[jogs]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-April-27, 10:04, said:

How is the example hand convincing? A, it's one hand. B, it is not really consistent with the bidding. C, we gave partner a 10 count with only a doubleton spade and no trump trick, and an honor in both clubs or hearts. It is quite rare for partner to not just pass with no trump trick and only 2 spades and a fitting honor in both of our suits.

If North held ♠ xx ♥ KQx ♦ Jxxx ♣ Kxxx, would it clearly be a 5♣ bid? Does his double clearly imply points in pointed suits? Or is it just a max 2♥ raise?

[CSGibson]

 jogs, on 2012-April-27, 13:17, said:

If North held ♠ xx ♥ KQx ♦ Jxxx ♣ Kxxx, would it clearly be a 5♣ bid? Does his double clearly imply points in pointed suits? Or is it just a max 2♥ raise?

Yes, that would clearly be a 5 club bid. It might have been worth a 2♠ bid earlier instead of a 2♥ call - if partner opened 1st or 2nd seat in an unopposed auction, that would be a 3 card limit raise for me, and after partner's 3rd or 4th seat, a clear drury call.

[jogs]

 CSGibson, on 2012-April-27, 13:57, said:

Yes, that would clearly be a 5 club bid. It might have been worth a 2♠ bid earlier instead of a 2♥ call - if partner opened 1st or 2nd seat in an unopposed auction, that would be a 3 card limit raise for me, and after partner's 3rd or 4th seat, a clear drury call.

1. 1♥ - (1♠) - 2♠
2. 1♥ - (1♠) - X

1. I like cue promises 4-card support.

2. Double with 3-card support. No negative double for minors. Nobody cares about minors. Opener may still introduce a 4 card minor. Just don't go out of the way to bid 3 card minors.

[FrancesHinden]

 jogs, on 2012-April-27, 13:17, said:

If North held ♠ xx ♥ KQx ♦ Jxxx ♣ Kxxx, would it clearly be a 5♣ bid? Does his double clearly imply points in pointed suits? Or is it just a max 2♥ raise?

No, it wouldn't be a clear 5C bid. I'd bid 4NT showing a hand that has suddenly become astonishingly good for the auction so far. I'd bid 5C on the same hand without the king of hearts.

[FrancesHinden]

As for the original auction, I'm also in the pass-is-not-forcing camp and hence partner's double is a fairly strong penalty opinion. Still strikes me as a tough decision, but I think I'd pass.

[mfa1010]

I agree that 4♣ doesn't set up a force, but still partner should expect a good hand opposite and feel involved. I don't think he needs a majestic misfit to double. I'm pulling this but not with confidence.

[Phil]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-27, 14:32, said:

As for the original auction, I'm also in the pass-is-not-forcing camp and hence partner's double is a fairly strong penalty opinion. Still strikes me as a tough decision, but I think I'd pass.

I am in the 'pass is forcing' camp along with MikeH. Since double under this construct doesn't carry the same penalty message as it does if pass is non-forcing, then the 5♣ bidders aren't as worried about finding a useless, defensive minimum across.

[Fluffy]

 gnasher, on 2012-April-27, 03:33, said:

II don't think 4♣ created a forcing pass, either.

I disagree on this, 4♣ bid is encouraging partner to bid to the 5 level, I don´t think it makes any sense to do that on defence vul vs not. Unless your metha-agreements clearly say that competitive picture bids don´t create forcing pass I think this one should be taken as such.

[MrAce]

Here is the entire deal

---

if you are a bidder you get -50 or - 100

if you are a passer you get +500 ( at the table claimed -800 and accepted)

EW were Greco and Hampson, NS were Gittelman and Moss

South (Fred) after a reasonable tank, passed. After the hand he commented something like " I am not sure if i could pass in real life"

But regardless, the difference between bidding and passing was huge on this deal, and he got it right.

[JLOGIC]

This hand is very convincing!

[nige1]

My guess: 5♣ = 10, 5♦ = 9, Pass = 8.

[FrancesHinden]

 Fluffy, on 2012-April-27, 16:52, said:

I disagree on this, 4♣ bid is encouraging partner to bid to the 5 level, I don´t think it makes any sense to do that on defence vul vs not. Unless your metha-agreements clearly say that competitive picture bids don´t create forcing pass I think this one should be taken as such.

The argument for playing it as non-forcing is that there is no need to play it as forcing. This does need you to be playing 3NT as artificial, however. So on this auction we play:

4H = to play, no forcing pass
3NT = good 4H bid, sets up a forcing pass if they bid again, no serious second suit
4m = natural, usually 5-5, invites partner to pass, double or bid on with a suitable hand

If you have a 4m hand that wanted to set up a forcing pass, you bid 4m then double if partner passes - not showing defence particularly, but saying you really meant it.

This way you learn more about responder's hand: he can pass, bid or double and they all give stronger opinions than if he was in a forcing pass auction.
You don't seem to give up much; you make opener's re-opening double a little less well defined is all.

[jogs]

 MrAce, on 2012-April-27, 18:21, said:

Here is the entire deal

---

How did Marty Bergen convince the bridge community that 3♠ is the correct bid with the East hand? There is no statistical evidence to support his view.
East 5 points are in the short suits. 5 points in hearts means N-S will probably lose only one heart trick even when they have 5-3 hearts. No singletons are unlucky for offense. For normalized boards meaning 20-20 in HCP for each pair a 5-4 fit with flat hands produces an expected 8 to 8 2/3 tricks not 9 tricks. This East hand is unlucky for our side and lucky for opponents. 2♠ or even pass is a better bid than 3♠.

[aguahombre]

 jogs, on 2012-April-28, 21:56, said:

How did Marty Bergen convince the bridge community that 3♠ is the correct bid with the East hand? There is no statistical evidence to support his view.
East 5 points are in the short suits. 5 points in hearts means N-S will probably lose only one heart trick even when they have 5-3 hearts. No singletons are unlucky for offense. For normalized boards meaning 20-20 in HCP for each pair a 5-4 fit with flat hands produces an expected 8 to 8 2/3 tricks not 9 tricks. This East hand is unlucky for our side and lucky for opponents. 2♠ or even pass is a better bid than 3♠.

Perhaps Greco and Hampson have had better results misbidding by 1/3 trick than others have. But, they have a day and a half to absorb the concept, before they have to play again.

[JLOGIC]

 jogs, on 2012-April-28, 21:56, said:

How did Marty Bergen convince the bridge community that 3♠ is the correct bid with the East hand? There is no statistical evidence to support his view.
East 5 points are in the short suits. 5 points in hearts means N-S will probably lose only one heart trick even when they have 5-3 hearts. No singletons are unlucky for offense. For normalized boards meaning 20-20 in HCP for each pair a 5-4 fit with flat hands produces an expected 8 to 8 2/3 tricks not 9 tricks. This East hand is unlucky for our side and lucky for opponents. 2♠ or even pass is a better bid than 3♠.

I will point greco and hampson to your advice, thanks.

[jogs]

 aguahombre, on 2012-April-28, 22:07, said:

Perhaps Greco and Hampson have had better results misbidding by 1/3 trick than others have. But, they have a day and a half to absorb the concept, before they have to play again.

This 1/3 of a trick underperformance is based solely on pattern. This hand has other negatives. In Larry Cohen's "To Bid or Not to Bid" there is a table on page 216. It includes some variables for positive and negative adjustments. KQ tight in opponents' suit is an additional negative adjustment. Qxxx, xx, Kxxxx, xx
is a much better hand than xxxx, KQ, xxxxx, xx.

[JLOGIC]

 jogs, on 2012-April-29, 07:56, said:

Qxxx, xx, Kxxxx, xx
is a much better hand than xxxx, KQ, xxxxx, xx.

Agreed, that is why they no doubt would show a mixed raise with the first hand and a weak raise with the 2nd hand.

[JLOGIC]

Jogs, how did this 3S bid work on this hand? If you bid 2S you will no doubt defend 4H making. If you bid 3S, then more than half of the people would bid on to 5H with the south hand apparently, so you would defend 5H down. Some people would judge correctly and get you for 500 instead of 420. So you risk a couple of imps to gain 10 or so, because you applied pressure. Against Mikeh, Phil, loldonn, gnasher, you win 10 imps for bidding 3S. Against fred, you lose 2. That is how bridge is played, that is why bids like 3S work out well. Stop thinking about the law of total tricks lol

[MrAce]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-April-29, 08:03, said:

Jogs, how did this 3S bid work on this hand? If you bid 2S you will no doubt defend 4H making. If you bid 3S, then more than half of the people would bid on to 5H with the south hand apparently, so you would defend 5H down. Some people would judge correctly and get you for 500 instead of 420. So you risk a couple of imps to gain 10 or so, because you applied pressure. Against Mikeh, Phil, loldonn, gnasher, you win 10 imps for bidding 3S. Against fred, you lose 2. That is how bridge is played, that is why bids like 3S work out well. Stop thinking about the law of total tricks lol

Amen

[jogs]

Exchange the kings and queens between North and East.

---

The patterns and total trumps are unchanged. The total tricks
increase from 17(7+10) to 20(9+11).

The experts love to debate bidding in bridge quizzes. But do
they ever ponder the question, "where do tricks come from?"
Or investigate how tricks are generated?

I was once asked if I believe in the Law of Total Tricks. The
answer is yes and no. Yes, I believe trumps is a primary variable
for estimating tricks. No, total tricks is not equal to total trumps.

There is a much weaker relationship.
For each pair
E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e
E(tricks) is expected tricks.
Trumps is the combined trumps of the partnership.
HCP is the combined points of the partnership.
e is the error of the estimates. This error can be as great as
+/- 2.

HCP and trumps are the primary variables for generating
tricks. On some skewed boards the secondary variables
play a huge part in generating these tricks. Causing the
original estimates to be off by more than two tricks.

In the example board it was possible to increase the tricks
by three by just exchanging a few kings and queens.
Would North bid differently from the original North hand?
Or would North find 5♥ over 4♠? Does the double
of 4♠ show a max 2♥ call or a strong preference to
defend? If only one of North's three honor card were in
the rounded suits, pulling by South would have probably
been correct.

jogs

This post has been edited by jogs: 2012-April-29, 19:08