[aliyah]

In this case I will simply pass as sometimes the impulsive bidding habbits lead to game bids by opponents and eventually doubled by your partner. In most of the cases i have experienced that freakish distributed hands make. So for me best is to pass.

[Edmunte1]

4♣ for me. An important thing for a partnership is to define a minim/maximum on certain actions. Let's suppose that a 11 hcp with singleton diamond or a 13 hcp with doubleton in diamonds are minimums for double. We will consider that a king over this minimum is an average double (and partener should be aware of that). Now let's consider some typical average hands for partner:

a) ♠AKxx ♥AKxx ♦x ♣xxxx - 4♣ is the limit
♠AQxx ♥Axxxx ♦x ♣Axx - 5♣
c) ♠KQxx ♥KQxxx ♦x ♣AQx - 4♣

d)AKJx AKxx xx Qxx - 4♣
e)Axxx AKxx xx Axx -5♣
f)KQxx AKxx xx AQx -4♣
g)Axxx Kxxx Ax AQx - 5♣

Some remarks:
- partener should have ♠A or not wasted points in spades
- partner should have A or Q in trumps and at least 3 cards
-♥Q is often an unimportant card (if partener has only the king, the finesse works)
- partner can easily be in a GOSH double with such a long suit in our hand
- the win/loss report doesn't favour bidding the game. Suppose that 5♣ has 25% chance of success (versus a minimum/average double), then:
- win: 0.25 x 10 IMP(600-150) =2.5
- loss: 0.75 x 6 IMP(130+100) =4.5 ( I didn't take in consideration that sometimes you'll get doubled and sometimes you'll go down in 4♣ also, so the loss could be 400, 330, 100)
- sometimes you have to pay the preempts. I think is more frequent the case when a preempt pushes you into wrong contract or too high, than when you miss a game.
- I don't feel any regrets any regrets when partner will put down a perfect Axxx Ajxx x Axxx. That's bridge, the matter is to win more frequent , not to win THIS board.

[Codo]

4 ♣ agreeing with edmunte.

But of course this does very much depend on your overall style.
So, what do you bid with 5521? With 5512?
Do you double with 13+ HCPs and 4423? With 9 and 4414?
Will you bid on with the slightest excuse after a noise from pd?

But the main point is: Pd was in the pass out seat. He knows, that we have to be less aggressive then after a direct double. And he has high hopes, that we will produce some tricks. So he may bid game anyway with a fairly good hand. Not yet with Axxxx, AJxx, x, Axx but okay, I have missed better games before.

[inquiry]

Edmunte1, on Apr 16 2007, 05:39 AM, said:

4♣ for me. An important thing for a partnership is to define a minim/maximum on certain actions. Let's suppose that a 11 hcp with singleton diamond or a 13 hcp with doubleton in diamonds are minimums for double. We will consider that a king over this minimum is an average double (and partener should be aware of that). Now let's consider some typical average hands for partner:

a) ♠AKxx ♥AKxx ♦x ♣xxxx - 4♣ is the limit
♠AQxx ♥Axxxx ♦x ♣Axx - 5♣
c) ♠KQxx ♥KQxxx ♦x ♣AQx - 4♣

d)AKJx AKxx xx Qxx - 4♣
e)Axxx AKxx xx Axx -5♣
f)KQxx AKxx xx AQx -4♣
g)Axxx Kxxx Ax AQx - 5♣

Not that I think edumte1's hands are representative of the typical distribution of hands one would run across for the double, but being vul at imps, lets see how his hands stack up with a 4♣ bid.....

a) ♠AKxx ♥AKxx ♦x ♣xxxx - 4♣ is the limit

And you wil play 4♣

♠AQxx ♥Axxxx ♦x ♣Axx - 5♣

Abnd you will play 4♣, missing game

c) ♠KQxx ♥KQxxx ♦x ♣AQx - 4♣

And you will play 4♣

d)AKJx AKxx xx Qxx - 4♣

Actually, 4♣ has slight chance to go down, but you will play 4♣

e)Axxx AKxx xx Axx -5♣

You will play 4♣

f)KQxx AKxx xx AQx -4♣

You will play 4♣

g)Axxx Kxxx Ax AQx - 5♣

You will play 4♣

So lets see. Game made on 3 of these 7, or 43% of the time. You bid it VUL at imps, never. I am sure someone knows the precise odds for when you should bid a vulnerable game at imps, but lets just round it off and say it is somewhere around 38%. Even if it was 40%, the strategy of bidding only 4♣ on this distrubution of hands is clearly wrong by the examples given.

And there are reasonable examples where if you bid 4♣ you will play there and miss a nice 6♣ contract, which we don't even factor in because no such reopeners hand was shown.

Now, when I answered originally, I said, "At imps, I am not going to languish in 4♣ with this hand. I will bid 5♣ and hope for the best." This answer was based upon the problem proposed. The hand was at IMPs and we were VULnerable. The hope for the best implied that on a lot of hands, I would be going down. But clearly the odds of making are sufficient to justify under these conditions a bid of 5♣. At matchpoints, or at IMPS not vul, there is a lot more reason to condsider a bid 4♣, but at IMPs vul? The math of the situtation says bid on!!!! Edmunte1 proposed bidding game has only a 25% chance to make, I suggest it has around a 40% to make, and bidding 5 maybe the only way to get to six on other hands. And if partner has a GOSH hand (good one suited hand), he should have bid it not doubled at this level.

[Rossoneri]

000002, on Apr 16 2007, 06:20 AM, said:

i study this quetion half month about 2years ago,and conclude the conclusion 5winner tricks is the basic frame of referrence in T/O-DBL's hand.
then ,assume decider has n winner tricks ,(n-1) is bidding level to decide.

in this case,we hold 6♣ winner and ♥ q,(6-1)=5 is synoptical eduction.


regards 000002

Don't quite get you...

[mikeh]

I bid 5♣. While I usually agree with Josh's comments, on this one I have to disagree. The lack of a raise by the favourable vul. opps means little here, since I expect that LHO holds a moderate high card hand with majors and so had little reason to further the preempt. Give LHO KJxx K109x Kxx xx and should he really be advancing the preempt after my pass?

If 4♣ carried any invitational connotations at all, then it would have more attraction, but it is what I would bid with xx xx xxx Qxxxxx, and my hand is several tricks better than that. In fact, if partner raised 4♣ to game, I'd suspect I was about to miss a slam (and, please, let no-one suggest that we bid 4♣ and then raise 5♣ to slam).

5♣ comes with no guarantees but I'd rather bring back the occasional -100 (or even 200) than the occasional +150.

[mhais]

i will bid 5c

[Edmunte1]

My 7 examples were average hands (14-15 with singleton ♦, 16-17 with doubleton), and 5♣ is below average for them. For weaker hands the probability of making is lower. I think 25% is not a bad estimation

[jdonn]

This problem reminds me a little of a hand I had a few years ago, in the finals of a large knockout.

AQx - Txx KT98xxx, both vul, LHO deals.

3♥ DBL 4♥ ?

Of course I was an optimistic youngster, and I just couldn't get example hands for partner like KJxx xx Axxx Axx (not even worth a double) out of my head. I convinced myself to bid 6♣. They led a heart and partner came down with

KJxx Qxx KJxx AQ

Maybe some people would bid 3NT or pass instead of doubling, but it's not the worst bid ever made. Anyway I toiled for a bit and when both diamonds were off I went down 1. This lost us the match, whereas bidding and making 5♣ would have won it. But the real reason I learned a lesson was the bidding at the other table.

3♥ P P P

I learned several lessons from that which I have never forgotten.

Partner does not always have a singleton in the opponent's suit or 3 aces (or even 2) when he doubles their preempt. Sometimes hands with strength just have to act.
Sometimes partner has already won you the board just by acting, so there is no reason to get greedy.
Timeless advice - stay fixed!

People on both sides of this debate are generally making good points. I will stick with 4♣. But I admit I'm curious to see what partner actually held in this case.

[Joe de Balliol]

I bid 5♣ without much thought, on the grounds of "look how much worse my hand might be".

And yes, I want partner to be protecting with hands where 5♣ has no play - but those are worst-case scenarios. There are plenty of minimum hands he could have where slam is pretty decent. [xxxx AJxx x Axxx is one such]

[cnszsun]

jdonn, on Apr 17 2007, 03:29 AM, said:

But I admit I'm curious to see what partner actually held in this case.

This is what my partner held:

---

Did it make this problem more intersting?
At table, i bid 5♣, my lho doubled.

♥K lead and ♣ shift, ♣s 2-2, ♠K offside, maybe i could play better, but i lost 800 at last.

What do you think now looking at the whole hand?

[mike777]

Well I asked the question before, in balance seat at the three level how many "working" hcp do we expect partner to have along with shortness?

[jdonn]

I definitely think partner's double was the right bid. Bidding a major risks you being short there but long in the other one, and bidding 4♦ removes 3 of the possibilities that could have worked out well: you passing the double, you bidding 3NT, or you stopping in 3 of a major. Meanwhile the chance you will bid clubs in response is very slim, and when you do you tend to have very long clubs, as here.

[Joe de Balliol]

jdonn, on Apr 17 2007, 12:28 AM, said:

Bidding 4♦ removes 3 of the possibilities that could have worked out well: you passing the double, you bidding 3NT, or you stopping in 3 of a major.

Thing is, all of these are far more likely to be successful at matchpoints, when I'd agree with double. At IMPs I prefer 4♦ on the grounds that it doesn't misrepresent your hand.

[mike777]

cnszsun, on Apr 16 2007, 07:08 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 17 2007, 03:29 AM, said:

But I admit I'm curious to see what partner actually held in this case.

This is what my partner held:

---

Did it make this problem more intersting?
At table, i bid 5♣, my lho doubled.

♥K lead and ♣ shift, ♣s 2-2, ♠K offside, maybe i could play better, but i lost 800 at last.

What do you think now looking at the whole hand?

I am not saying this hand is easy ....but is pass really not an option?

[000002]

Rossoneri, on Apr 16 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

000002, on Apr 16 2007, 06:20 AM, said:

i study this quetion half month about 2years ago,and conclude the conclusion 5winner tricks is the basic frame of referrence in T/O-DBL's hand.
then ,assume decider has n winner tricks ,(n-1) is bidding level to decide.

in this case,we hold 6♣ winner and ♥ q,(6-1)=5 is synoptical eduction.


regards 000002

Don't quite get you...

what is "don't quite get you ..." meaning in english?




regards 000002

[000002]

i ever make 7♠ and opps down 5 meanwhile they bid 6♠ only.
it's wrong when anyone decide a rule based on a special hand.


i am surprised who bid T/O with 2Aces only.
i think we all consider this T/O is correct and criterion.
it's fallacy of course when T/O is original skew and intentionally distort.


regards
000002

[jdonn]

mike777, on Apr 17 2007, 04:59 AM, said:

I am not saying this hand is easy ....but is pass really not an option?

Yes, pass is really really really not an option.

[mikeh]

The actual hand is largely irrelevant to the discussion of the best call as advancer.

We all know that the balancing double can be flawed: both in terms of high card strength and, to a lesser degree, shape. We have seen an example of a highly flawed takeout double that resulted in a terrible result for the 5♣ bidders. Yet the double could equally well (some would say 'would be more normally") be based on Axxx AJxx x QJxx: and we would hear that 4♣ got us to +150 while 5♣ got us to game... not to mention the occasional slam we would reach via 5♣ and not 4♣.

We tend to focus on the problem situations: the bids that work out particuarly well or particularly poorly, and there is a powerful temptation to use these abnormal outcomes as guides to the proper approach. This is a terrible way to try to learn the game. On this hand, both the balancing double and the aggressive 5♣ call contributed to a disaster... so what? On another day, each action would have found a different advancing hand and we might have found a great contract... and never seen the hand posted, because the result would be seen as 'normal'.

Preempts work... and this one is an example of why. Shrug, get on with the game, and DON'T try to learn any other great lessons from the hand.