[cnszsun]

Scoring: IMP

(1NT)-ps-(2♥)-ps
(2♠)-ps-(ps)-?

---

[Walddk]

At IMPs? Not me. We don't know if they have a fit, and if partner converts, the little defence I have is under the strong hand.

Roland

[dicklont]

No, this is far too dangerous.
Call me chicken, I don't mind :-)

[Blofeld]

With nobody vulnerable (best colours at which to compete), I don't want to pass this. I'll double.

[jdonn]

I like double. We have a good chance of hitting a fit, and if we don't have one then maybe partner can penalty pass. It doesn't bother me at imps since I don't expect them to double me very often at the 3 level.

[neilkaz]

I think I rate to gain more IMPs over the long run by competing here rather than selling out with 1♠ and 8 HCP with two reasonable suits.

While this is close for me, I'll double and if we end up in 3♣x I will redouble to show PD that I clearly prefer the red suits. Risky ?.. yes indeed, but so often the opps won't or can't double us at the 3 level at IMPs and sometimes when they do, we make it and chalk up a huge score on a part score hand.

Double here, but would pass if Red vs White and unsure if Red vs Red.

[karlson]

neilkaz, on Dec 8 2007, 08:50 AM, said:

if we end up in 3♣x I will redouble to show PD that I clearly prefer the red suits.

I would definitely not do this. Partner is likely to have nowhere to go (say 4225 or something), and for all I know 3cx might make.

In the the methods I usually play, partner could bid 2N scrambling with 4-4 in two suits. In that case I'm 200% not running from 3c.

I am also a doubler, even red I think.

[neilkaz]

karlson, on Dec 8 2007, 02:47 PM, said:

neilkaz, on Dec 8 2007, 08:50 AM, said:

if we end up in 3♣x I will redouble to show PD that I clearly prefer the red suits.

I would definitely not do this. Partner is likely to have nowhere to go (say 4225 or something), and for all I know 3cx might make.

In the the methods I usually play, partner could bid 2N scrambling with 4-4 in two suits. In that case I'm 200% not running from 3c.

I am also a doubler, even red I think.

Ahh..the point I missed..PD bids 2NT scrambling with no clearly best suit.

Thanx for your helpful insight .. neilkaz ..

[kenrexford]

The weaker the hand in this seat, the better, so long as it is not too weak. Shape is key. I want more of our combined assets with partner (behind the 1NT opener).

So, I double. Partner will get us to diamonds with a 2NT call when diamonds is superior, hopefully.

I would not be surprised if x-xxxx-xxxxx-xxx offers a better long-run chance of success than x-AQxx-Axxxx-AQx, in this seat.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Dec 8 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

I would not be surprised if x-xxxx-xxxxx-xxx offers a better long-run chance of success than x-AQxx-Axxxx-AQx, in this seat.

That is a silly thing to say. The more you have in your hand, the higher your side will tend to be in it's very wide range of values (16-25 or so). Especially if you have 0, the odds of your side having anything near the top end are pretty much nonexistant.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Dec 8 2007, 06:59 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 8 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

I would not be surprised if x-xxxx-xxxxx-xxx offers a better long-run chance of success than x-AQxx-Axxxx-AQx, in this seat.

That is a silly thing to say. The more you have in your hand, the higher your side will tend to be in it's very wide range of values (16-25 or so). Especially if you have 0, the odds of your side having anything near the top end are pretty much nonexistant.

Any facts to back this up? Run any tests on success ratios? I'm not saying the the total HCP holdings for our side are not affected. What I'm saying is that the overbalance of points with partner will be better even if a lower total figure.

I mean, I'd expect, for instance, that 6 HCP's in the form of AQx in my hand, opposite xxx with partner, produces only one trick more often than 4 HCP's in the form of KJx in partner's hand, opposite xxx in mine, produces two. Extrapolating that out, 16 HCP's with partner, opposite my 0, will not be as weak a position as expected when compared with 16 HCP's in my hand and a smattering with partner.

When I analyzed a number of hands years ago, I found that a table with about a 14-14-4-8 run clockwise produced about the number of tricks as would be expected if the 14+8 side had another four points. I called this the "Fifth Ace."

Now, a zero-count is asking a bit much, admittedly. But, if this basic theory works right, then a 15-15-6-4 layout might be worth perhaps +4 for the 15+4 pair, whereas a 15-4-6-15 layout might be -4 for the same 4+15 pair.

If those numbers are right, then the "16-25" range might have the trick-taking equivalence of a range of 20-29 compared with 12-21. If you eliminate out the 18+ hands from the former group, where something else might have happened, and give me a 0 count, you still end up with 20-21. That's at the high end of the 12-21 for the alternative scenario.

I also tested this theory out as to decisions in NT overcalling scenarios, where a known 15-17 is present. It turned out that a no-fit overcall played remarkably well, on average, at 2NT, when advancer has at least meager values. The same +4 scenario kept popping up, even with wild misfits. In that scenario, the key was not the strength-behind-strength as much as the isolation of defensive holdings to one side, enabling better squeezes, better throw-ins, less communication for the opps, etc.

So, all of this aside, have you checked your results???

[han]

I would double.

[Edmunte1]

I'll definitely pass. Here are some points in favor of passing:
-Considering that players tend to rebid most 8 counts as responder, the expected strength for responder is 0-7 hcp. The average strength for East's hand is around 5 hcp.
-The average strength for West's hand is around 16 hcp, and due to the lack of supra-accept, his average number of spades is 3.
-So partner has an average 11 hcp with 4 spades.
-The general policy is to be offensive in direct seat over opps NT with distributional hands, so partner rates to have a rather balanced then an unbalanced hand.

So the right question (in average) should be: Should i like to be in a three of a suit contract in front of a 11 hcp balanced count with 4 spades?

Another point: about not being axed. Usually it's hard to be punished when you have good suits, with body (intermediattes), because opps do not have a trump stack to shoot you from one hand. It's not the case here. So good luck to the bidders

[helene_t]

Dbl, absolutely. If I don't dbl with this hand I almost never will.

[pclayton]

I'll balance.

It seems pard always has 5 spades on this auction but frequently he won't.

[foo]

cnszsun, on Dec 8 2007, 03:47 AM, said:

West,None,IMP,
x_KJxx_KJxxx_Txx

(1NT)-ps-(2♥)-ps;
(2♠)-ps-(ps)-??

IMHO both Josh and Ken are making valid points here about the value of shape and point location here.

But the important issue is "what is your expected score for each choice?"

Ken's point about values being more useful behind the 1N bidder holds for defense as well. It is obviously easier most of the time to take 6 tricks rather than 9.

The other thing I do not buy is that Responder will not X you.
This is the safest partscore auction in Bridge for Responder to X you on.
Responder knows Their side's assets better after a 1N opening than in any other auction. If they suspect We are in a misfit or that We have less than 23 playing points between Us, they are far more likely to penalty X here than any other partscore auction. At any form of scoring.

I'll see if I can make a chart for the expected outcomes and their odds.
If someone more mathematically inclined could do so, I'd appreciate it?

[whereagles]

I would dbl at matchpoints. At imps I don't know if I'd be that brave all the time...

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Dec 8 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 8 2007, 06:59 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 8 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

I would not be surprised if x-xxxx-xxxxx-xxx offers a better long-run chance of success than x-AQxx-Axxxx-AQx, in this seat.

That is a silly thing to say. The more you have in your hand, the higher your side will tend to be in it's very wide range of values (16-25 or so). Especially if you have 0, the odds of your side having anything near the top end are pretty much nonexistant.

Any facts to back this up?

Are you saying it's not true? I didn't say 14 with partner and 6 with me is not better than the other way around. What I said was two things. The less our hand has, the less our side will tend to have. And it's silly of you to say balancing with a 0 count might have a better expectation than balancing with the same shape on a good 16 count. I do not feel the need to prove either of these obviously true statements, neither of which contradict the results of your test, which I don't particularly trust anyway.

[kenrexford]

I'm not asking you to trust it.

What I'm saying is that a claim that the concept is silly is a bit much when the only support is a general argument about the likely number of points between you and partner as a function of the number of points in your hand.

You may have a figure for the value of right-siding the partnership assets. My point is that this value, whatever it is, converts the trick-taking capacity such that the "16-25" range could be re-expressed as equivalent to different ranges when the points are stacked one way or the other. Even if the net gainer is +2 (-2 for wrong-sided), then the effective next range changes to 18-27 for fourth seat weakness and 14-23 for fourth seat strength.