[broze]

lamford, on 2014-September-23, 04:57, said:

... and they never bid Five Hearts

This though is half the reason for bidding 4S immediately, right? The advantage in starting with double is that it allows partner to judge more accurately when saving is right; basically, I am far from convinced that this benefit outweighs the downside that the opponents are now better placed to decide when bidding 5H over 4 is the right action.

With the EV for final 4H and 4Sx contracts fairly equal, isn't this what it comes down to?

[rhm]

ArtK78, on 2014-September-22, 10:04, said:

I believe that a lot of posters are using the wrong approach in sacrifice situations.

Look at this hand. A number of comments seem to imply that if you go for -500 and the opps make their game, you have won some great victory. That may be true at matchpoints, assuming that a great percentage of the field is in game on the opps cards. But at IMPs, -500 vs. -620 is only 3 IMPs - not the greatest of victories. And you need quite a parlay to get this result:

(1) You must be able to take 7 tricks in 4♠;

Maybe we are looking at different hands. So I repeat the hand for your convenience:

---

Are you telling us that with this hand and this spade support partner should not take at least 7 tricks? I would never expect to be down more than 2 in 4♠ doubled.
I do understand that in Bridge almost everything can happen and overcall standards can be low at the one level at this colors, but nevertheless what was partner's business to overcall in the first place then?
I rather give up the game then assume I can not take 7 tricks here.

Quote

(2) Your opps must be making their contract;

True.
But did you realize that RHO made a slam invitational bid?
He did not just blast into 4♥ or invite game.
Under what conditions are you prepared to assume that opponents will make their game contract?

Quote

(3) 4♠x will be the final contract.

One reason to bid 4♠ is that opponents may guess wrong and bid 5♥ which might be beatable.

You may also win a lot by bidding 4♠ when the opps bid on and go down or if you go down less than 3 tricks.

How can bidding 4♠ lose? The obvious way is that you go down more than 3 tricks.

Well if you argue going down three is no big win, I argue going down four is no big loss either at IMPs.
You can not have it both ways.
And by the way is it impossible that both 4♥ and 4♠ might make?

Quote

Another way that bidding 4♠ can lose is if the opps were destined to go down in 4♥. Given your hand, that is not impossible.

If you wait for the impossible you can wait a long long time. What if 4♥ is down, but 4♠ makes?
Unlikely? Yes!
Impossible? No!

Quote

Looking at your hand, I would guess that the opps are unlikely to bid on; however, if you go down less than 3 tricks on this hand it is probably more likelty that the opps can bid on and make, so sacrificing at 4♠ may offer the opponents a fielder's choice - they get to choose from multiple winning options.

If we are down two and there are 18 total tricks (why not? There seem to be at least 18 total trumps, but there could also be a ten card fit in each major) there is no winning option for opponents and they might still try for 11 tricks.
What all your arguments prove to me is that there is still an art when a good player should overcall and when he should keep quiet even green versus red. Five cards in spades is not sufficient reason to bid.
Note, I am not arguing against your general philosophy against sacrificing, but you choose a poor example, no matter what the actual outcome was.

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

broze, on 2014-September-25, 03:59, said:

This though is half the reason for bidding 4S immediately, right? The advantage in starting with double is that it allows partner to judge more accurately when saving is right; basically, I am far from convinced that this benefit outweighs the downside that the opponents are now better placed to decide when bidding 5H over 4 is the right action.

With the EV for final 4H and 4Sx contracts fairly equal, isn't this what it comes down to?

It may well be right for them to bid 5H, when they are getting 650 and only collecting 300. The trouble is that no simulator is good enough to judge that well, and the only comparison available has to make some simple assumptions. Going through each hand would not necessarily help either. The program also cannot IMP each board individually, although there is no reason why it should not be able to do so with better tools. I remain convinced that Double has little downside.

[lamford]

rhm, on 2014-September-25, 06:16, said:

I would never expect to be down more than 2 in 4♠ doubled.

The declarer at the table was down 4, and his partner had a normal 1S overcall. And 27.3% of Norths were down 3 or more in my simulation, the parameters for which were stated.

[MrAce]

lamford, on 2014-September-25, 07:41, said:

The declarer at the table was down 4, and his partner had a normal 1S overcall. And 27.3% of Norths were down 3 or more in my simulation, the parameters for which were stated.

Neither Rainer nor me claimed anything more than expectation. The reason in my first reply I implied 4♠ was wrong on this hand was due to it being posted here. Later when Phil and Andy suggested that DBL should be middle road of both worlds, I am repeating again, I liked it, and I thought you were actually on to something more than my rough guess of pass or DBL question. ***** happens. You go down 4 and they were going down on a misguess or going down plain and square. Another hand same hand may result, as Rainer said both 4M was making. If we take out the marginal scores and look for the most frequent ones, what Rainer said sounds right to me. About the possibilities of them bidding 5♥, everyone here seems to think opponents easily give up on their slam invite auction to play a 5 level vulnerable game and always dbl 4♠ when it is right to do so. Irl they do bid 5♥ much more often than they do in forums.

[gszes]

I am an insurance salesman at heart and at these colors think of
4s not only as preemptive but a bid that should net us a small
victory (or at worst a small loss) against the opps vul game. The
problem I have with this hand is the opps are in a slammish auction
and with my defense it is probably in our sides best interest to let
them try for it. That thought alone eliminates a direct 4s for me.

Since I would be happy to have p save (with the appropriate hand)
if perchance the opps tried to sign off in 4h I have to admit the

x

showing a desire to sac seems like the best choice. I have a lot
of sympathy for pass but it seems wrong overall to not let p
in on the idea of sac when we have a fair amount of offense that
would otherwise be totally unexpected given the bidding. I am willing
to give the opps a free xx in order to get this idea across.

[Aardv]

3♠ is not an independent slam try; it's telling partner why you're bidding 4♥, not least so that he can judge what to do over 4♠.

So opponents are unlike to misguess badly if you bid 4♠.

FWIW, I defended 4♥ and it went off after partner made the best lead (not a spade) and declarer didn't find the winning line.

[the hog]

lamford, on 2014-September-25, 07:41, said:

The declarer at the table was down 4, and his partner had a normal 1S overcall. And 27.3% of Norths were down 3 or more in my simulation, the parameters for which were stated.

I am curious Lamford, can you show us the whole deal please?

[lamford]

the hog, on 2014-September-29, 22:29, said:

I am curious Lamford, can you show us the whole deal please?

https://app.pianola....ndTeamNumber=-1
hopefully works! You may need to click on board 3 on the left. On the two Vugraph hands it was flat in NS+800.