[Cascade]

---

IMPs

2♠ spades and a minor weak

Pass or transfer?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Transfer.
( It may be the only way to take tricks in this hand ) .

[655321]

Pass because (a) we haven't been doubled and 50's are fine with me, and (b) with 3 cards in spades opposite partner's likely 3+ spades, a heart contract would bring spade ruffs into the picture as yet another way for the defenders to take tricks.

(Waiting for the inevitable comment that 'this is an easy 2♥ opening for us at the vulnerability, and we routinely do it on worse hands')

[hotShot]

I'll pass.
If we get doubled I can think again......

[mfa1010]

I would pass.

[Fluffy]

I would transfer but reading other posts I start to think that probably I shouldn't have

[mcphee]

It is possible that partner has the magic that allows game to make, yet I am quite pleased it is not in 2NT doubled. If passing this results in some horrible misfortune at 50 a pop I am surprised.

[gnasher]

I'd transfer, even after reading the other replies. I'm not yet willing to give up trying to find a sensible spot.

Maybe RHO didn't double 2NT because he had inadequate defence to a heart contract. Or maybe he just has a balanced 13-count and isn't going to double anything.

[mikeh]

I pass.

Disaster avoidance is rarely a sound way to play bridge, but it sure looks like the best approach here. I haven't had time to do a simulation, but my gut tells me that we are far more likely to get nailed for 300-500 in 3♥than we are to improve the contract by the 2 tricks needed to begin to justify the transfer.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2010-October-25, 06:08, said:

I'd transfer, even after reading the other replies. I'm not yet willing to give up trying to find a sensible spot.

Maybe RHO didn't double 2NT because he had inadequate defence to a heart contract. Or maybe he just has a balanced 13-count and isn't going to double anything.

Since East passed already we know that we can probably play 2NT undoubled.
The risk of transferring, particularly at IMPs, is high. It is quite likely that West will be short in ♥.Give him a singleton ♥.
Now either partner or East has at least 4 cards in ♥. Even if West has 2 cards in ♥ the ♥ are like to break 4-2 between partner and East.
If partner fits ♥, he will super-accept and 4♥ might or might not get doubled, but it likely will and I would not relish a double of 4♥. Besides, in this case the ten of ♥ will likely be an (admittedly late) entry in 2NT.
If partner does not fit ♥ well, chances are that East has a ♥ stack. In this case 3♥ will get doubled and if it will, it will be a disaster.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2010-October-25, 08:31, said:

Since East passed already we know that we can probably play 2NT undoubled.
The risk of transferring, particularly at IMPs, is high. It is quite likely that West will be short in ♥.Give him a singleton ♥.
Now either partner or East has at least 4 cards in ♥. Even if West has 2 cards in ♥ the ♥ are like to break 4-2 between partner and East.
If partner fits ♥, he will super-accept and 4♥ might or might not get doubled, but it likely will and I would not relish a double of 4♥. Besides, in this case the ten of ♥ will likely be an (admittedly late) entry in 2NT.
If partner does not fit ♥ well, chances are that East has a ♥ stack. In this case 3♥ will get doubled and if it will, it will be a disaster.

Why should we assume the worst? The expected average heart lengths around the table are roughly 2-3-3, but you seem to be assuming it will nearly always be 1-3-4, 1-4-3, 2-2-4 or 2-4-2. If LHO has two hearts, then 2-3-3 is more likely than 2-2-4.

Nor is there any certainty that RHO will double when he has four hearts. He doesn't have very good spots, and a holding like KJ8x sitting under the length won't look much more useful than it did against 2NT.

When partner has If partner has 2 or 3 hearts, my hand will be worthless in notrumps, but playing in hearts it will usually be worth two tricks. The trump suit will also provide entries to dummy. The weak two-bidder appears to be maximum, so those entries may be quite useful.

[wyman]

Wow, when I read OP I thought it was going to be 100% "transfer wtp"

Now I'm totally unsure of what's right, but in practice, I would transfer with this hand.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2010-October-25, 11:40, said:

Why should we assume the worst? The expected average heart lengths around the table are roughly 2-3-3, but you seem to be assuming it will nearly always be 1-3-4, 1-4-3, 2-2-4 or 2-4-2. If LHO has two hearts, then 2-3-3 is more likely than 2-2-4.

Nor is there any certainty that RHO will double when he has four hearts. He doesn't have very good spots, and a holding like KJ8x sitting under the length won't look much more useful than it did against 2NT.

When partner has If partner has 2 or 3 hearts, my hand will be worthless in notrumps, but playing in hearts it will usually be worth two tricks. The trump suit will also provide entries to dummy. The weak two-bidder appears to be maximum, so those entries may be quite useful.

I ran some simulations, altho time constraints make my sample small. I gave west 5-10 hcp and 5-6 spades and 4-6 in a minor, and N at least one spade stopper and 16-18 hcp (I think many players would overcall on good 15s but I don't think this invalidates the concept)

I excluded hands on which I felt it fairly likely that East would double 2N, but left in some hands on which East could expect to defeat 2N but would be worried about a runout (in one case, he held AKQJxx in clubs but short hearts.

There was of course a large element of subjectivity in deciding how clear double was as East...and I tried to be conservative.....there were a number of hands on which 3♥ did badly but on which I felt that double would be aggressive and therefore assumed no double.

based on that, transfering generating 20 disasters, while reaching undoubled contracts that played as well or better in hearts than notrump 7 times, and played worse than notrump, but was undoubled, 5 times. So on an admittedly limited sample, transferring was a very unwise decision.

I assumed that West would never reopen...I think that is valid.

edit: at imps I am a very conservative doubler of part-scores into game and thus when deliberately, as here,, being conservative, I strongly believe that my simulation, if anything understates the frequency of disaster. I should also add that on at least two of the disasters, we hit partner with 18 real and 4 hearts, and I assumed a super-accept...and thus a double when I doubt that East would have doubled 3H (if he is as conservative as I am in doubling partscores into game)

[Cascade]

mikeh, on 2010-October-25, 13:03, said:

I ran some simulations, altho time constraints make my sample small. I gave west 5-10 hcp and 5-6 spades and 4-6 in a minor, and N at least one spade stopper and 16-18 hcp (I think many players would overcall on good 15s but I don't think this invalidates the concept)

I excluded hands on which I felt it fairly likely that East would double 2N, but left in some hands on which East could expect to defeat 2N but would be worried about a runout (in one case, he held AKQJxx in clubs but short hearts.

There was of course a large element of subjectivity in deciding how clear double was as East...and I tried to be conservative.....there were a number of hands on which 3♥ did badly but on which I felt that double would be aggressive and therefore assumed no double.

based on that, transfering generating 20 disasters, while reaching undoubled contracts that played as well or better in hearts than notrump 7 times, and played worse than notrump, but was undoubled, 5 times. So on an admittedly limited sample, transferring was a very unwise decision.

I assumed that West would never reopen...I think that is valid.

edit: at imps I am a very conservative doubler of part-scores into game and thus when deliberately, as here,, being conservative, I strongly believe that my simulation, if anything understates the frequency of disaster. I should also add that on at least two of the disasters, we hit partner with 18 real and 4 hearts, and I assumed a super-accept...and thus a double when I doubt that East would have doubled 3H (if he is as conservative as I am in doubling partscores into game)

Thanks Mike.

This is very interesting.

I made a little mistake in the description. The common way here is for 2♠ to be exactly five spades.

On the actual hand I had the strong no trump hand and partner transferred. I perhaps made an unwise decision to super-accept with only three trumps but I had 19 hcp 4=3=4=2 and didn't fancy any alternative action over 2♠ that would often lead to 3NT or perhaps a really silly partscore if I just accept a Lebensohl puppet to 3♣ after a double. This resulted in down four!!! Although maybe I could have done a little better. Thankfully we were not doubled.

Partner perhaps reasonably criticized my super-accept. However I suggested that he should have been very happy with an undoubled 2NT as his hopes of making a three-level contract looked poor and he might get doubled.

[OleBerg]

Transfer wtp?

Ok, serious; 2NT making seems unlikely to me, while 3♥ will make far more often. That is still a 4 or 5 imp difference. I do not toss that to the wind this lightly.

[pooltuna]

There is actually a second, backhanded reason to pass. To keep the opponents from reaching a cold ♠ game. Given the colors and scoring maybe E did not consider the requirement changes for a "weak 2" at these colors and scoring. Why risk waking them up.

[gnasher]

gnasher, on 2010-October-25, 11:40, said:

Why should we assume the worst? The expected average heart lengths around the table are roughly 2-3-3, but you seem to be assuming it will nearly always be 1-3-4, 1-4-3, 2-2-4 or 2-4-2. If LHO has two hearts, then 2-3-3 is more likely than 2-2-4.

Nor is there any certainty that RHO will double when he has four hearts. He doesn't have very good spots, and a holding like KJ8x sitting under the length won't look much more useful than it did against 2NT.

When partner has If partner has 2 or 3 hearts, my hand will be worthless in notrumps, but playing in hearts it will usually be worth two tricks. The trump suit will also provide entries to dummy. The weak two-bidder appears to be maximum, so those entries may be quite useful.

Sorry, when I wrote this, I thought they'd opened a weak two - I hadn't noticed that 2♠ was two-suited. That does make a bad heart break more likely than I thought, but I'd expect that it's still more likely that LHO has 2 than 1.

[mtvesuvius]

Very interesting simulation, Mike.

I am a passer. This hand kind of reminds me of the hand from the Spingold this year that cost Berkowitz-Sontag and company the fatal IMPs. Once again it seems best to take my -100 or -150, I'm just thankful it hasn't gotten worse yet.

[OleBerg]

pooltuna, on 2010-October-25, 14:29, said:

There is actually a second, backhanded reason to pass. To keep the opponents from reaching a cold ♠ game. Given the colors and scoring maybe E did not consider the requirement changes for a "weak 2" at these colors and scoring. Why risk waking them up.

My opponents are generally awake.