[jdonn]

I just don't think I could live with myself if I didn't force to game. If partner is a balanced 12 or something it will just depend which 12 anyway. Is anyone well known for stopping on a dime on hands like this?

[the hog]

Interesting. Limit raise for me.

[han]

jdonn, on Feb 18 2008, 11:18 PM, said:

Is anyone well known for stopping on a dime on hands like this?

Did somebody call my name?

I'm well known on stopping on dimes, nickels, cents, you name it. Basically, those that know me know me for stopping.

[Impact]

Limit raise : sure I love the 5 controls and 4th trump but the CK could still prove to be wasted...so a system which allows me to show the limit raise but gives opener room for a counter-try beneath 3S is preferable (and basically I will accept anything except a short suit try in C).

regards,

[bhall]

With all your aces and kings, it is likely that partner's minimums will contain a few quacks. Try playing this hand opposite a selection of 5332 hands holding one ace, one king, two queens, and one jack. I think you will find that game is less than 50% in most cases. However, in some cases it will be virtually cold (e.g., when he holds a small doubleton in ♦).

Vulnerable, at IMPs, playing 2/1 (with F1 1N), I would bid 1N and follow with 4♠. At least then partner may get a clue that I'm gambling, and he won't be tempted to try for slam without substantial extras. At MPs against weakish defenders, I would be tempted to do the same.

[benlessard]

If partner has 4H then its surely GF worthy, if he has 3H then its probably a limit if he has 2 then its surely a limit.

KQxxx
KQxx
??
?? + a little extra

KQxxxx
Qxx
Axx
x

KQxxx
Kx
Axxx
xx

KJxxx
Kx
KQxx
xx

Qxxxx
QJx
AKx
xx

My feeling is that if your opening requirement a are a bit under these hands (clear but minimum openings) then a limit raise is probably better.
This is 1 advantage of non-Gf relays, having opener make a 2nd bids before GF.

[Cascade]

Here is a double dummy simulation with this hand opposite an ordinary hand with five spades and nothing more distributional than 5-4-3-1.

hcp Prob more than ten tricks

9 0.241525424
10 0.45631068
11 0.652694611
12 0.765822785
13 0.857142857
14 0.946666667
15 0.966666667

Most players don't open all eleven counts so this seems to suggest that Game Forcing opposite a sound opening is reasonable.

[655321]

But what are the chance of 10 tricks opposite 5332 11 and 12 - these are the only hands that would pass a 4 card limit raise. All 5431 will bid 4♠, so shouldn't be included in the simulation.

[Codo]

And with how many 5431 hands do you pass a limit raise?
I think any 12 HCP hand with 5431 is a simple 4 Spade over 3 Spade, so these hands do not count.
Please make the simulation for 5332s too, I would really like to see the results.

If you open all/most 7 loser hands with 11 HCPs, this is a limit raise to me.
If you play sound openers, this is GF.

The poster claims to play both, which seems to be impossible to me.

[matmat]

Cascade: "Here is a double dummy simulation with this hand opposite an ordinary hand with five spades and nothing more distributional than 5-4-3-1."

nothing MORE distributional than 5-4-3-1. i assume this includes the more balanced hands

[skjaeran]

This is a close to max limit raise for me.

We don't need much of an excuse to accept a limit raise though.

[CSGibson]

Codo, on Feb 19 2008, 12:57 AM, said:

And with how many 5431 hands do you pass a limit raise?
I think any 12 HCP hand with 5431 is a simple 4 Spade over 3 Spade, so these hands do not count.
Please make the simulation for 5332s too, I would really like to see the results.

If you open all/most 7 loser hands with 11 HCPs, this is a limit raise to me.
If you play sound openers, this is GF.

The poster claims to play both, which seems to be impossible to me.

Let's say sound within context of what I've seen posted here.

[Cascade]

matmat, on Feb 19 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

Cascade: "Here is a double dummy simulation with this hand opposite an ordinary hand with five spades and nothing more distributional than 5-4-3-1."

nothing MORE distributional than 5-4-3-1. i assume this includes the more balanced hands

Yes precisely I said:

hcp between 9 and 15 inclusive;

exactly five spades;

four or fewer hearts;

four or fewer diamonds;

four or fewer clubs;

one or more hearts;

one or more diamonds;

one or more clubs.

Here is the relevant code:

             (spades(south)==5) and 
             (hearts(south)<=4) and
             (diamonds(south)<=4) and
             (clubs(south)<=4) and

             (hearts(south)>=1) and
             (diamonds(south)>=1) and
             (clubs(south)>=1) and

             (hcp(south)>=9) and
             (hcp(south)<=15)

[Cascade]

Here are the numbers for 5-3-3-2 and 5-4-2-2 hands

hcp Prob ten or more tricks
9 0.178571429
10 0.32195122
11 0.556701031
12 0.736842105
13 0.792792793
14 0.93258427
15 0.962264151

[655321]

Cascade, on Feb 19 2008, 04:16 AM, said:

Here are the numbers for 5-3-3-2 and 5-4-2-2 hands

Trust me, I will bid game as opener with 5422.
Can someone do a simulation for 5332 only?

These numbers are interesting - the numbers for 10 and 11 HCP dropped substantially with the restriction, but there was not much difference for 12 or more.
Also, do these numbers tend to be similar to real life - ie does the Deep Finesse finding all the missing queens get balanced by Deep Finesse making the best opening lead?

[Cascade]

Here are the numbers based on specific hand type:

   
    5431         5422         5332
9  0.582568807  0.299559471  0.100961538
10 0.71563981   0.491712707  0.225490196
11 0.875776398  0.644859813  0.478021978
12 0.880239521  0.686567164  0.617021277
13 0.98         0.863636364  0.776119403
14 1            0.972972973  0.867647059
15 1            0.933333333  0.968253968

Each simulation was 1000 hands in total over all hcp. There were more hands with 9, 10, 11 hcp than 14 or 15 hcp since they are more frequent.

[655321]

Thanks Wayne.

[Cascade]

655321, on Feb 19 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

Cascade, on Feb 19 2008, 04:16 AM, said:

Here are the numbers for 5-3-3-2 and 5-4-2-2 hands

Trust me, I will bid game as opener with 5422.
Can someone do a simulation for 5332 only?

These numbers are interesting - the numbers for 10 and 11 HCP dropped substantially with the restriction, but there was not much difference for 12 or more.
Also, do these numbers tend to be similar to real life - ie does the Deep Finesse finding all the missing queens get balanced by Deep Finesse making the best opening lead?

The analysis that I have heard about suggests that declarer has an advantage over double dummy at low-levels (e.g. 1NT) and a disadvantage over double dummy at high-levels (Grand slams). Somewhere between they are roughly balanced.

[whereagles]

Totally GF for me. Not even a min... lol.

[Codo]

Cascade, on Feb 19 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

Here are the numbers based on specific hand type:

   
    5431         5422         5332
9  0.582568807  0.299559471  0.100961538
10 0.71563981   0.491712707  0.225490196
11 0.875776398  0.644859813  0.478021978
12 0.880239521  0.686567164  0.617021277
13 0.98         0.863636364  0.776119403
14 1            0.972972973  0.867647059
15 1            0.933333333  0.968253968

Each simulation was 1000 hands in total over all hcp. There were more hands with 9, 10, 11 hcp than 14 or 15 hcp since they are more frequent.

Thx a lot.

So these days where you bid 4 M with 26 points are long gone.

With prime 11 HCPs and 4 card support in a 4432 hand to a "nearly" random 11 HCP 5 card major hand you better be in game, because it makes double dummy more then 50 % of all times.

Maybe I must improve my declarer game, I often fail to make ten tricks in this case. But I will give it a try again.