[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Feb 18 2008, 10:55 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 18 2008, 10:52 PM, said:

This hand might be GF for many people but limit for others.

I and my partner open "shapely nine-counts" too often to force game here.  In fact, 1♠-P-3♣!-P-3♠ is a sequence that is usually followed by "good luck partner" and "can't you take a joke?"

OP stated what the requirements are for an opening bid in that partnership, what your own partner would open with is not really relevant.

Oh. Missed that.

I'd still bid 3♣, and then bid 3NT even if partner suggested a signoff, then. That is, if I understand the meaning of "sound" openings.

The examples given, like three kings and a queen all separated in a 5332 11-count, are not consistent with my idea of what "sound" openings means.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

limit raise, espesially if you show 4 card support.
I agree, it is a max. for the limit raise, and that you
could certainly make a case for counting this as 7
loosers.

But than partner will usually accept the limit raise anyway
unless he is dead min. and bal.
And if this happens, it will certainly not be a bad idea to
play 3S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

If going by Wayne's results I think that makes bidding game totally clear. I have to admit they suggest it would be a bit more successful than I expected though. BTW, very many 5332 13s would pass a limit raise I assume, as well as 5422 11.

[Cascade]

Codo, on Feb 20 2008, 12:01 AM, said:

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

I recall from doing this sort of analysis previously that with a 9-card trump fit (5-4) only around 23 hcp are needed for game.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Feb 20 2008, 06:53 AM, said:

If going by Wayne's results I think that makes bidding game totally clear. I have to admit they suggest it would be a bit more successful than I expected though. BTW, very many 5332 13s would pass a limit raise I assume, as well as 5422 11.

And no doubt that is right. Our judgement should be better than some double dummy analysis so that when we get to game with a 5-3-3-2 it should be better than when the computer suggests it is right with a random 5-3-3-2.

[bhall]

Wayne,

In your simulations, was each deal run through Deep Finesse or a similar double-dummy routine? I am not sure, but that may tilt the odds in favor of declarer. Does anyone know? In particular, the odds of developing an extra ♣ trick get better when the ♣ holdings in the defenders' hands are known.

Also, a longer simulation with exactly 12 HCP would be of some interest. I would guesstimate that only about 154 (+ or - 12) hands fell into the 5332 12-pt category, out of your 1000-hand run.

[Cascade]

Cascade, on Feb 20 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

Codo, on Feb 20 2008, 12:01 AM, said:

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

I recall from doing this sort of analysis previously that with a 9-card trump fit (5-4) only around 23 hcp are needed for game.

Here is a rough and ready (1000 hand simulation double dummy) result for a 5-4 for without either partner having a singleton:

hcp odds 10+tricks
21   0.14973262
22   0.268867925
23   0.358208955
24   0.562130178
25   0.694915254
26   0.840707965

It looks like my recollection maybe based on vulnerable at IMPs or maybe I allowed singletons in the past.

23 hcp is marginal but as I said earlier we would hope to get to some of these using decent judgement and of course avoid the bad ones.

24 hcp is plenty at any colour or form of scoring.

Here is the code:

(spades(north)==5) and
(spades(south)==4) and
(hearts(north)<=4) and
(diamonds(north)<=4) and
(clubs(north)<=4) and
(hearts(north)>=2) and
(diamonds(north)>=2) and
(clubs(north)>=2) and

(hearts(south)<=4) and
(diamonds(south)<=4) and
(clubs(south)<=4) and
(hearts(south)>=2) and
(diamonds(south)>=2) and
(clubs(south)>=2) and

(hcp(north)+hcp(south)>=21) and
(hcp(north)+hcp(south)<=26)

[Cascade]

bhall, on Feb 20 2008, 08:52 AM, said:

In your simulations, was each deal run through Deep Finesse or a similar double-dummy routine? I am not sure, but that may tilt the odds in favor of declarer. Does anyone know? In particular, the odds of developing an extra ♣ trick get better when the ♣ holdings in the defenders' hands are known.

Also, a longer simulation with exactly 12 HCP would be of some interest. I would guesstimate that only about 154 (+ or - 12) hands fell into the 5332 12-pt category, out of your 1000-hand run.

Yes I use GIB's double dummy engine.

Declarer has an advantage over double dummy at lower levels. Double dummy has an advantage over declarer at high-levels. I don't know where the break even point is. There is a thread over on rec.games.bridge on this subject.

Actually 12 hcp came up only 141 times out of 1000.

Here are 1000 12 hcp hands opposite the hand in the opening post in this thread:

tricks frequency
7 [space] [space] [space]7	
8 [space] [space] [space]56	
9 [space] [space] [space]348	
10 [space] [space] 472	
11 [space] [space] 111	
12 [space] [space] 6

[PrecisionL]

I choose 2NT (compressed 'Bergen') = Artificial G.I. or better with 4 trumps. Opener rebids according to losers: 3♣ = 5 or less, 3♦ = 6, 3♥ = 7-8 (if♥ trumps], 7 if ♠ are trumps, 3♠ = 8.

If partner bids 3♠, I pass otherwise raise to 4♠.

[655321]

jdonn, on Feb 19 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

If going by Wayne's results I think that makes bidding game totally clear. I have to admit they suggest it would be a bit more successful than I expected though.

Agree, also agree that the analysis shows game making much more often than I would have thought. So my judgement could be off (always very possible ), or the double dummy analysis of 4M might overestimate how often game makes, or both.

jdonn, on Feb 19 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

BTW, very many 5332 13s would pass a limit raise I assume, as well as 5422 11.

Do many people play limit raises like this?
To me, a limit raise asks you to bid game unless your hand is really bad. So while it is probably possible to construct a 5332 13 count where rejecting the invite looks right, to say that very many 13s would pass a limit is not how I play limit raises.

[kenrexford]

If you pass a lot of 5332 13-counts, then you do not open like I open.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Feb 19 2008, 11:06 PM, said:

If you pass a lot of 5332 13-counts, then you do not open like I open.

Agree with this

[whereagles]

Does this have a moral or is just an academic question?

[firmit]

whereagles, on Feb 20 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

Does this have a moral or is just an academic question?

If this post had been a poll in the B/I forum, I suspect the majority would show the hand as exactly what it is - a limit raise.

Given the light openings people use nowadays, I suspect the majority of the posters here also would make a limit raise. This is contradictory to the responses I guess, but the opening criteria in OP was somewhat constructive in nature. Thus a GF raise.

So, I guess the moral must be - it depends on opening style

[pclayton]

I really don't see what featherweight openings have to do with calling or not calling this a limit raise.

All it means is that there are less hands pard accepts with.

[CSGibson]

whereagles, on Feb 20 2008, 02:13 AM, said:

Does this have a moral or is just an academic question?

Academic. I was talking with another local bridge player, and we disagreed as to whether the hand was a GF, so I thought I'd post it. It seems clearly right to GF at imps, and probably right at MP as well, given Wayne's data and the comments of the bridge community here.

[awm]

My estimate would be that you should accept a four-card limit raise with a hand about two points heavier than the worst hand you'd open. Looking at Cascade's data, it seems like:

(1) If you normally need 12 hcp to open with 5332 shape, which is basically standard, then the hand given is a game force. Most people open a point or two lighter with 5422 or 5431; that is still fine.

(2) If you frequently open 5332 ten-counts (like some strong clubbers do) then you should be making a limit raise with this hand. Presumably this means that either you open 5431 9-counts also or that you would always accept a limit raise with an "opening" 5431 hand.

[Apollo81]

I think the OP hand is a GF, and that it's borderline. I think many but not all (5332) 13 counts will pass a 4-card limit raise. I think nearly all openable (5431) hands will bid game opposite a 4-card limit raise.

[Cascade]

pclayton, on Feb 21 2008, 05:52 AM, said:

I really don't see what featherweight openings have to do with calling or not calling this a limit raise.

All it means is that there are less hands pard accepts with.

If you make the same limit raises then you should accept with the same hands.

Doesn't that mean there are more hands that opener declines with rather than less that accept.