hands after 1♦-2♠ as well.

[gnasher]

karlson, on 2011-February-04, 03:23, said:

To be fair, many of these are difficult hands after 1♦-2♠ as well.

That's true, and anyway giving the opponents a bidding problem doesn't in itself win IMPs - sometimes it looks hard but it turns out that anything works.

Anyway, I think this is more interesting than "I'd bid 2♠", "I'd bid 3♠", "I think that's silly", "I don't", which is about as far as we'd got in the other thread.

[karlson]

gnasher, on 2011-February-04, 03:45, said:

That's true, and anyway giving the opponents a bidding problem doesn't in itself win IMPs - sometimes it looks hard but it turns out that anything works.

Anyway, I think this is more interesting than "I'd bid 2♠", "I'd bid 3♠", "I think that's silly", "I don't", which is about as far as we'd got in the other thread.

Sure, can't argue with any of that.

Also, I've changed my mind on #3. Playing a possible grand in 4♥ is too much, so I think it's right to start with 4♣.

[gwnn]

But this is only one side of the story - you should give all four hands and see all their decisions. Then you should give hands where "we" would bid 3♠ and you 3♠, then some hands where we would bid 3♠ and you 4♠, then hands where we'd pass or 1♠ and you'd bid 2♠.

Then we would find out the estimates for all these probabilities, then estimates of all the imp losses, wins, pushes, then multiply and add together everything.

But if the world ends in December 2012, I would bet against a definitive conclusion, or any conclusion.

Nevertheless, this opening post sounds like 'do you see, 3♠ causes more problems than 2♠!'. I think we all knew that did we not?

edit: but now that I read your opening post a little more carefully, I would like to retract this post. it was written in haste and is unfair.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2011-February-04, 04:01

[gnasher]

My answers (trying the ignore the UI from having seen the hands)
1) 3NT
2) 4C
3) 4C
4) 4D
5) 3NT
6) pass
7) dbl
8) dbl
9) dbl

[gnasher]

gwnn, on 2011-February-04, 03:57, said:

But this is only one side of the story - you should give all four hands and see all their decisions. Then you should give hands where "we" would bid 3♠ and you 3♠, then some hands where we would bid 3♠ and you 4♠, then hands where we'd pass or 1♠ and you'd bid 2♠.

Then we would find out the estimates for all these probabilities, then estimates of all the imp losses, wins, pushes, then multiply and add together everything.

But if the world ends in December 2012, I would bet against a definitive conclusion, or any conclusion.

Nevertheless, this opening post sounds like 'do you see, 3♠ causes more problems than 2♠!'. I think we all knew that did we not?

edit: but now that I read your opening post a little more carefully, I would like to retract this post. it was written in haste and is unfair.

OK, I won't post my rebuttal then

I fact, I agree with most of what you said - I don't think this will prove anything, though I do think it might be informative. Also, I'm happy to do the same thing for what you'd regard as a typical 3♠ bid, if you tell me what South's hand should be.

[paulg]

gwnn, on 2011-February-04, 03:57, said:

But if the world ends in December 2012, I would bet against a definitive conclusion, or any conclusion.

<off-topic>You watch Shameless? (A tv programme that some would call a simulation of real life)</off-topic>

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on 2011-February-03, 18:55, said:

1) X
2) X
3) 4C
4) X
5) 3N
6) X
7) P
8) X
9) P

1 and 6 I felt were interesting and am not sure about my choice, the others I feel are pretty much automatic.

I agree on that, except that I would pass on 6) and double on 7)
As the bidding went, both 6) and 7) are close in strength, but 7) has more to gain from a double than 6).
If partner bids 3NT, 6) is slightly better, but I would feel uncomfortable if he bids 4♥. I think you need more strength when you double without 4 cards in ♥.
And if partner passes the "takeout" double, which he often will do for lack of anything better, I definitely prefer 7).

Rainer Herrmann

[pooltuna]

bluecalm, on 2011-February-03, 19:19, said:

You have 14 and 12pc respctively in 4 and 8...

4) J73 KQJ AJ98 Q54 looks like 3343 to me
8) 87 KT8 AJ8 AT984 looks like 2335 to me

did this get edited or did some card look funny to you?

[bluecalm]

pooltuna, on 2011-February-04, 09:21, said:

4) J73 KQJ AJ98 Q54 looks like 3343 to me
8) 87 KT8 AJ8 AT984 looks like 2335 to me

did this get edited or did some card look funny to you?

I meant that you have 14hcp in the first hand and 12hcp so passing is inconceivable to me :-)

[pooltuna]

bluecalm, on 2011-February-04, 10:57, said:

I meant that you have 14hcp in the first hand and 12hcp so passing is inconceivable to me :-)

Yes I guess it would be if you play regularly with a partner who refuses to protect you

[Fluffy]

double 1) K863 KT843 AQ8 J : I want to propose 4♥ next, I have too much diamonds for 3NT, reverse minors and 3NT it is.
double 2) J4 KJ3 AJT AJT74
4 clubs 3) 8 KQJ83 9 AKQT74
double 4) J73 KQJ AJ98 Q54
3NT 5) KJ4 AJT7 JT9 A87
double 6) J7 T84 Q74 AK843
pass 7) K74 KT874 74 K98
double 8) 87 KT8 AJ8 AT984 (very similiar to 2)
pass 9) 763 QJ873 Q7 KJ5

Other than one I think all are automatic, I notice I bid the same as Justin but the opposite of Andy, not sure how to read it

[awm]

1) K863 KT843 AQ8 J
Double.

2) J4 KJ3 AJT AJT74
Double.

3) 8 KQJ83 9 AKQT74
4♣.

4) J73 KQJ AJ98 Q54
3NT.

5) KJ4 AJT7 JT9 A87
3NT.

6) J7 T84 Q74 AK843
Pass.

7) K74 KT874 74 K98
Pass.

8) 87 KT8 AJ8 AT984
Double.

9) 763 QJ873 Q7 KJ5
Pass.

I guess I mostly agree with Justin and Fluffy. The ones where I differ include (4), where I think that 3NT will very often be our best spot but that partner is unlikely to bid it over my double. On (6) I don't really like to double with only three hearts -- I know I did it on two other hands, but this hand is very borderline to act at the three-level and my hearts are three little, unlike hands (2) and (8) where pass isn't really an option and double seems like least of evils.

To pooltuna, I don't really think that balancing after 1♦-3♠-Pass-Pass on a minimum opener is good bridge. Given this, if I have a hand that expects to make game opposite a minimum opener in this auction I will normally not pass in responder's seat. Sure, partner will protect if he has extras and short spades (that's why I passed on 7 and 9) but not on some 12-count.