BBO Discussion Forums: Razz - BBO Discussion Forums

Interesting. Nobody has a problem how to follow up after a 2H overcall, just how to deal with their own double.

aguahombre, on 2012-April-03, 22:56, said:

That's not terribly surprising.

If you make a takeout double with 3-2 in two of the unbid suits, you're quite likely to face a bidding problem. Bidding your longest suit rarely creates a bidding problem, but will sometimes produce a play problem. Not bidding anything at all avoids both, but may produce a scoring-up problem.

Phil, on 2012-April-03, 17:18, said:

I think your partner should have bid 3♦ over 2♣. That's quite a good hand opposite a vulnerable takeout double in a non-fit auction, with the opponents bidding the black suits.

Once you make a second takeout double, he's easily worth game. I'd have tried 3♥, which is clearly not a four-card suit.

billw55, on 2012-April-03, 10:00, said:

lalldonn, on 2012-April-03, 15:09, said:

Phil, on 2012-April-03, 17:18, said:

So I was right about something well, sort of.

But seriously, I apparently have a big misunderstanding here. Sure, we made game this hand while ops have just about the least possible for their bidding, and we happen to have a fit. But what about all those other deals where we are going off? Don't those affect the EV even though they don't show up in forum threads? I would think that making game must be a fairly small minority of deals here, I would guess less than 20%, maybe someone can do a sim?

Or looked at another way, how much would you have to reduce this hand before it would be a pass? Red on white ...

Gonna pass and pay tribute to opps if we happen to have like 27 HCP.

Will probably pass throughout.

I really hate pass. This is not 1970 where LHO has 12 and RHO has 6, they are white/red and their 1N bid means very little about their points or their spade fit. I do not remember anyone passing 1S when w/r against me, if they did they probably had 4-5 not 0-3. And people open lighter as well.

When clayton gave me this hand on BBO I said "2H" and he said "you catch the nuts..." and proceeded to give me a 5332 8 count with partner with 3 trumps. I mean, if that is the nuts, maybe we shouldn't be passing because partner could easily have more points, more hearts, or more shape. We could just have 3N on power if he doesn't have a heart fit but has a 2N bid.

Yes, we might get doubled, but it is less likely to me than bidding a vulnerable game (especially with their doubles being takeout, if we catch something like a stiff heart with partner we will often survive at least being undoubled. -300 vs a plus 50 wouldnt be so good anyways, but maybe they can make a partial). Sometimes we might be able to compete effectively to 3H over 2S and win a partscore swing as well to compensate for some of the times we lose a partscore swing.

Double then double should have worked, as gnasher said your partner had an easy 3H bid over the 2nd double (I agree with 2D since it was a free bid). I would never have doubled the 2nd time though.

Quote

You've mentioned this in prior threads, where you explained why you disliked Sandwich and wanted to still have a natural 1NT available after 1m-Pass-1M.

I'll be interested how long it takes for it to, to use your phrase, quit being 1970, at the sectional and regional level. (My bet is 2020.) It has definitely changed in the past 20 years even at lower levels, where 11-and-5 is now a reasonable possibility against certain opponents, and the people who wait for 13 in first have become nearly extinct.

But it would have, literally, been years before I considered overcalling on hands like this one, or of giving up Sandwich (it's still on the way in, not the way out yet, in my area), if I hadn't seen posts from people like you, and encountered a few internet people who fixed me with ultralight 1NT responses.

Yes, they certainly can have 10 opposite 5 or 12 opposite 3 or whatever, but they have to actually be dealt that. 6-counts are more common than 3-counts, and 9-counts are more common than 6-counts. When they bid 1♠-1NT, they usually have at least half the high cards, even if their lower limit is rather less than that.

Competing the partscore is important, but I don't think it's likely to be a high priority on this hand. We have four honours in our short suits, and a horrible trump suit. If partner has some 2344 five-count with a diamond honour, we may make 3♥ but we're probably also beating 2♠. If we do bid 3♥, they're not likely to be pushed into 3♠ when it's wrong, because they're likely to be looking at a lot of secondary honours in the minors, together with some heart honours.

If you overcall 2♥ and partner raises, what are you going to do? I've generated some hands, but I'm not sure where the bidding will take us on a couple of them.

Pass if he raises, drive to game over a cue.

JLOGIC, on 2012-April-04, 17:46, said:

Justin, I appreciate that you are making the effort to explain things that are obvious to you. Unfortunately I still don't understand why 2♥ is so clear.

Yes, ops can have the least possible for their bidding and we might be on for game. On the actual deal here, partner has a near moose: 8 points, a fit, a good long suit and a working ten. Opposite this, game is good but not cold. That gives ops 16 points, perhaps 11 opposite 5? I suppose they could have less but not very much. What about the cases where they have average values for their bidding, or above average? Cases were partner does not have a fit for me? Apparently it is obvious to you that a 2♥ call is +EV. What all is figuring into that? Is there a reason that -200 or -500 is less likely than a plus score? True they can't always double, but then again we can go for -200 undoubled. What do you think the probability of the various plus scores is?

bill: Maybe Justin is able to assimilate all the possible outcomes after pass, double, and 2H --and then calculate an average score for each of them to come up with a right answer. I don't think so, and don't think anyone can.

I do think we can predict later problems after a double, such as those which occurred this time; I think we can rely on his experience with a 2H overcall in similar situations, and accept it as an educated guess worthy of consideration ---coincidentally (or not) successful on this occasion; and I think deep down we know that passing and trying to come in later has not worked well on the whole for anyone but Al Roth.

We shouldn't blindly accept what someone says, just because they have a "name"; logic sometimes tells us they are wrong. But, absent counterdata, we should certainly give it a lot of weight.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-April-05, 09:08

billw55, on 2012-April-05, 06:36, said:

I think bridge, and especially bidding, is not really about figuring it out. Its mostly about trial and error, and the experience of what has worked before. Justin has more experience than pretty much anyone else here, gnasher and Phil also have lots, and they chose differently.

I think there is a slight issue here, that the higher the level of the competition the more likely they are to bid and respond light, and consequently that heavily affects the risk reward ratio here. If you were playing against some LOL's from the local club, who had never opened without 12 or responded without 6, then you might well guess that the risk reward profile is skewed enough to favour pass.

I certainly think that in a case like this there is likely to be a divide between players who mostly play club bridge, and players who mostly play high level bridge.

OTOH, there is a huge class of hands where partner is x Kxxx in the majors and that is pretty much already enough to make game a good shout. Vs acol players, for example, there is a class who would never raise on 3 card support, in case opener has only 4 spades, in which case a 6-3 fit is likely. Against a reasonable number of players, 1N always denies 3 card spade support, and now its v unlikely partner can have a singleton heart, and that does affect things.

It's true that better players will bid lighter here, but worse players will double you less in 2♥. I would always overcall here against any players.

gnasher, on 2012-April-05, 02:52, said:

I find this comment a little misleading. 6 is more common than 3, but 10 is more common than 13. And I really doubt 9 is more common than 6 when partner opens and an opponent is known to hold 16. I understand that even if they do bid light in general they don't have to be light any given time, but it's a lot more likely than normal when we hold a hand this good.

Quote

I think you are overcomplicating a simple situation. We have 16 points, all of them working, none of them in the opponent's suit. Our suit is bad but our hand is so good we just have to man up and bid.

2♥. My suit is bad, but I have compensating values which bring my playing strength to an acceptable level for a 2 heart overcall. I will not pass & get stolen from here, and I will not X when I don't really want to hear any other call than hearts opposite.

lalldonn, on 2012-April-05, 11:45, said:

This bit tells me alot about the kind of game the experts are playing!

It had nothing to do with what people bid with. There are simply more hands with 10 points than hands with 13 points.

lalldonn, on 2012-April-05, 11:45, said:

Not all bidding problems are simple enough to be solved by counting your points. 8 points in a three-card suit and 4 points in a two-card suit aren't working as well offensively as they would be if they were in our long suit. This may be a 16-count, but it isn't an expecially good one from an offensive point of view. Defensively it's excellent, of course.

billw55, on 2012-April-05, 06:36, said:

This is basically what clayton said, but I don't really agree. Consider how much better our hand is when partner has 4 trumps. Partners actual hand is not some amazing thing to me, maybe I just run good.

There was a hand a few years ago (I think) that Hamman had where he overcalled with something similar to ace empty fifth red vs white. I think his hand had more shape than this, but less points. This was surprising to me, and I actually don't remember if he went for 1100 lol (I think he did but not really sure). The result didn't matter (it might have been posted on the forums), I was more surprised because 10 years ago he told me to be very sound red overcalling at the 2 level. He said he was "gambling on who had the hearts." He also mentioned that you have to overcall 1N lighter and overcall at the 2 level lighter especially in sandwich seat because of "the meckwell effect" aka, opening light and responding light. This hand is a little bit similar, if partner has 5 hearts you have a great hand, 4 hearts you have a very good hand, 3 hearts he needs some wood (but not THAT much). You are also gambling on the spade suit. That gamble might depend on the tendencies of RHO. I will admit it might be a north american style to bid 1N with 3 or 4 spades and a yarborough, but I have seen many europeans do this too. Some people call this less preemptive, but I think it is more preemptive/confusing because of this exact thing (imagine if RHO bid 3S weak, you would ofc bid 4H happily with 3 small spades, if RHO bid 2S same thing). But it is definitely better for constructive bidding since partner will sometimes jump to game if you bid 2S with bad hands that contain 3 spades (or at least game try).

Quote

This is where I disagree, but again it depends on your opponents. I just assume they can respond with 0+ when they are w/r. I know many supposedly sound players do this (Mark Lair, Eddie Wold) even when not playing limited opening bids. True, not everyone does this, but I think people respond light more often when they have 3+ spades, which is the exact time when we could have a game, since they have some safety and they know it makes us more likely to have a game and more necessary to steal (and also when you have like 3 points and 3 spades and a doubleton, sometimes you will make game if partner jump shifts, ADDED VIG!).

I think we can agree that part of it does depend on your opponents. Like I said, in 1970 I'm sure I would have passed. However my experiences have been similar to this:

Quote

It depends on what you define as "lower levels" obviously I am not playing in many novice games anymore, but my default assumption against anyone who is willing to go to tournaments (unless they've been around 40 years etc and are known) even if they're in flight C is that they can mess around w/r, esp with a fit or even without one. If you have a read on your opponents that they are still from the 1970s then adjust accordingly. I am pretty sure anyone that Phil is playing against in a sectional or regional will play more of a modern style.

Of course, even if I am right about how light they can be that does not mean bidding is necessarily right, but I do think you're off on how often partner has something like a 2353 8 count, and he could easily have more in the form of more trumps, or enough to bid 2N.

Quote

My other point is that it is not necessarily a disaster if they have full values. Gnasher implied that on partscore hands we will be more likely to lose imps than win imps by overcalling 2H, which I totally agree with. That said, if we go down sometimes they make a partscore and then it's not a disaster. Sometimes they could have set us but one of them bids 2S or something else. It's not like they are going to bid perfectly after our overcall, an easy example is if LHO has 6 spades he will almost always bid 2S and be sad when his partner comes down with KQJT9 of hearts. But yes, I think the most frequent disaster by far is that we go down 200 and we would have beaten them in something, our hand is very defensive. Down 200 instead of plus is a significant amount of imps obv or down 300 whether they make a parital or not. I just don't think that will be overwhelmingly likely to cause me to stop looking for a vul game with this hand. And sometimes we will luck into a nice fit from partner and win a partscore swing, it doesn't have to be THAT lucky because if we catch a good 4 card fit from partner we should probably be in there. Yes, it would suck to catch partner with 0-1 heart, but is that so much more likely than catching him with 4-5 hearts? And if we catch him with a random hand and 3 hearts that's probably not so bad.

Quote

Obviously I don't know the probability. I do not know for certain that any bid is +EV. I also have no idea what the probability of the various outcomes are when I have AJ8xxx x AJxxx x and I overcall 4S over 4H red/white. I do know I am petrified every single time, but I consider it obvious/clear. Phil and hombre answered it well, in bidding it is impossible to know that a bid is right, but you can still consider it obvious/clear. I can also be wrong. Gnasher likes pass. Many good players bid differently. When a few great players disagree with a bid that I think is obvious, then it might not be obvious. If many do then it is definitely not obvious, and if most do then it means that I am probably wrong that it is even the right bid. That is pretty much how I evaluate judgement problems if I am able to poll others, otherwise I simply draw on my experience as I would have to do at the table. Generally the hands that create the most controversy among good players are probably the ones with decisions close enough that it does not matter what you do. I would still be surprised if it was wrong to overcall 2H at this point, but I would not be shocked or anything. Perhaps gnasher and I disagree based on regional differences or just variance in experience of how the 1S and 1N bidders behave causing us to weight the different outcomes differently in our heads. Or perhaps we just disagree.

I do think simulations are useful and when computer technology/bridge technology/simulators get better, they will probably change the game. The problem is on hands like this it is very difficult to do a simulation not just because it's a judgement call on 1S/1N (you and I would apparently have wildly different constraints), but because as gnasher said it's tough to predict what will happen from there all the time (the more judgement calls you make, the more likely your simulation is to be inaccurate). Still, it's a good basepoint and is a good way to augment your own/other peoples judgement. If it is a double dummy simulation that creates problems, if not it's not only tedious to do yourself but you encounter all sorts of new judgement calls (what would the lead be? how would you play after the lead? would the defense get this defensive problem right...). So for now I like seeing results of simulations but I take them with a grain of salt.

Anyways, hopefully no one reads "I think something is obvious/clear" as "I am 100 % sure that I am right." It just means in my opinion/experience/whatever, it is not close in my mind that 2H will win over pass. But, I can be wrong. In a recent thread I thought a 2C opener was not only right, but that it was clear. It became obvious that not only was it not clear, but I was likely wrong in my opinion that opening 2C was right.