[Cascade]

Scoring: IMP

2♠ Pass 4♠ ?

---

2♠ = 5♠s and 4+ either minor 6-9 hcp

Do you take any action?

If so what?

If so how much worse would the hand need to be before you pass?

If you pass with this how much better does the hand need to be for you to take an action?

Thanks

[nickf]

X for t/o.

nickf
sydney

[Free]

pass. I'd need a tophonour ♣ to come in the bidding...

[hotShot]

We bid very solid over preempts in 2nd seat, so it's not unlikely that partner has a little something. So if 4♠ can be preemptive, i prefer to bid.

dbl, is for take out here.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Pass, but it is close.
If I enter the auction, than X is
clear cut.

The main problem is, that I lack the
defencive tricks needed, in case
partner is endplayed in passing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

X if this is take-out and I must have at least the ace of Heart less to pass.

[hatchett]

Double, clear cut for me.

[mcphee]

I highly doubt that if I double partner is going to bid anything but pass as he likely holds 3+ trumps. This could be very bad news as I have no idea of the hand the 4S bidder holds. It could be good or poor with trumps and something fitting in both minors. My guess is something like AQxx perhaps xx and minors like AQxx QJx either way, none of which is good for offense nor offers any hope defensively. It is highly likely the 2S opening hand is 5-4 rather than 5-5 as 5-4 is more frequent.

I suspect I am going minus 790 if I double unless partner has the A of D. On the other hand it is possible we could make 5 of a minor. As I doubt the opps are going to redble should partner pass, I think I have to risk dble. Seems to me I have a winner when partner may have only 3 S to the J where passing is less of a consideration than them bidding 4N or a suit over the dble. You bet I would like to have more, but what the heck if I do not act, partner is surely passing 4S. It just seems to me dble offers the most opportunities and might be a big winner producing a very nice digit.

[whereagles]

Double. If pard passes.. oh well, bad luck. I just don't have a better bid available.

[mikeh]

Double seems to be a transfer to -790 or worse

About the best thing that is likely to happen is that RHO will redouble and allow me to bid 4N

I think that this is a wonderful problem: and the strength is precisely on the cusp between a 'wtp' pass and a 'wtp' double. Bridge is not a game to be played in fear so I double, but I do so with no solid conviction.

If I have hestitated an undue length of time (as I might well with this hand) then I pass to avoid the ethical issues.

With a Queen more, double is clear (but I'd hate it): with a Queen less, pass is ok (but I'd hate it). As it is double is unclear and I hate it. Like I said: nice problem.

[luis]

I bid 5♥ bet they can't double it.

Luis

[Salokin]

I would bid, rigthy has not set up a
FP situation with his jump and i do not think that he is
in a position where he could double freely by him self.

With the most of my partners i play that a double is showing
convertible values, which i not have and so i would more
likely making a 4NT t.o. bid. but this need a special agreement.

Salokin

[whereagles]

luis, on Apr 10 2006, 12:32 AM, said:

I bid 5♥ bet they can't double it.

Luis

Maybe they don't need to

[Cascade]

Cascade, on Apr 9 2006, 07:35 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

2♠ Pass 4♠ ?

---

2♠ = 5♠s and 4+ either minor 6-9 hcp

A three part follow-up

1.

I usually evaluate these hands but counting losers and estimating how many cover cards are likely from partner.

Here we have 5 losers (plus the fourth round of both minors). Partner's share of the remaining is 5/3 + something where something is because many losers can be covered in more than one way - a high card in the suit, a ruff, a pitch, a finesse, a break etc.

Here I thought it unlikely that partner would cover 3 of these losers plus I would be able to dispose of or establish both 4th round minor suits.

I probably did not give enough weight to bidding being a possible sacrifice against 4♠ making. Although if you bid with hands that are too weak there is always the problem that when you can make at the five-level partner raises to the six-level. That is probably only a minor consideration when partner has already passed.

2.

At the table I passed when we were making 5♥ and 4♠ was only one-off.

Scoring: IMP

2♠ Pass 4♠ Pass

---

3.

I did a small simulation of this situation using Jack. Jack has a facility where I can generate hands to match the bidding. So I set the convention card to Muiderberg and put in the auction shown and the South hand and generated 24 hands.

I then did a eye-ball analysis of the 24 hands with the aid of double dummy analysis. I didn't quite pick the double dummy result. e.g. I preferred a sequence lead to a more successful alternative lead on some hands etc.

First I compared Pass with 5♥. I IMPed the results and 5♥ won 113-69.

Second I compared Pass with Double. Double won 89-74. If anything Double should have won by a bigger margin there were a couple of hands where it might be possible to get to 6minor after a double but I only gave them 5minor +1.

As I said above my at the table analysis was probably out by so much because I discounted the sacrifice element to bidding (or doubling and enticing partner to bid). One of the biggest recurrent gains of bidding over passing or doubling was when 4♠ was making and the 5-level was a paying sacrifice - sometimes you might even buy it undoubled. Double gained over 5♥ by being more flexible and allowing 4♠X or 5minor contracts.

[pclayton]

What does 113 - 69 mean? Are these the number of cases where a certain action gains over another? If so, I think it needs to be weighted on an IMP average with a std deviation.

I would think 5H would do really bad in a lot of cases where we are cold for 5 or 6 of a minor, when we lose control immediately.

5H is probably faring well because pard isn't inappropriately converting a penalty double.I'd also be curious in Jack's parameters for a pass over a double.

Its something of a lifetime decision with these hands. You either act or you don't. To me, the IMP scale favors action, especially when a double game swing is possible. As soon as you get tired of +100's vs your game, you just get used to acting and letting things happen. Which is sometimes -790 or -1100 of course.

[Blofeld]

pclayton, on Apr 11 2006, 02:14 AM, said:

What does 113 - 69 mean? Are these the number of cases where a certain action gains over another? If so, I think it needs to be weighted on an IMP average with a std deviation.

Wayne says he IMPed the results, so I assume that he means that over the 24 hands, bidding 5♥ gained a total of 113 IMPs and lost 69 versus pass.

[Cascade]

Blofeld, on Apr 12 2006, 12:10 AM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 11 2006, 02:14 AM, said:

What does 113 - 69 mean? Are these the number of cases where a certain action gains over another? If so, I think it needs to be weighted on an IMP average with a std deviation.

Wayne says he IMPed the results, so I assume that he means that over the 24 hands, bidding 5♥ gained a total of 113 IMPs and lost 69 versus pass.

That is exactly right.

[Cascade]

pclayton, on Apr 11 2006, 07:14 PM, said:

What does 113 - 69 mean? Are these the number of cases where a certain action gains over another? If so, I think it needs to be weighted on an IMP average with a std deviation.

I would think 5H would do really bad in a lot of cases where we are cold for 5 or 6 of a minor, when we lose control immediately.

5H is probably faring well because pard isn't inappropriately converting a penalty double.I'd also be curious in Jack's parameters for a pass over a double.

Its something of a lifetime decision with these hands. You either act or you don't. To me, the IMP scale favors action, especially when a double game swing is possible. As soon as you get tired of +100's vs your game, you just get used to acting and letting things happen. Which is sometimes -790 or -1100 of course.

I simulated the hands with Jack up to 2S Pass 4S and then I manually looked at each hand and made what I thought were ok decisions. I am sure there was some error here. And then I stepped through the play with GIB on BBO at a teaching table in what I thought was a likely final contract after the various actions by the given hand.

I hope that makes some sense.