[whereagles]

yeah i meant mirrored minors. sry

[P_Marlowe]

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 07:50 AM, said:

With 22-24 hcp and a 9 card fit, it's good odds 3♣ makes.

That assumes, partner opens
always sound.

Maybe he did opened crap, not
keeping in mind the rebid problem.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

I don't think opener can be 3-1-4-5 but 1-3-4-5 seems completely possible. His 3D bid might even suggest this shape, and perhaps he should wait for that shape before making such a bid. Overcaller had five spades, he could have six, and his partner is a proven passer with three spades, so they could well have nine spades between them. The fact that opponent's minors are mirrored is unlucky (for them if they get doubled, for you if you go on). I don't think anyone did anything to criticize (although no doubt 3D is aggressive), rather I see it as a bunch of close call decisions that could have been right but weren't. It does illustrate the difficulty of applying various rules. Personally, I hope there are more posts describing experiences with the various attempts to apply FLT, LOTT or WHY (= what have you). The poster doesn't even have to be right. There are plenty of folks willing to point out his errors.

Ken

[inquiry]

kenberg, on Jul 11 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

I don't think opener can be 3-1-4-5 but 1-3-4-5 seems completely possible. His 3D bid might even suggest this shape, and perhaps he should wait for that shape before making such a bid.

I am not quite sure why you think opener has to have a singleton to bid 3D. On this auction, if responder had 4C, he might very well bid 3C himself rather than make a speculative double. So for the double, responder surely has 4D's more often than not. Even with 1345 you would not want to play in 2Sx even if you beat it one for the reasons stated above. I don't think you can draw any inference about partners shape (well if he was 3145 he would have passed the double I guesss).

[Wackojack]

There is something here that is mystifying me. It is the assumption about responder's shape. I would have thought that a response of 1nt must have 4 clubs or possibly 5, otherwise would bid the 4 card suit be it diamonds hearts or spades. So if opener does not like to leave in the double of 2s, (say min with 2245) he must bid 3 clubs with 4 or more. A bid of 3 diamonds by opener knowing that responder had 4 clubs and not 4 diamonds must have a hand that is making a game try. Clearly here this is not the understanding..... but why not? To me (coming from an Acol background) it seems wrong in principle to respond 1nt with a 3343 distribution in preference to 1d. But it seems to be the universal assumption with all posters that responder could have 4 diamonds. Is this the 2/1 system? If so I don't like it. btw I am happy with responding 1M with 4 in preference to 1d with 4.

Putting that aside, It has been an interesting tussle between Ben and whereagles. In the argument I am in the Ben camp but enjoy seeing whereagles fighting his corner.

[hrothgar]

Wackojack, on Jul 12 2006, 03:34 AM, said:

There is something here that is mystifying me.  It is the assumption about responder's shape.  I would have thought that a response of 1nt must have 4 clubs or possibly 5, otherwise would bid the 4 card suit be it diamonds hearts or spades.  So if opener does not like to leave in the double of 2s, (say min with 2245) he must bid 3 clubs with 4 or more.  A bid of 3 diamonds by opener knowing that responder had 4 clubs and not 4 diamonds must have a hand that is making a game try.  Clearly here this is not the understanding..... but why not?  To me (coming from an Acol background) it seems wrong in principle to respond 1nt with a 3343 distribution in preference to 1d.  But it seems to be the universal assumption with all posters that responder could have 4 diamonds. Is this the 2/1 system? If so I don't like it.  btw I am happy with responding 1M with 4 in preference to 1d with 4.

I'd bid 1NT with a 3=2=5=3 shape and the right strength...

[kenberg]

inquiry, on Jul 11 2006, 01:50 PM, said:

kenberg, on Jul 11 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

I don't think opener can be 3-1-4-5 but 1-3-4-5 seems completely possible. His 3D bid might even suggest this shape, and perhaps he should wait for that shape before making such a bid.

I am not quite sure why you think opener has to have a singleton to bid 3D. On this auction, if responder had 4C, he might very well bid 3C himself rather than make a speculative double. So for the double, responder surely has 4D's more often than not. Even with 1345 you would not want to play in 2Sx even if you beat it one for the reasons stated above. I don't think you can draw any inference about partners shape (well if he was 3145 he would have passed the double I guesss).

Oh I agree you cannot be certain opener has a stiff spade when he bids 3D. I don't suppose the auction shows a nine card spade fit, but it doesn't deny it either.

I am not particularly defending the 4C bid. Responder, when he must choose, knows that his side holds 16 cards in the minors, their side holds 16 cards in the majors. Often it pays to bid once more in such a situation. Not always. I see it as a tough choice. Getting five defensive tricks in the minors is a bit of a surprise, and then a heart trick comes in because opener shows up with the jack of hearts. Double!

Of course I would have gotten it right.

[chicken]

kenberg, on Jul 11 2006, 09:03 AM, said:

If I understand you correctly, the hand takes 9 tricks in clubs and 7 tricks in spades which means the LOTT also is off by a trick on this hand, in fact maybe more than a trick since double fits suggest upward adjustments.

the lott is rather precise here in my opinion. the positive adjustments for purity (discussable if doublefit=purity) are definately compensated for lack of shape and more important weak honor holding in spades + missing interiors in our diamond suit. (following the law, page 45-46). the adjustment priorities suggest a deduction of 1-1.5 tricks.

[helene_t]

Wackojack, on Jul 12 2006, 02:34 AM, said:

To me (coming from an Acol background) it seems wrong in principle to respond 1nt with a 3343 distribution in preference to 1d.

With 3343 it's quite normal to respond 1NT, unless you want partner to declare. Especially if you tend to open 1♦ with 44m which most people do nowadays. A diamond fit is not really interesting.

This is matchpoints, nobody vulnerable. With a weak hand,you should try to keep opps out of their spades fit. Bypassing a 4-card hearts or a 6-card diamonds would not be absurd. Especially if you play four-cards majors so that opener is less likely to hold a four-card in a major when he opens 1♣.

[Wackojack]

helene_t, on Jul 12 2006, 02:40 AM, said:

Wackojack, on Jul 12 2006, 02:34 AM, said:

To me (coming from an Acol background) it seems wrong in principle to respond 1nt with a 3343 distribution in preference to 1d.

With 3343 it's quite normal to respond 1NT, unless you want partner to declare. Especially if you tend to open 1♦ with 44m which most people do nowadays. A diamond fit is not really interesting.

This is matchpoints, nobody vulnerable. With a weak hand,you should try to keep opps out of their spades fit. Bypassing a 4-card hearts or a 6-card diamonds would not be absurd. Especially if you play four-cards majors so that opener is less likely to hold a four-card in a major when he opens 1♣.

Yes I have become aware from reading this thread that it is normal to by-pass diamonds with a balanced 6-10. My question is why?

Originally and still playing Acol 12-14 no trump, all 1 club openings promise at least 4 clubs. A popular method with balanced 15-19 hands was to bid 4 card suits up the line. Thus 4-4 fits cannot be missed although, of course, one may choose no trumps in favour of a 4-4 minor suit fit. This a simple and workable method which I still play with some partners.

Then I learned to play 5 card majors with 15-17 no trump, and similarly bid up the line with 12-14 and 18-19 balanced hands. Then I studied BBO Advanced and learned about Walsh sructures with check-back. I liked this structure because it right sided the contract, didn't unecessarily give away the existence of a 4 card major and most importantly did not overlook possible minor suit contracts. However, I can only see disadvantages if responder skips a diamond suit when a 4 card major is not held.

Lets take the 3343 distribution with 6-10 points:
1. If responder bids 1nt, the contract is more likely to be wrong sided when opener is balanced.
2. If opener is min with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs and 3-1 in the majors, you will be likely be playing in a generally inferior 5-3 club fit as opposed to a 4-4 diamond fit.
3. If opener is strong and unbalanced you miss out on delicate inferences when investigating the best game or slam.
4. If opponents intervene over the 1nt response you can get problems as encountered in this thread. Much better to let them intervene at the 1 level and go from there.

With a 2353 distribution the problems are magnified. I can't take seriously the skipping of a 6 card diamond suit.

Can anyone persuade me that I am wrong?

[helene_t]

Quote

1.  If responder bids 1nt, the contract is more likely to be wrong sided when opener is balanced.

You have a choice. If you think the contract is better played by partner, it is a case for bidding 1♦.

Quote

2. If opener is min with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs and 3-1 in the majors, you will be likely be playing in a generally inferior 5-3 club fit as opposed to a 4-4 diamond fit.

If you have a minor suit fit, opps have a major suit fit. They won't let you play 2♦. Besides, some would open 1♦ with 45m.

Quote

3. If opener is strong and unbalanced you miss out on delicate inferences when investigating the best game or slam.

Yes, but that may happen anyway if you start with a (somewhat) neboulous 1♦ response and opps preempt.

Quote

4. If opponents intervene over the 1nt response you can get problems as encountered in this thread.  Much better to let them intervene at the 1 level and go from there.

If it's lucrative for opps to intervene at the 2-level, they will do so anyway. Part of the reason for bidding 1NT is that you force the opps to bid at the 2-level even when they'd rather not do so.

It makes a lot of sense what you say, and I'm not arguing that you should always bypass diamonds. Just that it's sometimes right to do so. Nonvulnerable at matchpoints I think it's right more often than not, but I may be wrong.

[hrothgar]

Wackojack, on Jul 12 2006, 02:54 PM, said:

Lets take the 3343 distribution with 6-10 points:

1. If responder bids 1nt, the contract is more likely to be wrong sided when opener is balanced.
2. If opener is min with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs and 3-1 in the majors, you will be likely be playing in a generally inferior 5-3 club fit as opposed to a 4-4 diamond fit.
3. If opener is strong and unbalanced you miss out on delicate inferences when investigating the best game or slam.
4. If opponents intervene over the 1nt response you can get problems as encountered in this thread. Much better to let them intervene at the 1 level and go from there.

Here are my thoughts:

A 1NT advance immediately clarifies both shape and strength.
- You promise at least xx in every suit.
- You narrow your strength down to a 5 HCP range.

I'd argue that you are better positioned in the event of a competitive auction.
Equally significant, your 1♦ advance over 1♣ promises an unbalanced hand and denies a 4 card major unless you have sufficient strength to reverse. Once again, you're very nicely positioned for competitive auctions.

Finally, there is an AWFUL lot to be said for jumping to an acceptable contract as quickly as possible. A 1NT advance forces the opponents to start describing their hands at the 2 level in a no-fit auction.

As to you're specific points

1. You can't have it all. This is all about trade offs. I will note that its rather amusing to see an Acol player who uses a 12-14 NT raising this point. If yuo genuinely believed that its important to have the lead going into the strong hand, you should switch to a 15-17 NT.

2. Personally, I open 1♦ with this shape. (I like my 2♣ rebid to suggest 6+ clubs). Not everyone here will agree with me on this.

3. I don't consider the 1N response to be overloaded.

4. Me, I prefer not having them intervene at all... Best way to do so is to force them to start describing their hands at the 2 level.

[lowerline]

Counting the ♠Q as 2WP is clearly a mistake. Counting the ♥K as 3WP is already optimistic. If partner has a singleton ♠ (very likely), you have a SST of 4. The FTL method now predicts you can take 9 tricks (19-21WPs + SST of 4).

You can not use this method to determine how many tricks you can take on defense. But you "know" that bidding 4♣ is only right when 3♠ makes...

The FTL book clearly states that the method is there to help you in your judgement, not to eliminate your judgement. It was bad judgement to count the ♠Q as 2WPs. That was the real problem. Don't blame the method.

Looking at both hands, you can see that there probably are 9 tricks in ♣. The SST is worse than you expected (5 i.s.o. 4) but there are more WPs to compensate for that.

Note: also the LOTT tells you not to bid 4♣...

[kenberg]

If you believe partner has a singlton spade it is not clear that the LOTT tells you not to bid 4C. They then have nine spades, you have nine clubs, this puts the trick total at 18 (before adjustments). With a singleton spade in dummy, you have a fine play for 9 tricks in clubs, the LOTT then gives them 9 tricks in spades. Further, if you can make 10 tricks in clubs the LOTT gives them 8 in spades. This is mps, and 130 beats 100. This in fact was the scenarion Whereagles envisioned.


Ben doubts you should assume a stiff spade in dummy, and as it turns out there isn't one. But if you believe a stiff spade is in the dummy, I think 4C is clear.

I think the best argument for not bidding 4C is that the king of hearts and the queen of spades are apt to be useful defensive cards, as one of them turns out to be. Actually both are useful since declarer will have entry problems. Still, if you defend and dummy turns up with one club and four diamonds instead of two clubs and three diamonds, you may have a tough time beating 3S. Declarer is threatening to ruff in dummy if partner doesn't start by leading trumps, but if he does lead trumps it may give him the entries and the timing to take five spades and four hearts, or maybe five spades, three hearts and one ruff.

You largely know the shapes here except you don't know if there are stiffs in the minors for the opponents and you don't know if there is a stiff in spades for you. Place a bet, imo.

[whereagles]

Well, when I bid 4♣ it was also because I knew opps had a double fit. I also know they didn't know they had one!

Actually, if their shapes were not mirrored, say 5323 opposite 3541, 3♠ will roll home most of the time.

[inquiry]

kenberg, on Jul 12 2006, 09:21 AM, said:

Ben doubts you should assume a stiff spade in dummy, and as it turns out there isn't one. But if you believe a stiff spade is in the dummy, I think 4C is clear.

I don't understand the "logic" of if you "believe" there is a stiff spade in partners hand, you should bid. IF you are going to use LOTT you should allow the partner use the information at his disposal to make the decision. There is no need for any quess work at all.

Here is the situation...

Opener has shown 45 in the minors and maybe 31, 13, or 22 in the majors, responder is either 43, 44, or perhaps 53/52 (with diamonds).

Here is how I think the bidding should go over 3S... if Responder is:

3-3-4-3, he should double again, we have an 8 card fit, tell partner we lack a nine card fit. With a singlton, partner can still remove, but he knows we lack 4 clubs.

3-3-3-4, he should pass to invite 4C on 9 card fit. This pass, inviting him to bid on, shows we have a nine card fit.

3-3-5-2, With this I would double, but pass is also a reasonable option. If you pass at least you have a nine card diamond fit if partner pulls to 4C

3-2-5-3, here I would simply pull to 4D

3-2-4-4, here I think pass to invite 4C, again showing a 9 card fit.

If responder doubles, showing 2 or 3 clubs, opener should probably respect his wishes. If responder passes, showing 4 clubs, opener is free to use LOTT and his own judgement as to rather or not bid on. And what helps him here? Why the very issue you mention. 1) He nows know about the 9 card fit for us, and he can look in his hand and count the number of spades he holds. If he has one, he can and probably will bid 4C. If he has two (or happy days, 3), he can double. No guess work involved.

What good is LOTT if you "blind guess" in a situation where you and your partner can cooperate to apply it correctly? As I have pointed out, I think whereagles post on this subject are wrong in many ways but one thing he was right on is that after the double of 2S at matchpoints, EW are not going to be allowed to play in 3S undoubled. For better or worse, if this responder passes, surely opener will do something. If this was imps, that might not be the case. Whereagles uses the quality of his spades to decide if double or pass is right. I use the quality of our fit to determine. Doubling with less than 9 card fit for us, and passing with 9 card so partner can determine the best course of action.

[hrothgar]

One point that no one seems to have mentioned yet...

Why did opener pull the double to 3♦ without Heart tolerance?
2NT looks a a lot more flexible...

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Jul 12 2006, 03:04 PM, said:

One point that no one seems to have mentioned yet...

Why did opener pull the double to 3♦ without Heart tolerance?
2NT looks a a lot more flexible...

I didn't ask pard why he bid 3♦, but I think the only reasonable explanation is he expected me to have 4-card diamond.

I would have bid 3♣ on his hand, instead of 3♦. 2NT might be better but I woudn't bid it unless I was 100% sure responder would take that as artificial.

[lowerline]

kenberg, on Jul 12 2006, 09:21 AM, said:

If you believe partner has a singlton spade it is not clear that the LOTT tells you not to bid 4C. They then have nine spades, you have nine clubs, this puts the trick total at 18 (before adjustments).  With a singleton spade in dummy, you have a fine play for 9 tricks in clubs, the LOTT then gives them 9 tricks in spades.  Further, if you can make 10 tricks in clubs the LOTT gives them 8 in spades. This is mps, and 130 beats 100. This in fact was the scenarion Whereagles envisioned.


Ben doubts you should assume a stiff spade in dummy, and as it turns out there isn't one. But if you believe a stiff spade is in the dummy, I think 4C is clear.

I think the best argument for not bidding 4C is that the king of hearts and the queen of spades are apt to be useful defensive cards, as one of them turns out to be.  Actually both are useful since declarer will have entry problems. Still, if you defend and dummy turns up with one club and four diamonds instead of two clubs and three diamonds, you may have a tough time beating 3S. Declarer is threatening to ruff in dummy if partner doesn't start  by leading trumps, but if he does lead trumps it may give him the entries and the timing to take five spades and four hearts, or maybe five spades, three hearts and one ruff.

You largely know the shapes here except you don't know if there are stiffs in the minors for the opponents and you don't know if there is a stiff in spades for you. Place a bet, imo.

You are right about the LOTT. I misread the vulnerablity...
But this makes even a better case for the SST/WP method. It predicts you can only take 9 tricks. You now only have to judge whether 3♠ makes or not...
The original poster bid 4♣ because he made a bad judgment in assessing his WPs.

[kenberg]

lowerline, on Jul 13 2006, 04:58 AM, said:

kenberg, on Jul 12 2006, 09:21 AM, said:

If you believe partner has a singlton spade it is not clear that the LOTT tells you not to bid 4C. They then have nine spades, you have nine clubs, this puts the trick total at 18 (before adjustments).  With a singleton spade in dummy, you have a fine play for 9 tricks in clubs, the LOTT then gives them 9 tricks in spades.  Further, if you can make 10 tricks in clubs the LOTT gives them 8 in spades. This is mps, and 130 beats 100. This in fact was the scenarion Whereagles envisioned.


Ben doubts you should assume a stiff spade in dummy, and as it turns out there isn't one. But if you believe a stiff spade is in the dummy, I think 4C is clear.

I think the best argument for not bidding 4C is that the king of hearts and the queen of spades are apt to be useful defensive cards, as one of them turns out to be.  Actually both are useful since declarer will have entry problems. Still, if you defend and dummy turns up with one club and four diamonds instead of two clubs and three diamonds, you may have a tough time beating 3S. Declarer is threatening to ruff in dummy if partner doesn't start  by leading trumps, but if he does lead trumps it may give him the entries and the timing to take five spades and four hearts, or maybe five spades, three hearts and one ruff.

You largely know the shapes here except you don't know if there are stiffs in the minors for the opponents and you don't know if there is a stiff in spades for you. Place a bet, imo.

You are right about the LOTT. I misread the vulnerablity...
But this makes even a better case for the SST/WP method. It predicts you can only take 9 tricks. You now only have to judge whether 3♠ makes or not...
The original poster bid 4♣ because he made a bad judgment in assessing his WPs.

This hand is, to my mind, a good showcase for the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches. First try it using no algorithms:

Whatever one thinks of opener's 3D bid, when responder has 3S passed back to him, he can reason that opener is 5-4 with most all of his values in the minors. This makes it virtually certain that in a club contract he will score exactly nine tricks in the minors (perhaps by ruffing the last diamond), and a tenth trick depends soley on the location of the ace of hearts. (Against best defense anyway. If LHO begins with AK of spades ....). If the ace of hearts is to the right of the king, 4C will make and 3S will hopefully go down in flames. Suppose the ace is to the left (as it is). It then makes sense to try to estimate the number of tricks available to the opponents in a spade contract. This is tougher. Suppose he decides, perhaps a little optimistically, to give opener Jx in one of the majors. Jx in either major will give the defense a trick in a spade contract. Can they take four more tricks in the minors? It depends on how the ten minor suit cards held by the opponents are arranged. With some arrangements of those ten cards you should bid 4C, with other arrangements you should double 3S. An algorithm can help you decide, but how the opponent's ten minor suit cards are arranged is both important and unknown.

I tend to favor double on the grounds that few points are likely to be on my right (partner opened, I have values, LHO bid) so it might not be so easy for declarer to get to dummy to take the necessary finesses to pick up my major honors, even if partner forgets to be dealt Jx. This tends to lower the number of total tricks. If dummy shows up with a stiff club, partner will not listen to my explanation as they score up 530.


It's a fact that LOTT is off by a trick here (it predicts 17 total tricks but there are 9 in clubs and 7 in spades). Well, LOTT isn't always right and no one says that it is. But here, with the number of total tricks below prediction because of Jx, we should double. If it is higher because of a stiff club in dummy, we need to bid. Same with other algorithms. WP requires you to figure out which cards are W. Flexibility, using the right tool at the right time, seems best.


I feel like I am repeating myself so I won't comment further on this thread, but I will read with interest what others have to say and I hope to see more discussion of competitive bidding decisions and how the various algorithms work in practice.

Best wishes,
Ken