[mike777]

4. Jxx xxx Kxxx Qxx Un Favorable
1S 1NT (semi-force)
3S ??

[pbleighton]

Close.

4s, because it's vulnerable at imps.

Otherwise I would pass, reluctantly.

Peter

[bid_em_up]

4S. How can one consider any other bid?

We could have zero spades for the 1N bid, and we have three. Whether or not they carry any real weight opposite partners probably AKQxxxx is debatable, but we do have support and two filler cards in the minor suits. Partner has invited, and we need to accept.

Pass is for wimps.

3N is for hand hogs. (where is your heart stop by the way?)

Anything else is innovative, to say the least, since 3S is only strongly inviting a spade game. It should not be a hand that failed to open 2C (because it was strong and two suited), so it is improbable that a slam will be missed. Anything else also risks disaster.

[BillHiggin]

4S - just cuz I apparently don't know enough to see any alternative worth considering.

[foo]

mike777, on Jun 5 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

4.    ♠Jxx♥xxx♦Kxxx♣Qxx      Un Favorable
1S    1NT (semi-force)
3S    ??

Last I checked, the Standard meaning of 1M-1N;3M was 15-17 HCP and a good 6+ card suit. I'm going to assume that's what the OP's sequence shows.

You have a =3343 6 count whose playing strength is more typical of 4 HCP than 6 HCP.

Contrary to the 4S mainstream here, I think pass is crystal clear.

If GOP only has 15-16 HCP and 6 card suit, especially in a semi-balanced 6322 shape, We may very well be in trouble making even 3S...

[the hog]

"4S. How can one consider any other bid?

We could have zero spades for the 1N bid, and we have three. Whether or not they carry any real weight opposite partners probably AKQxxxx is debatable, but we do have support and two filler cards in the minor suits. Partner has invited, and we need to accept."

I guess you don't bid 3S very often then if this is the "probable hand". IF pd happened to hold this, I think 3NT is a superior bid. As pd is far more likely to hold a decent 6 card suit and not necessarily 7 to the AKQ, I would bid 4S only because of the colours and would expect to probably go down. At any other colours I totally agree with the above poster and would pass.

[foo]

Who believes that the likely 15-17 HCP and 6+S hands will make 4S opposite

♠Jxx♥xxx♦Kxxx♣Qxx

> 1/3 of the time?

...Because that's what you have to believe to make bidding 4S Red @ IMPs a Logical Alternative. (...and if you do, WHY? I'd really like to hear the logic.)

Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't see a > 1/3 chance of making 4S here.

EDIT:
Let's see what a perfect hand for GOP looks like:
AKxxxx.x.AQx.Axx
This monster has the playing strength of a ~20 count. I know folks who would rebid 4S holding it.
... you lose 1S ~25% of the time. You lose 1 H. You lose 1.5 C's
So with this =perfect= hand, your expectation is ~10.25 Tricks.

Opener does not rate to be even close to that good.

Let's try a "perfect" 15 count:
AKxxxx.x.Axx.Axx
Playing strength of a ~18.5 count. Still darn good for a jump rebid.
Now 4S is only ~25%.

...and these are with perfect hands for the board whose playing strength is considerably better than the average hand shown by this sequence.

[jdonn]

Foo I have two points to make. First of all your analyses are wrong. Let me first take the first example to show where you are mis-approximating.

Jxx xxx Kxxx Qxx
AKxxxx x AQx Axx

You completely ignore the chance of a 3-3 diamond break. So (essentially) you lose just one club if the king is onside OR diamonds break 3-3. So the 1.5 club losers is really more like 1.3 by my calculation, putting the expected tricks at about 10.45 if i believe the rest of your calculations. This is about a full trick better than you need to be in game vul at imps. So ok, if partner has a great hand for us we have a trick more than we need. Seems about right.

Likewise in your second example you ignore the chance of 3-3 diamonds which would (in this case not always, but usually) eliminate a club loser. Lets say 80% of the time diamonds are 3-3 you can throw away a club. It's just a guess but seems fair since the most likely defense is two rounds of hearts, and you might be able to keep LHO off lead when you lose a diamond anyway. Briefly, this means your 25% game is really over 40%, a worthwhile game vul at imps.

But this leads me to my second point. Your 'perfect' examples are actually not so perfect at all. The heart shortness certainly fits nicely, but the aces don't fit nearly as well as they look. Take your second example

Jxx xxx Kxxx Qxx
AKxxxx x Axx Axx

So this is a 40% or so game, not the 25% you approximate. But wouldn't a "perfect" 15 count with that shape really be

Jxx xxx Kxxx Qxx
AKxxxx x AJx Kxx
(not even a 3♠ bid without maybe the black tens thrown in, but I digress)

This one is tougher to calculate since it varies more depending on the opposing hands and defense, but suffice to say it's a whole lot better than 40%, especially considering the chance of any diamond lead or a club lead from JTxxx.

I think I would pay money for my opponent to pass this hand.

[awm]

I am happy to have bid an initial 2♠ on this hand. This way, if opener has a maximum for the 3♠ jump rebid he blasts to the cold game. If he has a minimum, he can make a game try and get us to our cold game when opener has:

AKxxxxx x Qx KJx

whereas we could stop in 3♠ or maybe 3NT when opener has:

AQTxxx AQx xx Ax

Having bid 1NT at first turn, I suppose I will bid 4♠ and hope that my minor suit honors are working. Seems like a guess though.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I am happy to have bid an initial 2♠ on this hand.

Agree. I hate constructive 2M raises.

Peter

[Fluffy]

Pass is an option otherwise nobody would ever invite, partner also knows about the vulnerability.

I am an expert when it comes to avoiding awful vulnerable games wich make on a miracle

[foo]

Josh, you are quite correct that I ignored 33 D's in my post.

OTOH,
1= AKxxxx.x.AQx.Axx
Is essentially a 20 count.

2= All of the examples you and I posted
a= have no H wastage, a very optimistic assumption.
b= are control rich.
The average number of controls in a 15 count is ~4.5 and you and I are posting
example hands for Opener that have 6-7 controls. IOW, what one would expect in 18-20 HCP hands

IMHO, all of the examples we've posted are far too optimistic to be basing bidding decisions on.


Much more likely is that Opener's suit looks like Hxxxxx or HHxxxx;
and that 2/3 of the other three suits are 3 carders. Making the chance of mirror distribution in H's ~2/3 and the chances of mirror distribution in +both+ H+C ~1/3.

A's + K's wise, Opener will more typically will have 10-12 HCP in controls.
(so A+K+K, A+A+K, A+A+A) and the 6 control hands are slightly on the optimistic side.

How would you like Us to be in 4S with these far more typical hands? My personal reaction is "No."

I'm all for bidding aggressive Red games @ IMPs. But not suicidal ones.

[hotShot]

Opener should show a hand with somewhere between 5 loser and 8 playing tricks. He should not have a 4+ card side suit, so his distribution will be
6322 or 6331.
Bidding 4♠ is good, if NT bidders Hand is covering 2 loser and if there is no additional entry problem.
♠Jxx opposite 6 cards should make 6 ♠ tricks about 80% the time
♦Kxxx may cover one loser, if opener is not single in ♦
♣Qxx may cover a loser if opener has something in ♣
♥xxx are wide open

So any distribution with single in a minor or double in ♣, need a very strong ♥ suit or they are almost doomed. So I think there are downs than up's for 4♠, but if you change ♠J to x and give me the ♣K for the Q it would be an easy 4♠ bid.

[Fluffy]

After reading foo's posts I am beginning to leave the 'pass' side, going into the 'vulnerable game' (dark) side.

[jdonn]

foo, on Jun 6 2007, 06:15 AM, said:

Josh, you are quite correct that I ignored 33 D's in my post.

OTOH,
1=  AKxxxx.x.AQx.Axx
Is essentially a 20 count.

2=  All of the examples you and I posted
a= have no H wastage, a very optimistic assumption.
b= are control rich. 
The average number of controls in a 15 count is ~4.5 and you and I are posting
example hands for Opener that have 6-7 controls.  IOW, what one would expect in 18-20 HCP hands

IMHO, all of the examples we've posted are far too optimistic to be basing bidding decisions on.


Much more likely is that Opener's suit looks like Hxxxxx or HHxxxx;
and that 2/3 of the other three suits are 3 carders.  Making the chance of mirror distribution in H's ~2/3 and the chances of mirror distribution in +both+ H+C ~1/3.

A's + K's wise, Opener will more typically will have 10-12 HCP in controls.
(so A+K+K, A+A+K, A+A+A) and the 6 control hands are slightly on the optimistic side.

How would you like Us to be in 4S with these far more typical hands?  My personal reaction is "No."

I'm all for bidding aggressive Red games @ IMPs.  But not suicidal ones.

1) You absolutely ignorred my second point. Many hands with fewer controls would fit much BETTER than your control rich examples, not worse.

2) There are extremely few hands with Hxxxxx of spades on which an expert would rebid 3♠.

I agree, the heart shortness was an optimistic assumption. This is just why you have to bid game, because you have no idea if your values are in the right suits or not. Are you saying you avoid game at imps when it essentially might or might not be right?

This would actually be another good hand for precision. 1♣ 1♦ 1♠ 2♠ and now opener has room to make useful game tries.

[mikeh]

looks like time for a simulation: but I am too busy

I'd raise at this vulnerability.

[mike777]

Thanks all of you for your posts to this thread. I learned something from this simple everyday deal.

Here were some email comments for your edification.

"There was some more discussion of this hand. Before seeing the other people's comments, Dave offered this:

SLAYTON: The pass on hand 4 seems so obvious, that I'm starting to question the nature of the 3s jump over the semi-forcing 1nt....I assumed it's only invitational, not showing a solid suit...right? if so, jeez, how could anyone think of accepting the invite with a 4333 piece of shopit minimum, 9-card fit or no? I don't get it.....

Yeah, that's what I thought when I held the hand, but since then, I've been constructing all sorts of hands pard could hold, and most of them do offer a reasonable shot for game, with as little as a flatish 15 count such as:

AKxxxx xx Jx AKx Some might not even rebid 3S, and a diamond lead from the queen might give it to you). Or turn the Diamond Jack into the Queen, and now it is excellent.

Here's what Alex followed up with on this topic:

KOLESNIK: I also think as a general rule, I like to bid games period (even non-vul). Defense is a pretty tough element of bridge. Just opening leads are tough. All you have is your hand and the auction to guide you. If we could lead double-dummy (a trump when its right, passive lead when we don't want to blow a trick, aggressive lead setting up a trick for us, etc.) than maybe bidding thin games would not be best. I have found that defense is difficult enough, that bidding games on minimal values is best. It makes the defenders work very hard on every hand, which can be very exhausting. I think Meckwell abide by this theory as well. Anytime you have found at least a nine card major suit fit with at least invite possibilities, I think you should just bid a game, trying to reveal as little as possible about the two hands. Eight card fits are a different story, since a bad break will often spell doom, even sometimes a doubled gloom going for a number, if we have really stretched. They can't double you without trumps!

Yes, I believe the most valuable lesson I've learned in the last 20 years has been
the value of holding an extra trump or two. That, and remembering where I parked the car.




Subject: Dallas 4



Today's article is quite short.




4. Jxx xxx Kxxx Qxx Un Favorable

1S 1NT (semi-force)
3S ??

This is turning out to be quite a set. Hand 4 produced an even split. 4 going on (it might make), and 4 checking out with their 4-triple rooney scattered aceless, tenless 6 count. And had 3 been the limit, this wouldn't make it to the quiz. But alas, this time, pard's hand here was perfect:

KQTxxx Ax Ax KJx

Now this hand occurred late in the semifinals for the GNTs and we were sitting on an enormous lead. I passed it pretty much without thinking, which from the comments appears to be how most of the folks who passed it in the quiz....only one comment came in:



APPLEBAUM: Pass. Third trump is unexpected bonus but I probably have no ruffing value and spade J and club Q are both dubious values. Pard could have short hearts, in which case game would be good, but if he does that's life.



Yes, that was what I was thinking, and also where would be a good place for dinner between sessions.

We had tried Buffalo Wild Wings the night before. It's pretty amazing if you have plenty of time on your hands because they have free trivia contests going on the overhead closed circuit TV screens --

I won one contest and came in second in another. It's also amazing to be reminded of how much useless information can accumulate in one's mind after many decades roll by.



And now the arguments to bid game. Of course, Barry Turner bid it because he always bids vul games.



MARTEL: 4S. Agree with the inference that partner likely doesn't have solid spades and a balanced hand. If he has a stiff D, maybe already too high. If stiff heart, 4S has a good chance (in a perfect world, AKTxxxx x Axx Kx Even AKTxxx x AJx Kxx is OK at Imps.



KOLESNIK: I bid 4S, just in case it makes. At the other table it may go 1S-2S-4S (not playing constructive raises). I know this is a stretch, but that's what vul at IMPs is all about.



HOLLINGSWORTH: 4S. Partner probably has a S hole or might have tried 3NT, so with a little
more of his strength elsewhere, I hope just enough in my hand will be working. I expect the pair at the other table to be there, too. We all stretch for vul. games.


We are will now, Steve, let's just hope we don't pull a muscle in the process..."



Scores:



4S (4) 100

Pass (4) 50

[whereagles]

I would bid game because I prefer to go down in 4♠ than in 3♠

[foo]

mike777's last post makes me =definitely= want to put this through a rigorous simulation...