[P_Marlowe]

cherdano, on Apr 22 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

Uh, what is up with the criticism 3N? This hand will make 3N+1 (or +2) opposite ♣AKxxxx and out, and opposite the actual hand I certainly want to be in 3N.
I guess 2N is the bid for hcp-counter-and-king-subtracters, but if you actually count tricks on the likely heart lead...

Do you have any idea, in which section the post you
referred to was made, and in which section you did
post?

You are right, given your club support, 3NT rates to be a
good low HCP game, and most likely i would not bother
to invite.

But one thing is also certain: To bid consistently and
successfully in this situation, you should have at least
a slight idea, what the basic concepts are, and one of
those really stupid basic concepts is the concept that
partner is allowed to borrow a king.

I take it for granted, you know this concept, and may
or may not believe that it is a sensible concept, but
a more helpful comment would have helped the
B/I audience a whole lot more than the remark you
made.

I would use stronger words, but positing here is
posting in public, and I usuallly try to watch my
language.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[cherdano]

The basic concept here is that if you want to be in game opposite typical minimums for partner's action, then you bid game. This is much more fundamental than this subtracting king business (which I don't really agree with anyway).

B/I's should also learn how to look at their hand in context: Given that RHO opened AND that LHO passed, all our tenaces are working even better than before. Even opposite the actual hand, I want to be in game given the auction. (Even if they lead a diamond.) We would do a disservice to B/Is if we tell them to subtract a king rather than trying to evaluate their hand in context (which is also much more fun than learning rules, anyway).

I agree my comment above may have been a bid in bad taste, but I really think your hand evaluation of your original comment was way off.

[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  Pass
 1♥    Pass  Pass  2♣
 Pass  3NT   Pass  Pass
 Pass  

we made 3nt+2

[jdonn]

I don't understand, isn't game making easily on any lead?

And why did east pass the opening bid?

[neilkaz]

jdonn, on Apr 22 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

I don't understand, isn't game making easily on any lead?

And why did east pass the opening bid?

Agreed..even a ♦ lead isn't an issue.

[jillybean]

jdonn, on Apr 22 2008, 04:36 PM, said:

I don't understand, isn't game making easily on any lead?

What don't you understand?

jdonn, on Apr 22 2008, 04:36 PM, said:

And why did east pass the opening bid?

No idea

[Winstonm]

Lead, partner.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Apr 22 2008, 10:50 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Apr 22 2008, 01:05 AM, said:

Double. Would pass if the Ds and the S were swopped.

Ok I'll bite. I don't understand this reasoning at all

I was being facetious. Perhaps I should have included a

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Apr 22 2008, 09:12 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 22 2008, 10:50 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Apr 22 2008, 01:05 AM, said:

Double. Would pass if the Ds and the S were swopped.

Ok I'll bite. I don't understand this reasoning at all

I was being facetious. Perhaps I should have included a

Wow I really thought you meant it. Talk about subtle facetiousness!

[Vilgan]

effervesce, on Apr 22 2008, 03:57 AM, said:

Why all these votes for double? Aren't partner's chances for having 5 spades practically nil given no 1♠overcall?? I'll take the 8+ card fit over a 7 card fit anyday thankyou very much....

As for partner's bid to 3NT - if he/she followed the rule of subtracting 3 points when responding to a balancing bid, 2NT was the right bid (though 3NT is reasonable given the upgrading of the heart honors).

Huh? playing 4/3 major suit fits is like the bomb at matchpoints. Also partner can respond one level lower. 2♣ is too committal on such a wretched suit (imo).

[effervesce]

Vilgan, on Apr 22 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

effervesce, on Apr 22 2008, 03:57 AM, said:

Why all these votes for double? Aren't partner's chances for having 5 spades practically nil given no 1♠overcall?? I'll take the 8+ card fit over a 7 card fit anyday thankyou very much....

As for partner's bid to 3NT - if he/she followed the rule of subtracting 3 points when responding to a balancing bid, 2NT was the right bid (though 3NT is reasonable given the upgrading of the heart honors).

Huh? playing 4/3 major suit fits is like the bomb at matchpoints. Also partner can respond one level lower. 2♣ is too committal on such a wretched suit (imo).

The hand was given for IMPs. 1 level higher for 1-2 more trumps is more than worth it.

[jdonn]

effervesce, on Apr 22 2008, 09:37 PM, said:

Vilgan, on Apr 22 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

effervesce, on Apr 22 2008, 03:57 AM, said:

Why all these votes for double? Aren't partner's chances for having 5 spades practically nil given no 1♠overcall?? I'll take the 8+ card fit over a 7 card fit anyday thankyou very much....

As for partner's bid to 3NT - if he/she followed the rule of subtracting 3 points when responding to a balancing bid, 2NT was the right bid (though 3NT is reasonable given the upgrading of the heart honors).

Huh? playing 4/3 major suit fits is like the bomb at matchpoints. Also partner can respond one level lower. 2♣ is too committal on such a wretched suit (imo).

The hand was given for IMPs. 1 level higher for 1-2 more trumps is more than worth it.

If partner has a singleton club, or if he wanted to bid 1NT, so much for your having 1 or 2 more trumps...

[effervesce]

jdonn, on Apr 22 2008, 09:42 PM, said:

effervesce, on Apr 22 2008, 09:37 PM, said:

Vilgan, on Apr 22 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

effervesce, on Apr 22 2008, 03:57 AM, said:

Why all these votes for double? Aren't partner's chances for having 5 spades practically nil given no 1♠overcall?? I'll take the 8+ card fit over a 7 card fit anyday thankyou very much....

As for partner's bid to 3NT - if he/she followed the rule of subtracting 3 points when responding to a balancing bid, 2NT was the right bid (though 3NT is reasonable given the upgrading of the heart honors).

Huh? playing 4/3 major suit fits is like the bomb at matchpoints. Also partner can respond one level lower. 2♣ is too committal on such a wretched suit (imo).

The hand was given for IMPs. 1 level higher for 1-2 more trumps is more than worth it.

If partner has a singleton club, or if he wanted to bid 1NT, so much for your having 1 or 2 more trumps...

Heck, while we're at it why dont we include hands where partner responds 1♠ to your double on a 3-4-3-3 without a heart stopper or 2♦ on 3-3-4-3...

You can't have everything - some bids gain on some hands and others on others. IMO on the balance 2♣ should work better. Also, it puts more pressure on LHO - if he/she is going to bid, they may have to bid now or forever hold their peace. After a X, they can await developments.

I think the best way to conclude this is to run a monte-carlo simulation - how many cards of each suit is partner most likely to have, given the constraints of 0-4 spades?

[andy_h]

Either pass or X. I would go for X as good things might happen and is certainly much more flexible than 2C. We could even belong in diamonds AFAIC.

[effervesce]

andy_h, on Apr 22 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Either pass or X. I would go for X as good things might happen and is certainly much more flexible than 2C. We could even belong in diamonds AFAIC.

Sure- but if you do belong in diamonds, isn't it likely partner will bid 2♦ with 5 of them and a singleton club, and quite often with a doubleton club?

[andy_h]

effervesce, on Apr 22 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

andy_h, on Apr 22 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Either pass or X. I would go for X as good things might happen and is certainly much more flexible than 2C. We could even belong in diamonds AFAIC.

Sure- but if you do belong in diamonds, isn't it likely partner will bid 2♦ with 5 of them and a singleton club, and quite often with a doubleton club?

Why would partner ignore the fact that we bid 2C? He obviously knows we most often would have 6+C given the fact that we didn't X. And if he has 5D's and a doubleton club, can't I use the same argument that if he decides to bid 2D over 2C, he will hit partner with a singleton diamond?
The keyword for X'ing is flexibility. Now once in a blue moon partner may even...pass our X! Not that it's the strong factor for X'ing, but 2C on Q8xxx and not catering for other strains (when we have shortage in the opponent's suit) is not my style.

[jdonn]

effervesce, on Apr 22 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

andy_h, on Apr 22 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Either pass or X. I would go for X as good things might happen and is certainly much more flexible than 2C. We could even belong in diamonds AFAIC.

Sure- but if you do belong in diamonds, isn't it likely partner will bid 2♦ with 5 of them and a singleton club, and quite often with a doubleton club?

Clubs may be more likely where we belong than diamonds, or spades, or notrump, or 1♥X....but it's WAY less likely than the combination of those. Nor do you particularly want a club lead if they play. Nor are you able to stand being doubled. You are really fighting hard for something that isn't a close decision.

[cherdano]

effervesce, on Apr 22 2008, 10:25 PM, said:

andy_h, on Apr 22 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Either pass or X. I would go for X as good things might happen and is certainly much more flexible than 2C. We could even belong in diamonds AFAIC.

Sure- but if you do belong in diamonds, isn't it likely partner will bid 2♦ with 5 of them and a singleton club, and quite often with a doubleton club?

No, he would not.
It is really not close between 2♣ and double, this would be an unanimous vote in an expert panel.

[effervesce]

From a back-of-the-envelope calculation (performed purely from spaces probability using pen, paper and calculator) partner rates to have on average around

3.824 spades
2.294 hearts
3.824 diamonds
3.059 clubs

(this was done without restricting partner to a maximum of 4 spades or restricting partner to not having a takeout double, both of which rate to reduce the number of spades partner has - similarly this should increase partner's number of hearts. Ie, this calculation is should reproduce the average of the remaining cards randomly distributed to the 3 players in a monte-carlo simulation).

The actual figures run from a simulation taking into account hands without a takeout X or 1♠ overcall I'd imagine would be roughly

3.25 spades
3 hearts
3.75 diamonds
3 clubs

Thus it appears to me that the main benefit of X'ing is being able to play in 1NT.
The main disadvantage is playing in diamonds in a 7 card fit when you have a 8 card club fit. Or playing in NT when clubs are better.


Let us work out the actual probabilities of the number of clubs partner has.
There are 34 remaining unknown cards, as you know 13 from your own hand and 5 from the 1♥ bidder. Thus, the sample space is 34C13 for the number of hands partner can hold, or 927983760. The number of hands where he has 0 clubs is 8C0*34C26 = 18156204.
Thus
p(0 clubs) = 0.02
Similarly p(1 club) = 0.08
p(2 clubs) = 0.23
p(3 clubs) = 0.32
p(4 clubs) = 0.24
p(5 clubs) = 0.09

p(3 or more clubs) = 0.66

Thus you have a 66% chance of having at least an 8 card fit in clubs.

[Winstonm]

I think this entire problem is moot - only one person it seems noticed the queer pass by east. I am noticing the queer pass by north.

In a real game, the auction, had north passed, would have been p-p-1H-P-1S

and the balancing question would be for north, after failing to overcall 1NT.