[jdonn]

You are assuming 25+ for the partnership, and if it's a mere 25 we have a 9 card fit. Then trying to show it's optimistic to game force?

At least I don't think you should say you don't "get" forcing to game.

[Cascade]

han, on Apr 6 2008, 03:28 AM, said:

What did you mean by "any game made just above 35% of the time"?

The usual objections to double dummy analysis apply, it is not hard to imagine that 3NT makes more often in practice.

I don't make a habit out of avoiding games with 25+ HCP. The form of scoring was not given and may matter.

"any game" meant we had 10 or more tricks in spades or hearts or 9 or more tricks in NTs or 11 or more tricks in clubs.

The code:

game = (tricks(north,spades)>=10) or (tricks(north,hearts)>=10) or (tricks(south,notrumps)>=9) or (tricks(south,clubs)>=11)?1:0

Yes I am aware of these objections my experience every time I have tried to test double dummy with single dummy is that it has always been close. My personal analysis has always been with specific hands and situations rather than general situations. My understanding is that in general double dummy favours declarer at high levels and single dummy favours declarer at lower levels.

On this particular simulation there is a hidden advantage in favour of the declaring side in that the game percentage might actually be lower as occasionally we will bid the wrong game 5♣ when 3NT is cold or vice versa etc.

[kenrexford]

How this is a debate is beyond me.

Reasons why I think 2♠ is obvious:

1. I and everyone else opens an 11-count with 5-4 in two suits. This is a King better. A King better is enough to rebid naturally, even 2♠.

2. The quality of my suits is unashamed.

3. I happen to have club support.

4. I happen to have a stopper in the to-be-unbid suit.

5. Partner won't bid 2♣ unless strong enough for my 2♠ call with this hand to be right.

6A. If partner bids 2♠ after 2♥, and I then bid 3♠, I will be weaker than this.

6B. If I have to bid 4♠ after 2♠, I just lost bidding space.

7. I have a six-loser hand, rather than 7, or even 8.

8. My well-placed 10 actually gives me 14.5 HCP

9. A 2♥ call may be passed, which is wrong when it happens.

[Pisagor22]

mikeh, on Apr 4 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

I don't understand what 'liking this hand' has to do with bidding 2♠.

Put me down for 2♥, the bid that maximizes the chances of a good auction.

3♣ is wrong: even in 2/1 a 2♣ call can be on a 3 card suit: with a good 3=3=4=3, for example, 2♦ is often the right call, especially if the diamond suit is not a slam-appropriate holding. In standard, 2♣ is even more suspect... and note that we haven't even got into a rexfordian discussion of semi-artificial 2♣ responses

2♠ is unnecessary if the object is to find a spade fit: 2♥ allows partner to bid 2♠.

2N is obviously a misdecription

So 2♥ is what is left.

And it is forcing: in standard, 2♣ forces beyond 2♥ (at least, in the standard that I am familiar with..if 2♥ is nf, then 2♠ is the only logical choice and I change my bid)

If the auction proceeds 2♠, I raise to 3♠.... forcing since 2♠ was itself a gf

If the auction proceeds 2N, I bid an easy 3♣... well, I claim it is easy, and I think it is forcing, but if not, I just bid 3N... after all, if 2N is nf, we ain't missing a slam by my ignoring clubs

If the auction proceeds 3♣, I bid 3♠, forcing, pass 3N and otherwise raise to 5♣

So I get to game all the time anyway.

Meanwhile, I don't think this hand justifies the very strong sequence of 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ then later, over anything, a club bid. That's how we'd bid with the same shape and 2 or 3 more hcp.

this is your hand.
♠KJxx ♥KQTxx ♦A ♣Jxx

And if your partner's hand is like :
♠ATxx ♥x ♦xx ♣AQxxxx

after your 2♥ bid you force him to gamble :

cause you say you could be bidding it when you have 4 or less spades

firstly if you have 4 spades;
* and If he assumes you dont havet 4 spades, and if he bid 2NT then you will never be aware of your spade fit. (NT , you will have to play after this bid)

secondly, if you dont have 4 spades;
* and if he assumes you might have 4 spades and bids 2♠ then you will also need to face another gamble : "stop at 2NT or bid 3NT" (anyone who
bids 3NT after these bids can be forgiven)

let me tell you what this hand to do with 2♠ :

because your partner cant see your hand , with this bid you will maximize his information about your hand , which is much more effective to decide rather than maximizing possible biddings left....

Regards.

[Cascade]

Cascade, on Apr 5 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

I really don't get that this hand is a game force.

Maybe I have misunderstood the conditions which stated 'standard'. I assumed this was not 2/1.

The vulnerability is also not stated which might make a difference in a close call.

Given so many excellent posters have suggested Game Forcing I did a simulation with these parameters:

Partner has 12 hcp and four or five clubs or 11 hcp and six clubs - i think this is generous as partner will often have less than this (unless 'standard' now means 2/1 as I commented above);

Partner has three or fewer hearts;

Partner is 4=4 in the minors or has longer clubs;

Partner has more clubs than spades.

Here is the exact code:

((hcp(south)==12 and clubs(south)>=4) or
(hcp(south)==11 and clubs(south)>=6)) and

hearts(south)<=3 and

((diamonds(south)<=clubs(south) and clubs(south)==4) or
(diamonds(south)<clubs(south))) and

(spades(south)<clubs(south))

Any game (spades, hearts, no trumps or clubs - I didn't actually check diamonds) made only just over 35% of the time. It would be worse when partner has only 11 hcp without extra length or 10 hcp with extra length.

arrrgggggg

Just discovered an inadvertent comment character in my code where I set the hand in the OP so I wasn't dealing that hand properly in the simulation.

Game is well over 50% which makes more sense.

Sorry I worked on this yesterday when I was busy with something else while I was in and out of home.

[cherdano]

Wayne, I still don't know what "Game is well over 50%" means. Do you mean that double dummy, in over 50% of all deals there is at least one game that makes? (i.e. if we always bid to the best spot after looking at opponents' cards?)

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Apr 5 2008, 03:41 PM, said:

Wayne, I still don't know what "Game is well over 50%" means. Do you mean that double dummy, in over 50% of all deals there is at least one game that makes? (i.e. if we always bid to the best spot after looking at opponents' cards?)

I think that is exactly what he means, but specifically on minimum responder hands (supposedly hands that won't force to game unless we do).

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Apr 6 2008, 10:09 AM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 5 2008, 03:41 PM, said:

Wayne, I still don't know what "Game is well over 50%" means. Do you mean that double dummy, in over 50% of all deals there is at least one game that makes? (i.e. if we always bid to the best spot after looking at opponents' cards?)

I think that is exactly what he means, but specifically on minimum responder hands (supposedly hands that won't force to game unless we do).

This is exactly what I mean.

[pclayton]

2♠. This is more for helping pard to evaluate.

If pard has a minimum SAYC 2♣, he shouldn't have 4♠, since this hand starts with 1♠, not 2♣.

[fromageGB]

2♥. I think Mikeh has it right. I don't play Standard, but would have thought the concept of a "reverse" applies, and the danger of reversing on these faily minimal values is that it might drive partner too high. Sure you want to be in game, but 2♥ is forcing.

Playing 2/1 2♠ is right if your agreement is to show distribution regardless of strength, but in my methods that shows 15/16 so I still bid 2♥.

[kenrexford]

Something I don't know --

Playing SAYC, if the auction starts...

1♥-P-2minor-P-
2♥-P-2♠...

Is 2♠ forcing? Does SAYC require a jump to 3♠ here to force? COuld Opener pass with 3-4 spades and a stiff in the minor?

If 2♠ is forcing, will Responder not bid 2minor unless strong enough to complete pattern with 2♠ if Opener rebids hearts?

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Apr 6 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

Something I don't know --

Playing SAYC, if the auction starts...

1♥-P-2minor-P-
2♥-P-2♠...

Is 2♠ forcing? Does SAYC require a jump to 3♠ here to force? COuld Opener pass with 3-4 spades and a stiff in the minor?

If 2♠ is forcing, will Responder not bid 2minor unless strong enough to complete pattern with 2♠ if Opener rebids hearts?

Yes
No
No
Unclear

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Apr 7 2008, 09:54 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 6 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

Something I don't know --

Playing SAYC, if the auction starts...

1♥-P-2minor-P-
2♥-P-2♠...

Is 2♠ forcing?  Does SAYC require a jump to 3♠ here to force?  COuld Opener pass with 3-4 spades and a stiff in the minor?

If 2♠ is forcing, will Responder not bid 2minor unless strong enough to complete pattern with 2♠ if Opener rebids hearts?

Yes
No
No
Unclear

If I had four spades and five or more of a minor I would not bid 2m over 1♥ unless I was willing to introduce the spades later unless of course partner had denied four spades by say a 3♥ jump rebid.

[G_R__E_G]

Sorry for omitting some details - form of scoring was matchpoints. I believe we were white on white, but I don't have that information with me at the moment.

For what it's worth, I agreed with the majority of posters and felt the hand was worth a game force and bid 2♠. Partner then went to 3NT, which as it turns out did not work out very well. That was my reason for posting (but I wanted unbiased opinions so did not give the results). The comments at the table were that I shouldn't have reversed with that hand. I disagreed - but hey what do I know, we only finished with a 69% game.

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Apr 6 2008, 01:39 PM, said:

Something I don't know --

Playing SAYC, if the auction starts...

1♥-P-2minor-P-
2♥-P-2♠...

Is 2♠ forcing? Does SAYC require a jump to 3♠ here to force? COuld Opener pass with 3-4 spades and a stiff in the minor?

If 2♠ is forcing, will Responder not bid 2minor unless strong enough to complete pattern with 2♠ if Opener rebids hearts?

Yes
No
No
Yes he should only bid 2m if strong enough to force to game

[kenrexford]

I must not understand standard bidding any more.

According to the ACBL SAYC booklet, Opener cannot rebid 2♠ here unless he has 16+ HCP. However, Responder's 2♣ bid promises a rebid NO MATTER WHAT. So, if the auction is 1♥-P-2♣-P-2♥, the auction is forcing. Responder must make a call.

According to what I have seen so far, he cannot bid 2♠ unless he can GF. He cannot bid 3♥, or this would GF also, per the SAYC booklet. He cannot bid 3♦, or this would GF also. So, his only options are 2NT and 3♣.

This means, per force, that Responder cannot bid 2♣ with a hand that is less than GF unless he has long clubs (the 2/1 GF exception some have) or an otherwise balanced hand, without heart support. This seems to force 1♠ on these hands with spades and longer clubs unless GF.

That, however, is not how I learned standard years and years ago. I always understood a 2/1 call as forcing to at least 2NT. That allowed 1♥-P-2♣-P-2♦/♥-P-2♠ with a spade-club hand (longer clubs) and invitational+. We could stop in this sequence at 2NT, 3♠, or some other contract below game, if we wanted to.

Did this change at some point, or did I learn standard wrong?

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Apr 7 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

He cannot bid 3♥, or this would GF also, per the SAYC booklet.

1♥-2♣-2♥-3♥ should not be game forcing...where did you see that it was?

[cherdano]

jtfanclub, on Apr 7 2008, 12:00 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 7 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

He cannot bid 3♥, or this would GF also, per the SAYC booklet.

1♥-2♣-2♥-3♥ should not be game forcing...where did you see that it was?

It is GF in SAYC, since you bid 3♥ immediately with a 3-card limit raise...

[Cascade]

cherdano, on Apr 8 2008, 07:53 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Apr 7 2008, 12:00 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 7 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

He cannot bid 3♥, or this would GF also, per the SAYC booklet.

1♥-2♣-2♥-3♥ should not be game forcing...where did you see that it was?

It is GF in SAYC, since you bid 3♥ immediately with a 3-card limit raise...

I don't think this is quite correct. What the booklet says is:

SAYC Booklet said:

Bids available for inviting game: 2NT, 3 of a previously bid suit:
1♥ — 1♠
2♦ — 2NT, 3♦, 3♥, 3♠ = 10–11 points, inviting game

...

If responder initially bids a new suit at the two level, the same rules apply EXCEPT that a subsequent jump raise of opener’s first suit to the THREE LEVEL is game forcing — responder should make a limit raise directly over the opening with 10–11 points and at least three-card support.

In the auction under discussion we are making a simple raise not a jump raise.

The booklet has a hole here and an inconsistency with the auctions that start with a 1/1 (1♥ 1♠ and a 2/1. There doesn't seem to be any real need for the inconsistency.

[kenrexford]

Cascade, on Apr 7 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

[Weird stuff]

There is a difference in the SAYC booklet between a 2/1 auction, and then 3♥, and a 1/1 auction, and then 3♥. This makes sense, as the sequences are different.

The distinction is that the 1♠...3♥ sequence is the parallel to another 2/1 GF sequence wherein Responder says, "I have a limit raise for your hearts, but I'm going to keep that a secret for a minute while I show you my spades, in case you care." This should apparently show a limit raise with 5♠/3♥ in SAYC.

That, however, does not impact the SAYC 2/1 in a minor...3♥ sequence as GF. SAYC does not allow you to show a limit raise with 3♥/5minor. That's silliness, to SAYC bidders.