BBO Discussion Forums: Distributional Filth - BBO Discussion Forums

If I was the one on lead, then perhaps pass would make some sense. Now however I'm not that sure I'll get my ♠ ruff(s), so 4NT looks much better imo.

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-23, 20:43, said:

And of course when we are making partner will stop in 5 of a minor with a lot of aces and kings.

Rainer Herrmann

rhm, on 2011-August-24, 04:19, said:

This is what happens when someone is too busy being sarcastic and ignores the auction.

Are you telling that pd is a moron and didnt see us passing 4♥ ? And that he can not know that we know he has a lot of aces and kings when he made the 2nd DBL ? And so he should try to show his hand the 3rd time at 6 level in case we didnt get it ?

I think players like you, deserves partners who passes their 5-5 hands with the fear that u may bid 6, when they find a big fit and when u are dieing to find a fit. After all we either defend doubled or bid 6 in this kind of auctions. Playing game under pressure ? What the hell is that ?

rhm, on 2011-August-24, 04:19, said:

MrAce, on 2011-August-24, 10:21, said:

Having already been converted from pass to 4N by the posts here, I note the following:

I don't believe the given hand with one more Q and/or Jack would have necessarily bid 4N over 4H without the second double.

It is possible that partner will bid 6m after my 4N with a lot of controls and a bit of extra minor suit length. It might even be right on this hand, or it might not work out well if we could make exactly 5, but RHM's comment ---while maybe intended sarcastically---might have value and is not ignoring anything.

I suggest the 4n bidders have very little faith in their
partners ability to decide when a reopen x is wise.
Your p already know you did not want to x 4h and that
you were not strong enough to bid a game and that if weak
you had no reasonable sacrifice. That means P must consider
the probability that his LHO has some goods and will only
reopen with x when it is safe for a weak p to pass.

The sad part about bidding 4n is I probably have defense
in the form of a spade ruff which is completely unexpected
and makes the penalty pass even more likely to succeed

Interesting. One poster believes North would be a moron for trying 6C after the second double and a 4NT runout. Maybe, but a lucky moron. Another believes 4NT is wrong and shows little faith in North's bidding.

There are a lot more North hands which might have been better to illustrate this phenomenon.

aguahombre, on 2011-August-24, 10:46, said:

If pd is bidding 6 in this auction, he is bidding on his own. Not because u bid 4NT and promised any value except than shape. 4NT is a response to his 2nd DBL, does not promise anything except than unwillingness to play 4♥ doubled and some shape, since we passed 4♥ initially. Anyone who thinks this 4NT is some sort of slam encouragement is in wrong forum imo.

Game before Slam. Had we decided not to bid 4NT the auction would DIE 4♥ doubled. I hope this means something to you. Unless you have a strategy that allows u ONLY and ONLY defend doubled or bid slam, and if u do, good luck with that.

gszes, on 2011-August-24, 10:49, said:

Let me suggest that you try to construct some typical hands for partner. This is dangerous, since most of us have a tough time being objective when we do this, but it is still a useful exercise in this kind of situation.

I suggest that you be careful to exclude hands that would have overcalled in notrump or bid/rebid spades at some point. In fact, I suggest that you assume that partner has 4=1=4=4 shape. Obviously, he might not, but he ought to be doubling in the expectation that you will play him for this shape.

Now, having constructed his hand type, go the next step and try to construct the hands held by the opps. This is a second-level inference (constructing partner's was a 1st level inference). Inferences are usually to be viewed with some caution, but one of the attributes of the expert player is the willingness to draw and rely upon this sort of reasoning. It is also, interestingly enough, easier to do this against competent opponents than against unskilled players.

If we place partner with 4=1=4=4, we should, I think, assume that LHO probably has fewer than 4 spades. Some players will open 2♥ with 4=6 majors, but they are in the minority.


Now we begin to see RHO as likely holding 5 or 6 spades along with 4 hearts, and this means he is short in the minors....it also means that both of our 9 card fits will break reasonably well......of course, that doesn't hold if rho is 6=4=3=0 or 6=4=0=3, but while that is bad for our offence, it is even worse for our defence!

So let's assume that rho's hand types include 6=4 (21) and 5=4=2=2/3-1/1-3.

Having got that far, and bearing in mind that we have placed partner with a strong 4=1=4=4, we can see that, while there are no guarantees in any of this, passing will rarely score a big plus, and may often go minus, while bidding offers excellent chances of a plus, and may in fact turn out to be either a double game swing or, on an unusual day, a good sacrifice.

Notice that nowhere in this process did we give regard to the obvious fact that we hold a 'weak hand'.

Your point that partner expects us to pass with a weak hand is, largely, valid. Were we 3=2=4=4, with the same lack of strength, I suspect that all of the 4N bidders would pass, concerned that they may make, hoping that they don't, and aware that opposite most hands they can construct for partner, they have no hope of going plus if they bid.

So, yes, partner is prepared for us to pass with weakness, but he expects us to do the sort of analysis I have described here before doing so.

I hope that helps.

aguahombre, on 2011-August-24, 11:31, said:

I would not be interested less in starting a back and forth hand picking with you. But i think Axxx vs stiff, AKx vs Qxxxx and AKxxx vs xxxxx is called PERFECTO among good players

Funny as it is, even with this hand, if u make our hand xx x xxxxx Qxxxx
slam goes down Which then players like you, ironically, would have MUCH LESS reason to pass 4♥ Dbled, because there would be no ♠ ruff expectations.

But on the forums experts find everything with a %99.99 accuracy right ?

mikeh, on 2011-August-24, 11:46, said:

Do you do this sort of analysis at the table? I must admit I wouldn't go further than "takeout double, 5-5, clear pull".

han, on 2011-August-24, 15:23, said:

yes

To the extent that I can claim to be a real expert, the turning point for me was playing for a year as the regular partner of Alan Graves, one of the finest players Canada has produced. He thinks deeply into the game, and one of the things I learned from him was to take the time to think logically about primary, secondary and tertiary inferences.

I'm not the fastest player in the world. However, I do think a lot faster than I type

As a matter of maintaining partnership trust we NEVER pull such a double without a decent chance of a plus.

This qualifies as a 4nt bid for the reasons already stated but I wouldn't be surprised if 4♥ and 5m were both down one.

If by "real" bridge the OP means IMPS bidding rates to be a small loss at worst and passing risks a disaster.

gszes, on 2011-August-24, 10:49, said:

I think you have no understanding of what the 2nd double means.

wank, on 2011-August-21, 18:15, said:

What's the vulnerability on this board? I can't see it.

Assuming advancer is 4=1=4=4. Whether opponents go down or not will depend on their pattern fit.
5=4=2=2 facing 3=6=2=2. They rate to go down. Maybe more than the value of game.
5=4=4=0 facing 3=6=0=4. They're probably a favorite to make.
They can hold every pattern in between. We are in no position to judge.

Does advancer show 18-21 HCP on this second double?

Still think we need to know the vulnerability and run a monte carlo to answer this question properly.
Also helps to know your opponents.

The white background behind the direction symbols means NV; red means vulnerable. Quite similar to what a real life board looks like.

I am a little surprised that I am the only respondant who applied the law of total trick analysis. It can be very useful on hands like this. It works out as follows:
Base case is:
1. they have 10 trumps
2. they have a secondary 8 card ♠ fit split 3-5 or even 2-6.
3. we have 9 trumps
4. we have a secondary 9 card fit
5. I don't see any sign of negative adjustment factors, but they can't be ruled out.
All this adds up to 21 tricks.
There is a possible upside if there are voids out or if we have 10 trumps with a secondary side suit of 8 or even 9 cards. There is a somewhat more likely downside if the opponents have mirror 2-2 holdings in the minors, or only 9 trumps, or (unlikely) a mirror 4-4 holding in ♠. We are still talking about 19 to 22 total tricks with a median between 21 and 22. With 20, 21 or 22 tricks it is right to bid 4NT. Even with the dreaded 19 trick hand, the only way passing is right is a split of 9 for them and 10 for us. Of course, an 18 trick hand is possible, but given a classic six card weak two bid and less than desperado opponents, it has to be of very low probability, maybe 10%. Even then 5 of a minor may make.
The great thing about LOTT is that, with practice, you actually have time to apply it at the table in an abbreviated form. Its conclusion is the same as the good players came up with on this thread - 4NT is the obvious call. Anything else is utterly wrong. As far as pard hanging me by bidding six, I haven't promised ANY high cards, just a 5-5 minor suit distribution.

I think post #28 from mikeh is one of the finest I have seen here in a while, clearly setting out the thought processes of an expert player in this kind of position. Many thanks for this.

The LOTT gives an estimate of total tricks which is +/- two tricks. From How I Fought the Law of Total Tricks knowing the pattern of the side suits will narrow the range to +/- one trick. Flatness leads to fewer tricks. Voids leads to more tricks than the LOTT estimates.

I'd apply Han's analysis, though Mike's is instructive.

gnasher, on 2011-August-25, 07:13, said:

I'd apply MikeH's analysis, though Han's is instructive.