[inquiry]

Board 1
Non Vul
Bidding goes....

N    E   S   W
2H  P   P    ?

2H showed Hearts (generally 5) and a minor, weak (dutch 2's), and you hold  

S: KQ853
H: T76
D: Q97
C: Q7

What do you bid? Why/why not. This hand is from Feb 18th. My choice is based upon Robson/Segal's book "Partnership bidding in competitive auctions" chapter 5... and will share my understanding of what I think they would suggest after I hear the views of others.

[inquiry]

After 20+ viewers of this post and no response, so I decided to go ahead and post what I think is interesting about this little hand (probably just me interested anyway). However, when a world-champion drops 13 imps on what should be a part-score hand, it is time to sit up and take notice, and that is exactly what happened on this hand. Now I think this was a pick up partnership on their very first board facing a convention not frequently used in the USA, so it is very unfair to try be too critical of anyone, but the bidding went.

N  E  S  W
2H-P-P-2S
P-4S-X-P
P-P

The hands were (sorry for the huge space before the hands show up, something is not working right with the table function... just scroll down if necessary) [table] [tr] [td]              [/td] [td] void [/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td] [/td] [td] K8532[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]KQ853     [/td] [td]AK542    [/td] [td] J62 [/td]  [/tr]
[tr] [td] T76 [/td] [td]T98 [/td] [td] AJ94 [/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td] Q97 [/td] [td] [/td] [td] T3 [/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td] Q7 [/td] [td] AT974 [/td] [td] A652 [/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]  [/td] [td] Q [/td] [td] [/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]  [/td] [td] J83 [/td] [td] [/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]  [/td] [td] KJ43 [/td] [td] [/td] [/tr][/table]

I found some fault on this hand for each of the players, but no decision was too aggregious. Playing the "dutch 2" convention that NS used, with South's hand I would bid 2S, and if partner can't stand spades, I would expect him to bid 3 of his  minor. This way, NS could get out of a horrible 5-1 Heart fit and into a possible 5-3 or 5-2 spade fit or into no worse than a 4-3 minor fit and on good days, a 5-4 club fit (the would find their 5-3D fit on this hand). And on some really good days, into 4S if north was Kxx Kxxxx x ATxx.  So passing 2H is not IMHO the right bid (worked great here). I actually think north's hand is (at least) close to being too good for a dutch 2H bid, given 10 excellent hcp and two FIVE card suits. I play these two bids myself, but I would bite the bullet and open 1H (rule of 20) unless my partner is one of those who insist on game with all 10 to 11 point hands opposite a first seat opening bid (you know who you are).

East's 4S bid (east was the golden star-worldclass player, using a worldchamps name) I think disallowed the possibility that West was simply balancing. East probably thought that West would have to be short in hearts for this balancing bid. EW had no business being in 4S on this hand. Surely I would not pass with East's hand, but neither would I  force us beyond 3S (doubled of course). But the question was what should WEST do in the balance seat. West with 3H's and minor suit queens given North has one minor should be very wary of balancing here.  There is no guarantee the opponents have a good fit (but south with a singleton Heart was a little bit of a surprise). Robson/Segal point out that this is exactly the kind of hand where the balance is very dangerous (see their chapter 5… "Competing without a known fit"). One example they give is somewhat similar hand. In the balance seat after a 2S opening bid, they recommend pass with 3-2-2-6 with at least as good a Club suit (KJ987x), the Kx of hearts and the Q of diamonds. I think this hand falls directly into the same category.

Before I read Robson, I would have balanced back in by bidding 2S 100% of the time with this hand. Today, despite the excellent advice of R/S I would still find it hard to pass, which I think might be their suggestion. If West had fewer hearts and more diamonds or clubs, I think would argue more for bidding (of course, I may not understand their views correctly, so if this is entirely stupid concept I probably misunderstood their point). Today, despite their suggestion with a partner who plays scrambling 2NT I fear I would balance back in with this hand anyway. However, in this case when I do balance (it is very close), I would balance with a double, hoping partner might choose to bid a 3 card spade suit instead of risking a 4 card minor. If partner has 2 four card minors, he might bid a scrambling 2NT allowing me to pick my better minor (given the nature of the 2H bid). And if he has Hearts…well, then potentially yummy. On this hand, it turns out pass is best. You can crush 2H probably 2 and maybe 3, but if you double, they will clearly find their cold 3D contract. But give credit to where credit is due… if I read robson/segal right, they would suggest the winning pass.

Further questions..

[1] Does having three little hearts sway you towards not balancing at all on this hand?
[2] How bad is reopening double with 5-3-2-3 here be and do you play reopen double shows more on this auction than reopening suit bid?

BTW, Robson/Segal book is out of print but look for Robson/Segal with your favorite search engine and you can find their very useful book in PDF format on the internet for.... tada....free
[Move][glow=yellow,3,4]FREE!!![/glow][/move]
Fred use to have a link to it on the BBO homepages "link" page. But that link is broken right now. The book is not really useful for the casual reader or players below strong intermediate, but I find it very useful.  

[inquiry]

Whoops... yes, good point Wotan... This was imp game in the main club at the BBO. I think your answer is pretty right on, but EAST is a real champion I assure you...but let only those among us who have never made such "mistakes" cast stones at the bid.   >

So that is one no balance....

[inquiry]

Quote

Yes, I would pass at Imps. I had a thought just now about my response above as well. If you are prepared to forgo a natural 2NT bid, you can use 2NT as a raise here as well eg
(2H P (P) 2S
(P) 2NT
2NT can show a fine raise to 3S and this now allows for a long suit trial
3S can be a courtesy raise. With the given hand I would bid 3S as I don't want pd to stop protecting if he has made a bid with say the given hand.
Dropping 2NT as a natural invite is not as drastic as it sounds. How often is 2NT exactly the right contract? I would be prepared to either pass, or at Imps where I cannot afford  to drop a game, bid 3NT.

Cheers
Ron

Hmmm. I am a big supporter of not playing 2NT contracts. I use 2NT for almost anything but natural (lebehshol, scrambling, good bad, jordon, limit raise or better for partner in most competitive auctions)... so giving it's natural meaning is something I freely do. Here, however, I think I would prefer not to give it up its natural meaning (but I will think about it some more).

Here is why. If partner has Spade fit and wants to encourage, he can always invite with a 3H bid, but when he had hearts and no fit for spades and was sort of hoping you would have reopened with a double what is he to do? Pass and play a 5-1 or 5-2 spade fit? Close his eye and bid a hopeful 3NT (since 2NT only gets you higher in spades). I think a jump to 3NT on a misfit is way more likely to hang  your partner than a jump to 4S on a fit (your problem with the too agreesive 4S bid on the example hand). So if your partner doesn't fit 2NT maybe the only safe spot, or may allow you to introduce a second suit. So for now, this is one auction where I still play 2NT as natural and no fit.

[hrothgar]

Quote

After 20+ viewers of this post and no response, so I decided to go ahead and post what I think is interesting about this little hand (probably just me interested anyway). However, when a world-champion drops 13 imps on what should be a part-score hand, it is time to sit up and take notice, and that is exactly what happened on this hand. Now I think this was a pick up partnership on their very first board facing a convention not frequently used in the USA, so it is very unfair to try be too critical of anyone, but the bidding went.

N  E  S  W
2H-P-P-2S
P-4S-X-P
P-P

The hands were (sorry for the huge space before the hands show up, something is not working right with the table function... just scroll down if necessary) [table] [tr] [td]              [/td] [td] void [/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td] [/td] [td] K8532[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]KQ853     [/td] [td]AK542    [/td] [td] J62 [/td]  [/tr]
[tr] [td] T76 [/td] [td]T98 [/td] [td] AJ94 [/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td] Q97 [/td] [td] [/td] [td] T3 [/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td] Q7 [/td] [td] AT974 [/td] [td] A652 [/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]  [/td] [td] Q [/td] [td] [/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]  [/td] [td] J83 [/td] [td] [/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]  [/td] [td] KJ43 [/td] [td] [/td] [/tr][/table]

I found some fault on this hand for each of the players, but no decision was too aggregious.  

While I enjoyed reading your write-up very much, I think that your analysis contains a couple critical flaws; both of which are linked to a single conceptual error.

I want to first point out a couple quotes from your analysis:

"Playing the "dutch 2" convention that NS used, with South's hand I would bid 2S, and if partner can't stand spades, I would expect him to bid 3 of his minor. This way, NS could get out of a horrible 5-1 Heart fit and into a possible 5-3 or 5-2 spade fit or into no worse than a 4-3 minor fit"

and

"East probably thought that West would have to be short in hearts for this balancing bid."

I'm not sure that you appreciate that there is a casual link between these two actions.  

East ASSUMED that South's decision to pass 2H rather than scrambling to find a better fit implied Heart tolerance if not support.  Ergo, he decided that his 3 card Heart holding suggested short hearts in partner's hand.  In this case, you are criticizing South for his initial pass on a singleton, however, it was this action that directly lead to a massive swing for his side.

With this said and done, I think that your crucial error is assuming that South's optimal strategy is to deterministically select a specific bid with his hand.  In this case, you say that it is best for South to bid 2S.  In actuality, the optimal strategy for South is almost certainly a mixed strategy equilibrium in [hypothetically] South will chose to bid

2S        70% of the time
Pass     20% of the time
2NT     10% of the time

I haven't run the numbers, but it seems likely that 2S would be the most likely bid with the hand in question, however, this does not mean that 2S should be bid all the time.  At the same time, it is extremely dangerous to look at a single hand in isolation and try to draw inferences about the strategy that is being employed.  It may be MUCH more complicated than is readily apparent.  

My perspectives about bidding theory are almost certainly warped by the fact that I did most of my academic work in the field of game theory.  For what it's worth, I think that the concept of so-called "mixed strategies" is the single weakest part of player's bidding arsenal.  Far too many players are inexorably wedding to the idea that there is a single best  bid with any given hand and refuse to see the benefits implicit in a strategic randomization.

[inquiry]

Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate the need to mix up bidding, signalling, and even card play (such as standard card combination where you play one card one time and another at a different one to double cross declearer), so I will not overly address those aspects of your comments as it relates to bidding. But I certainly do realize (as you pointed out) that the huge win NS on this board is a direct result of the pass with South's these cards. But, the purpose of my post is that NS can (and maybe should?) have avoided the 12.87 imp lose, and instead won 4.87 imps for a simple pass. NS could have won at least 2.47 imps for getting to 3D on their own (3D would have scored even more if the +800 for 4Sx was not included in the results. The entire swing would be from a -100 to -150 for 2H down 2 to 3, to +110 to +130 for 3D making 3/4).

You said that my statement that "East probably thought that West would have to be short in hearts for this balancing bid" was a conceptional error. Well, I disagree. First off it was stated as a speculation. By definition, I don't think that can ever be a critical flaw. In fact, if East played Robinsol/Segal, the 2S bid surely show 2 or 1 H as I pointed out my view is that they would recommend passing with the hand West actually held (again, unless I misunderstand their view, which is THE reason I posted this hand to statt a discussion on the merits of balancing with this type of hand holding three small cards in the opponents suit... in fact if you tend to pass with this hand, your partner has everyright to expect you to have 2 or 1 even without looking at four cards in the suit in his own hand). Therefore I think East thinks West is short in hearts not because South choose to pass and he himself holds four hearts, but because West choose to balance.

So while what you said You stated that "East ASSUMED that South's decision to pass 2H rather than scrambling to find a better fit implied Heart tolerance if not support." is clearly partially right (2H by South would be a common holding I think), I contend that East can assume West has at most 2H for reasons stated above as well.

Your "Ergo, he decided that his 3 card Heart holding suggested short hearts in partner's hand" lost me, since East has 4 Hearts not 3. And while you said I was critical of South, I actually hedge this two ways. First, I said no one did anything "too aggregious" and second, I simply said what I would have bid with South's hand... mentioning that the pass could have resulted in (amongst others) missing a laydown 4S NS way on some hands.

I suspect your analysis that 2S, 2NT, and PASS should be mixed up and bid at different times to keep an air of uncertainty is strategically the right concept, however your estimate that bidding 2S at 70% of the time suggest perhaps you too, like me would "most often" bid 2S with this hand. As an aside, I would never bid 2NT with this hand... because I don't play that as "tell me your minor", but rather use it as Lebehnshol forcing partner to bid 3C. This way if I have 7C I can get to my minor (or to diamonds with say 7D). Instead, I play 2H-p-3C as the pass/correct to partner's minor... so I suspect for me, your 2NT bid would be exchanged for 3C (what is my 3D bid then? It is a game try in my partners announced major). I would reverse the numbers for pass and 3C however, as I am more likely to bid 3C (pass/correct) than pass with one H in the hopes they might think they have spades and balance back in. If it was west with 4H clearly he would always pass, so I think pass with 1H and values should be very rare indeed.

But again, this post is about balancing with West hand (and hopefully, eventually, a discussion of the merits of passing or bidding on with three small in opponents suit and an "average" hand stregnthwise) not about was 2H an overbid, or pass of 2H a clever strategy. Actually, IMHO, the worse bid was the leap to 4S, but that is another story. I really am interested in peoples thoughts on the merits of balancing here with this specific type of hand.

[gmeier]

If you all could compile a preliminary list of typical places one might use these mixed strategies ( we are talking now - particularly in the bidding ) for us to think about ?!

After all, don't want to feel those hours reading books on Game Theory was completely wasted !?