[kfgauss]

Gerben42, on May 8 2006, 01:34 PM, said:

Well here is the problem one 1♠ opener had:

p p 1♠ 3♦ (intermediate)
Dbl p ?

A fine example of our opening going wrong with partner probably having misjudged a competitive situation (by acting over 3♦ when we probably should've passed it out).

In any case, I now close my eyes and bid 3♠.

Andy

[han]

I think that (especially when playing online against weaker players) it would be good to alert a third seat opening as "could be very light". The danger is that you only remember to do this when you actually are light.

[foo]

Gerben42, on May 8 2006, 08:34 AM, said:

Well here is the problem one 1♠ opener had:

p p 1♠ 3♦ (intermediate)
Dbl p ?

Which is easier: taking 9 tricks, perhaps on a misfit and definitely with less than 20 HCP; or taking 5 tricks?

AKTxx.xx.xxx.xxx has 2 Quick, AKA Honor, AKA Power, Tricks.
Responder's Negative X implies that they have 2-S, so both your A & K rate to take tricks on defence.
In fact, unless GOP has 6+H there is a mild implication that the deal is a misfit.

Pass 3DX.

Is it guaranteed to work? Nope. Will you sometimes get a bad score? Yep.
But it is the percentage action.


...and BTW, opening this hand 1S in 3rd is not a psyche partially because you do have those two Quick/Honor/Power tricks.

AKTxx.xx.xxx.xxx is definitely a better 3rd seat 1S opening than a 12 HCP 4333 w/o any A's or K's 1m opening would be. Probably better than a 3rd seat 1N= 12-14 opening on such Quacky trash would be as well.

Yet no one would give you trouble for opening said 12 HCP hand 1m or 1N= 12-14 (except possibly GOP after you get a bad score!)

Neither a 1S nor a 2S opening in 3rd seat with the OP hand should be considered
illegal or unethical.

[luis]

Hannie, on May 8 2006, 06:13 PM, said:

I think that (especially when playing online against weaker players) it would be good to alert a third seat opening as "could be very light". The danger is that you only remember to do this when you actually are light.

The danger is being called names when you alert "could be very light" when you have 17 and they go for 1400 after pd redoubles their "protective" takeout double :-)

I guess there is nothing to alert unless you have special agreements with your pd to handle the third hand opening.

Luis

[han]

The namecalling argument is (insert word of choice here). If you have the agreement that you can open 1S on a 7-count (and you certainly have that, explicitly or implicitly, judging from your earlier posts) then you should let your opponents know.

[han]

I dislike the pass that foo suggests after 1S-(3D)-Dbl-(p). My passed-hand partners rarely have 3 defensive tricks for their negative doubles, so 3DX is likely to be a very bad spot. I would bid 3S and expect to play there undoubled a fair amount of the time. LHO has just described her hand and RHO may not be able to double.

[kfgauss]

foo, on May 8 2006, 06:38 PM, said:

Pass 3DX.

Is it guaranteed to work? Nope. Will you sometimes get a bad score? Yep.
But it is the percentage action.

Pass is likely best at MPs (we've probably lost the board already if we have to bid 3S), but at imps I'm willing to hope they won't double me in 3S and not willing to give up 3Dx= more than half the time.

I admit I'll perhaps be doubled when I'm down 3 or more in 3S. This is a nasty situation and I'm not certain passing is best given the various factors. A simulation could be interesting.

Andy

[cherdano]

luis, on May 8 2006, 08:50 PM, said:

Hannie, on May 8 2006, 06:13 PM, said:

I think that (especially when playing online against weaker players) it would be good to alert a third seat opening as "could be very light". The danger is that you only remember to do this when you actually are light.

The danger is being called names when you alert "could be very light" when you have 17 and they go for 1400 after pd redoubles their "protective" takeout double :-)

I guess there is nothing to alert unless you have special agreements with your pd to handle the third hand opening.

Luis

Luis, I am sometimes very much surprised about your views on legal issues.

If you have a special unexpected agreement about a bid, then you should alert it (details to be left to the SO). Even if you don't have special unexpected ways to handle the followups of this bid.

Do you disagree with any of this? If no, the only question is whether an opening bid in 3rd seat that can be this weak is alertable according to your SO, but if in doubt I definitely think you should!

Arend

[Al_U_Card]

Bidding 2S loses all of the advantages that count (drury control etc.) but precludes the possibility of an illegal bid (or a psych if you will). Against quality opps none would object to 1S being thrown out there as a legitimate bid. Against your typical BBO denizens I think that 2S covers your bases.

[luis]

cherdano, on May 8 2006, 07:06 PM, said:

luis, on May 8 2006, 08:50 PM, said:

Hannie, on May 8 2006, 06:13 PM, said:

I think that (especially when playing online against weaker players) it would be good to alert a third seat opening as "could be very light". The danger is that you only remember to do this when you actually are light.

The danger is being called names when you alert "could be very light" when you have 17 and they go for 1400 after pd redoubles their "protective" takeout double :-)

I guess there is nothing to alert unless you have special agreements with your pd to handle the third hand opening.

Luis

Luis, I am sometimes very much surprised about your views on legal issues.

If you have a special unexpected agreement about a bid, then you should alert it (details to be left to the SO). Even if you don't have special unexpected ways to handle the followups of this bid.

Do you disagree with any of this? If no, the only question is whether an opening bid in 3rd seat that can be this weak is alertable according to your SO, but if in doubt I definitely think you should!

Arend

Our SO has always understood that openings in third seat can be light and therefore any opening with about 7-10 hcp is non-alertable unless you have some special agreements with your pd that should be mentioned.

Playing online with a pickup pd I think it is normal to open 1♠ and not alert anything, it's part of bridge that you can have a light hand in third seat.

Luis

[foo]

Hannie, on May 8 2006, 02:02 PM, said:

I dislike the pass that foo suggests after 1S-(3D)-Dbl-(p). My passed-hand partners rarely have 3 defensive tricks for their negative doubles, so 3DX is likely to be a very bad spot. I would bid 3S and expect to play there undoubled a fair amount of the time. LHO has just described her hand and RHO may not be able to double.

Let's look at this from a mathematical and Bridge Logic POV.

1= GOP has shown shape and values appropriate to making a Negative X over a Intermediate 3D bid. Their most likely hand is 2-S, 44 in the roundeds, and Invitational values.
Note that invitational hands most often do have 3 defensive tricks.
If GOP does not have 3card S support, there is a very good chance the hand is a misfit where We have ~17-18 HCP and They have contracted for 9 tricks without a fit.
What would we do w/o the X present? We'd defend. Risks are higher because of our light 3rd seat opening, but the math and logic remain the same.

2= Your pass does not end the auction. It tells the table you'd rather defend than play, particularly in the presence of a misfit, and that is the exact truth. They may not want to play 3DX...

Please note I'm not =happy= to be in this situation, but once here my job is to try and make the best of it.

[kfgauss]

kfgauss, on May 8 2006, 07:03 PM, said:

foo, on May 8 2006, 06:38 PM, said:

Pass 3DX.

Is it guaranteed to work?  Nope.  Will you sometimes get a bad score?  Yep.
But it is the percentage action.

Pass is likely best at MPs (we've probably lost the board already if we have to bid 3S), but at imps I'm willing to hope they won't double me in 3S and not willing to give up 3Dx= more than half the time.

I admit I'll perhaps be doubled when I'm down 3 or more in 3S. This is a nasty situation and I'm not certain passing is best given the various factors. A simulation could be interesting.

Andy

Simulation results:

I had Jack analyze 1000 deals. Expected total points:

3Dx: -374
4C(x or not depending on actual hand): -1151

So they do make 3D often, but bidding 4C is terrible (Jack only considered bidding 4C, not 3S).

To see how 3S does vs 3D and prune out hands that Jack shouldn't have been including, I looked at 10 hands, throwing ones out that would've been bid differently by humans. The results:

3Dx+1: 1
3Dx= : 6
3Dx-1: 3
Expected total points: -309

3S-1: 2
3S-2: 3
3Sx-3: 3
3Sx-4: 2
Expected total points: -350

(The times I thought they'd double exactly coincided with the times we were going down 3 or more, which makes sense.)

Expected total points is a reasonable way to measure this (as opposed to imps) because we have no idea what's going on at the other table.

Thus I stand corrected and, at least against opponents who aren't afraid to double, one should just pass out 3Dx according to my simulation.

Andy

Edit: These results are very close, of course, and the sample size is small. Also, there were hands where one needed to defend well to set, such as:

Partner leads ♠J and dummy is Q98x J9xx J KQxx. Declarer plays low from dummy. What's your plan?

Solution hidden:

Spoiler

Partner has Jx KQxx xxx AJxx and you need to overtake and return a heart to set.