[jdonn]

dburn, on Nov 7 2007, 03:35 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 7 2007, 02:08 AM, said:

For anyone thinking partner doesn't have his overcall, my two thoughts are if he didn't you would be missing a great vul game on a very typical hand if he had to pass

Such as?

Oh I don't know - the actual hand? Ok if the high cards are where you expect, and south leads the ace of hearts then switches to a singleton diamond and gets his also-singleton spade king promoted, I take it all back.

I confess "great" was an overbid. But you certainly want to be in it.

Quote

It is no wonder that pre-empts work, if people are going to bid over them every time they need four trumps to an honour, an ace and a king opposite to esacpe for down only one.

Well since the king was uesless, and since it was certainly a game well worth being in, I will have to take that analysis with a grain of salt. You might also notice partner had 9 of the 21 missing (between west and south) high cards, and 6 of the 23 (between the other three hands) working high cards from the east hand perspective. So yes, a dummy with excellent support but below average strength and a very bad diamond length produced a good game. Not exactly shocking!

I would say something more like, no wonder preempts work if people will fail to bid games that merely require partner hold about an average hand opposite to make.

dburn, on Nov 7 2007, 05:12 PM, said:

It is as if one were to post a message asking what one would bid with:

♠AQx ♥xxx ♦KJxx ♣10xx

after partner opens a 15-17 1NT. To those who naively raise to 3NT, one then says: "Well, on this occasion partner had

♠KJxx ♥Ax ♦AQxx ♣Qxx

and the defence took the first five club tricks when the opening leader turned up with ♣KJxxx. I of course passed 1NT, because one must, must, must pass in these positions with balanced ten counts including two unguarded suits, and look how clever I was."

Not quite an accurate analogy! I didn't say "look I avoided a great slam that happened to go down but that everyone would bid but me, how clever I am!" which is what you seem to be implying. But it's ok, I forgive you. You certainly seem to be making light of the chances of going down at the 5 level though, which would have happened opposite the actual hand plus every missing king and queen in the deck! Or is AKJT9xx Q KQ KQx a ridiculous overcall? In fact heck, just try to tell me you wouldn't be in slam opposite that if you cuebid 5♣.

Before my earlier reply, the main votes were 8 blamed mostly west and 5 said no one's fault. After seeing the actual hand the votes have continued 2 blamed mostly west and 12 said no one's fault. So the clever one here was Justin for suggesting I post a fake hand. If nothing else, we certainly see bidding problems should be given with only one hand if accurate results are desired.

[jonottawa]

dburn, on Nov 7 2007, 10:12 PM, said:

I am in Poland at the moment for the Champions Cup, which begins tomorrow. Of the champions to whom I have spoken thus far, I have collected one passer, two 5♠ bidders and one 5♣ bidder. Oh, and no 4♠ overcallers on the actual East hand, though I have learned the word for "ridiculous" in two languages in which I did not already know it.

Burned.

[jonottawa]

jdonn, on Nov 8 2007, 01:42 AM, said:

Before my earlier reply, the main votes were 8 blamed mostly west and 5 said no one's fault. After seeing the actual hand the votes have continued 2 blamed mostly west and 12 said no one's fault. So the clever one here was Justin for suggesting I post a fake hand. If nothing else, we certainly see bidding problems should be given with only one hand if accurate results are desired.

I don't get folks who wait until the spoiler is revealed and then vote. Seems to be a common practice around here though.

I think the poll choices could have been better. If you had a 'mostly bad luck but West gets some' choice, I think it would have received the most votes. If you have a hand where only 1 side could bid on and doesn't, where a significant % of the field bids on, and where bidding on works, I think it's normal to give them SOME blame. I think West's decision is close. To say it's not is a minority view, I would imagine.

If I were West and bidding on was right, I'd say:

"Sorry. I could have moved."

expecting to hear:

"NP. Close, but pass looks right. I didn't have to have this much."

Just like if I passed and passing was right I would expect to hear:

"Nice Pass!"

"Thx. Pretty normal, I think."

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Nov 8 2007, 11:48 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 8 2007, 11:41 AM, said:

dburn, on Nov 7 2007, 10:12 PM, said:

I am in Poland at the moment for the Champions Cup, which begins tomorrow. Of the champions to whom I have spoken thus far, I have collected one passer, two 5♠ bidders and one 5♣ bidder. Oh, and no 4♠ overcallers on the actual East hand, though I have learned the word for "ridiculous" in two languages in which I did not already know it.

Burned.

I am at a regional in USA (where a team of Polish champs including pepsi etc happen to be), of the champions I have given this to all have passed with varying degrees of confidence.

Which hand did you give them? (I.e. which hand did they pass with?)

[awm]

It's really a general style question. The point is: when you bid 4♠, how much are you playing partner for?

In a style of aggressive 4♠ bids, you're going to have a terribly hard time with slam bidding because the 4♠ call has such a huge range. However, there will be some hands where you will bid 4♠ and it will make (or be a good sacrifice) whereas more sound 4♠ bidders would have no way into the auction.

It seems obvious that there are some range of styles that are "reasonable" and extremes outside this range probably won't work. For example, if you need to have 4♠ cold in your hand to bid it, then you're going to miss way too many making games (and even slams) on hands where you passed over 4♦. To the other extreme, if any hand where you'd open a weak two in spades is a 4♠ bid, then you're going to simply go for a number in 4♠ with some degree of frequency, and partner will have no clue what to do after 4♠ passes to him (or after opponents compete to 5♦).

Of course, it's also the case that holding in the opponents suit matters -- with singleton or void in their suit it's less likely that partner can get in with an intermediate hand and it pays to be more aggressive.

In any case, my interpretation of the responses would be that:

(1) Bidding 4♠ on the actual hand is an extreme position, quite close to the line where it's not even a reasonable style. Very few people would bid 4♠ on the actual hand.

(2) Playing a more "mainstream" style, it's not clear whether to bid on with the west hand or not. There are obviously (very) sound 4♠ bids where even the five level is not safe, but at the same time there are relatively minimum 4♠ bids where 6♠ is excellent.

(3) The American style (especially among younger players) seems to swing towards aggressive 4♠ bids, making pass the majority action on the west cards. The European style seems to be towards more sound 4♠ bids, and a number of experts would in fact bid on with the west cards . Obviously "American" and "European" have more to do with the bridge environment in which people play most of their games -- European nationals who are full-time professionals in the USA may well pick up the "American" style.

(4) A lot of people like to wait for the full hands and/or for the posters who are the strongest players to post before replying. This biases the results of any poll, especially after the original poster has given the full hands and/or folks like Jlall and Mikeh have expressed a strong opinion.

[whereagles]

dburn, on Nov 7 2007, 10:12 PM, said:

Oh, and no 4♠ overcallers on the actual East hand, though I have learned the word for "ridiculous" in two languages in which I did not already know it.

ridiculous?? you mean, they would dbl?

[jdonn]

awm, on Nov 8 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

It's really a general style question. The point is: when you bid 4♠, how much are you playing partner for?

I think the point is "When you make close slam tries in these situations, you punish partner who often is in a position where he needs to stretch, no matter what you consider a stretch."

[mikeh]

I am one of those who appear to have waited, but the truth is that I haven't looked at the thread before, due to work issues.

I did form an opinion before reading the true story, and that opinion was that there wasn't much fault around, but if we had to assign fault, it would be to west, since clearly (so it seemed and seems to me) East couldn't logically do anymore than bid 4♠ even with the monster.

I don't really know if I'd have bid as west. I do know that I would have taken longer than 5 seconds to decide, but I suspect that is because I would never have played partner for the actual hand.

I don't claim that either Justin or Josh are 'wrong' in their approach that the overcall was acceptable with the actual hand, but I do think that Josh's statement that it is WRONG to move as west is a bit much.

I assume, and I await Josh's post on this, that he agrees that the monster 4♠ hand posted originally should overcall 4♠.

It really comes down to the degree to which West feels his side has 5-level safety. My own thoughts were and are that, opposite me overcalling 4♠, we will usually have reasonable 5-level safety. I then ask whether bidding 5♠ (my only available bid, since 5♣ is wrong...being natural) will not only be safe... which I would think it likely is... but will also get us to slam when it is right and not when it is wrong.

So I think I'd probably pass (difficult to be confident now that I have read the full story) because, while I'd expect to be fairly safe at 5♠, I wouldn't think it assured, and I'd have real doubt that this bid would actually get me (almost) only to slam when it is good and not when it is bad.

So I think I'd pass, and chalk up the poor result, when slam makes, to the preempt.

IFF you agree that the overcall is reasonable then go ahead and castigate the bidders. If you think the overcall is too much, then I think that the bidders are not WRONG, but, rather, a little too optimistic. And, I would expect, the bidders would, on average, only lose a small number of imps...run a simulation of 100 hands consistent with the auction, and I'd expect that bidding would reach at least a handful of slams the passers (obviously) miss. But I won't try the simulation because of the difficulty of creating the constraints... as an example, it is clear to me that Josh and Justin, and probably others, would disagree about the constraints on 4♠, and after that we have the subjective element of which hands would overcall and then move over 5♠.

BTW, I do like the format...it does drive home the degree to which a 'wire' on the actual hand creates unconscious bias.

[FrancesHinden]

jonottawa, on Nov 8 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 8 2007, 01:42 AM, said:

Before my earlier reply, the main votes were 8 blamed mostly west and 5 said no one's fault. After seeing the actual hand the votes have continued 2 blamed mostly west and 12 said no one's fault. So the clever one here was Justin for suggesting I post a fake hand. If nothing else, we certainly see bidding problems should be given with only one hand if accurate results are desired.

I don't get folks who wait until the spoiler is revealed and then vote. Seems to be a common practice around here though.

I read the poll question, voted, then read the thread. That's what I always do.