[Rebound]

Scoring: IMP

After partner (North) opens 1NT, LHO doubles your 2♦ transfer.

---

I elected to raise 2♥ to 3 only, devaluing based on lack of controls and quacks. Would you bid game instead? What factors, for example, form of scoring, vulnerability, the double of 2♦, would make any difference to your decision?

The actual result (hidden):

Spoiler

More than half the field was in game, making. I made +200.

The more I look at the hand the less I like the idea of bidding 4♥. What's the flaw in my reasoning?

[HeartA]

Rebound, on Jan 2 2007, 11:07 PM, said:

I elected to raise 2♥ to 3 only, devaluing based on lack of controls and quacks. Would you bid game instead? What factors, for example, form of scoring, vulnerability, the double of 2♦, would make any difference to your decision?

4♥ of course. With 6th ♥ and 9 count, I would bid 4H without second thought.

[mikestar]

In most of my partnerships we play this as Larry Cohen recommends: after a double of the transfer opener completes the transfer only with three trumps, passing with a doubleton, tending to superaccept with 4 even if minimum. So game is more obvious opposite guaranteed 3 card-support.

[Rebound]

Well, fair enough. The acceptance of the transfer depite the double certainly adds to the argument in favor of 4♥. Now, what if there was no double? It sounds like you'd go to game anyway. I dunno. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me. I guess I need to re-evaluate my evaluating.

[whereagles]

The point is LHO's dbl doesn't guarantee AKJ in the suit, so your queen might still be worth something. Hence the raise to 4 should still be done.

[cherdano]

Rebound, on Jan 3 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

Well, fair enough. The acceptance of the transfer depite the double certainly adds to the argument in favor of 4♥. Now, what if there was no double? It sounds like you'd go to game anyway. I dunno. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me. I guess I need to re-evaluate my evaluating.

With a balanced 9-count you usually invite or bid game, rarely you pass. This time you have a balanced 9-count with a reasonable 6-card suit. The 6-card suit is such a big plus that it more than makes up for the negatives on this hand: Qx and Jx. (They are not such huge minuses opposite a strong balanced hand anyway, as they are likely to meet touching honors in partner's hand.)

I think point count isn't so bad here: 9+2 (for the 6-card suit) = 11, then you adjust a little for badly placed honors - and you are still looking at a hand that's worth 10-10.5 points, so a game force opposite a strong NT.

I like downgrading for quacks, but I think here you were overdoing it a little (and it makes more sense opposite a possibly unbalanced partner).

[Winstonm]

At imps the reward is for bidding and making game, not for fine tuning a great stop, and for the stop to be right you have be right every time, vul. especially. +240 verses -450 - and stops assume perfect defense. (This problem is harder at MPs)

Along with hand evaluation (agree this hand should be slightly devalued), you have an 8-loser hand opposite an opening NT, suggesting a 6-loser hand. The combined loser count suggests 10 tricks are available.

I would have simply made a Texas transfer the first time - Mike Lawrence put it best when he said that "Slam bidding is a science; game bidding is not."

[inquiry]

An easy hand for a bridgebrowser study...

Opening bid 15-17 balanced
Second hand 6322 with 7-8 points (give less than you held) and a six card suit to the QJxxxxx (can not give tens or nines to bridgebrowser, some will have T and 9, others not). And exactly one control.

I did a quick test on one database using only MATCHPOINTS hands (everyone will agree to bid game vul at imps)... bidding game was the clear winner (the big winner turns out to be 3NT, but that is a different issue). Bidding 2H and 3H on such hands was worth 20 and 27%.

[Rebound]

Thanks for all your comments.

Having slept on it, it's pretty clear to me 3♥ was overly timid. Frankly, if you've seen me play, timidity is rarely a problem for me so where this bout of way-too-conservative action came from, I have no idea.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

a simple invite is sensible,
... certainly conservative, but fine.

Depending on your agreements, you
know partner holds only at most xxx
in diamonds, and does not have 4 card
support, may not even have 3 card support,
in case you need xxxx in diamonds to pass.

And if he has only 2 card support, 6-2
fits are not the best fits.

After the dbl, you can devalue the Queen of
diamonds, ... and if it comes to high card strength,
you are min. oppossite a 15-17 NT opener.

If you devalue and bid 3H, you tell partner,
that you have inv. strength and a 6 carder,
adding points for your 6 carder to your strength,
is counting twice.

I probably would bid game anyway, but I quite often
go down.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[neilkaz]

Vulnerable at IMPs I would have Texas'd the hand to game. Not playing Texas, I like my Q of ♦ less but I still think game should be 50/50 and we'll play 4♥ since I have positive expectancy playing 50% games vul at IMPs.

[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on Jan 3 2007, 03:18 PM, said:

An easy hand for a bridgebrowser study...

Opening bid 15-17 balanced
Second hand 6322 with 7-8 points (give less than you held) and a six card suit to the QJxxxxx (can not give tens or nines to bridgebrowser, some will have T and 9, others not). And exactly one control.

I did a quick test on one database using only MATCHPOINTS hands (everyone will agree to bid game vul at imps)... bidding game was the clear winner (the big winner turns out to be 3NT, but that is a different issue). Bidding 2H and 3H on such hands was worth 20 and 27%.

When you did your BB study, did you factor in that opener would accept the game try on some of the hands that end in game? Ie it may not be critical for responder to be the one to take the plunge?

[awm]

Of course, you could just look at the relation between responder's action and the final result, which could tend to factor in some of these things.

But then you run into the common issue of correlation between players' skill level and choice of action -- I'd bet a lot of beginner-level players would look at the hand, count the points, and decide what to do based on total high card points without considering the value of the six-card suit. Whereas advanced-expert players are more likely to bid game based on more aggressive hand evaluation.

In fact I think there was a statistic a while back that "good" (based on Lehman or whatever) players made about the same percentage of games that they bid as players who are "bad" (again based on Lehmans) and that the difference in score had to do with the fact that the good players bid a lot more games (and defended better).

[inquiry]

Jlall, on Jan 3 2007, 02:49 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Jan 3 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

When you did your BB study, did you factor in that opener would accept the game try on some of the hands that end in game?  Ie it may not be critical for responder to be the one to take the plunge?

right the question of whether or not to invite or bid game essentially depends on how good game will be on the hands partner rejects with. that isn't really the whole case though... they may double you if you invite and things are going poorly but not if you bid game, or they may defend better knowing partner has an accept of an invite rather than just any 1N opener. these things make a bridgebrowser study impossible for this purpose.

I gave responder 1 to 2 points LESS than he held in the actual hand from this thread, along with the same degree of Quackyness (only 1 control, thus one king, not aces). Since the average hand was 1.5 ponts less than what was held, I ignored tried to ignroe the "invite" quality of the question. But of course, you both are correct... on some of the hands, opener woudl have accepted the invite (I didn't not do an auction search, just shape and hcp, and controls).. So some of those bidding game may have done better by invitinig and getting pased out, and some bidding game directly may have been raised by their partner. So such a study has some flaws. But one flaw it doesn't have, is that on average, when you table a six card suit to the QJ and a side king opposite a 1NT opening bid, most of the time 10 or more tricks come about. That is what the study showed. I didn't actually do an "auction study", but rather, balanced 15-17 opposite the other hand.. and how did various contract turn out.

So how they got there is not a concern....(i did force the balance hand to be the opener, so no one opened a weak two, however. But that was the only bidding constraint--he didn't have to opne 1NT... )

[pclayton]

Apparently you downgraded this initially. Even if you don't play Texas, there's good reason to still be able to jump to 4 major initially.

Once you downgraded, your fears about the value of the ♦Q were realized when LHO doubled 2♦. This isn't unreasonable, but its sort of a paranoid approach to bidding. Its like saying, "I hate to fly in an airplane". Later you see a crash on the television and it reinforces your initial, irrational fear.

Just bomb this into game and don't worry about the outcome

[000002]

assume the 1nt opener has 4Ace,not so easy to accomplish 4♥.

♦ q ♣ j ♥ qj ,they are all reduced on this hand.


regards 000002

[Rebound]

Honestly, I think on any other day I'd have bid 4♥ with this hand. My concern was the flat 6-3-2-2 shape and that the honours were spread among all 4 suits but upon reflection, this may be a strength given that, as mentioned above, one of these outside honours is bound to be helping partner.

Actually, it's ironic becuase I clearly remember a hand from many moons ago where I surprised my partner (a different one) by blasting to game on a hand weaker than the one above but still holding a 6-card suit and stating it was a matter of hand evaluation - he made easily for a nice result.

[dake50]

6-suit offering some chance of 3 length tricks opposite strong 1NT: game bid but quacks suggest 3NT---xfer and 3NT= p/c.