[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Dec 10 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 10 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Dec 10 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

How is it possible to invite when partner has shown a limited 7-9 HCP raise?? This is a clear pass. Partner could have bid Drury.

Have you never reached a 20-22 point game?

It doesn't have to be that much of a hand, even: Axxx, xx, QJx, xxxx - I would want to play 4S wouldn't you?

And of course if he has Axxx xx xxx QJxx we are too high in 3, and that's with Axxx of trumps and a doubleton and the QJ in the same suit! And what if he has xxx xxx Jxx KQJx? You could go down in 1!

I know. Ain't it exhilerating?

But here's the deal.....they pay a bonus for the risk if it works. How about dem apples? If I am going down in 2S, I would just as soon go down in 3 trying to make the bonus.

Really weird that with all the open light and bid-out-your-shape-on-the-way-to-slam responders, I am the one arguing for a game try while they are all the ones counting points.

BTW, I would pass and try to go plus at MPs. At imps I try for the game bonus.

Edit: BTW, I have only shown pretty minimum hands that have a play for game - there are also some heavier raises that work even with wasted club values.

AKx, xx, Qxxx, xxxx or Axxx, xxx, Kxx, Qxx.

[Winstonm]

han, on Dec 10 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

I would pass.

I expect partner to bid drury with a good 9-count and with all 10-counts. That doesn't mean game can't make but passing seems to be with the odds.

Just a question, not trying to start a fight. Does your partner place those same restrictions on your bidding, i.e., are you not allowed to exercise judgement about bad, fair, good, and excellent 10 counts and alter your bid based on your judgement?

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Dec 10 2008, 08:25 PM, said:

If I am going down in 2S, I would just as soon go down in 3 trying to make the bonus.

Of course it is not common to be going down in 2, I was merely attempting to demonstrate the sillyness of trying to prove a point by crafting a couple great fitting example hands. Much more likely that you are making 2 and going down in 3, or making 2 or 3 and going down when partner bids 4.

Quote

Really weird that with all the open light and bid-out-your-shape-on-the-way-to-slam responders, I am the one arguing for a game try while they are all the ones counting points.

Come on, that is about as ridiculous an argument as if I were to say "Really weird that opposite such a sound bidder, I am the one arguing for going plus while he is the one trying to prove himself right with carefully constructed example hands."

BTW, since when am I a light opener? Ok ok I probably have to be reminded again, it's not always about me.

Quote

BTW, I would pass and try to go plus at MPs.   At imps I try for the game bonus.

But what about that 'bonus for the risk if it works'? They don't pay a bonus at matchpoints? No wonder I find that game so frustrating.

Quote

Edit: BTW, I have only shown pretty minimum hands that have a play for game - there are also some heavier raises that work even with wasted club values.

I see. Call Axxx xx QJx xxxx a "pretty minimum hand" for a raise to 2♠, then accuse the other side of "counting points". Uh.....ok

Quote

AKx, xx, Qxxx, xxxx or Axxx, xxx, Kxx, Qxx.

Yes, your 9 count with AK of trumps a doubleton and nothing wasted opposite your singleton, as well as your 9 count with four trumps, neither of which have even a jack to be found, both give you a game that is (very roughly) on a finesse. As Peter Griffin would say, that's it? That's your ace in the hole??

[Winstonm]

Quote

Of course it is not common to be going down in 2, I was merely attempting to demonstrate the sillyness of trying to prove a point by crafting a couple great fitting example hands

I agree. The crux of the argument is how often is exactly 2 the right spot. I confess I do not know.

I do, though, think that the opened hand re-evaluates to well above minimum after the raise, so then the question becomes how often will I find the good or super fit and make game versus how often I go down pushing too high.

I totally confess I don't know. But my evaluative eye tells me that this hand is being undervaluated by those who pass. 6-loser hands are more typically hands that would jump support or jump rebid.

Of course, you have to realize that I have always played a style where responder is allowed to use judgement and may well have a "heavy" 2S bid - even when playing Drury. We also tend not to respond lightish. As example, my partners could show up with AKx, xxx, QJx, xxx after this 2S bid.

Knowing responding styles certainly makes a difference.

[han]

Winstonm, on Dec 10 2008, 08:33 PM, said:

han, on Dec 10 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

I would pass.

I expect partner to bid drury with a good 9-count and with all 10-counts. That doesn't mean game can't make but passing seems to be with the odds.

Just a question, not trying to start a fight. Does your partner place those same restrictions on your bidding, i.e., are you not allowed to exercise judgement about bad, fair, good, and excellent 10 counts and alter your bid based on your judgement?

I'm not sure what restrictions you are talking about. We have discussed what a drury bid shows, so when he doesn't bid drury I don't expect him to hold such a hand. If that's a restriction, they apply to both of us. In general we are both encouraged to upgrade or downgrade as we think is right.

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on Dec 10 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

han, on Dec 10 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

I would pass.

I expect partner to bid drury with a good 9-count and with all 10-counts. That doesn't mean game can't make but passing seems to be with the odds.

Just a question, not trying to start a fight. Does your partner place those same restrictions on your bidding, i.e., are you not allowed to exercise judgement about bad, fair, good, and excellent 10 counts and alter your bid based on your judgement?

Han would never dare to do that, as we recently agreed that good versus bad 9 counts is about the cutoff we use for drury versus 2S. (Of course, in case you are now going to post a 4333 hand with 3 queens and 4 jacks, including Jxx of trumps and Jxxx in a side suit, then we will just make fun of you as a point-counter.)

[han]

Winstonm, on Dec 10 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

Quote

Of course we can't both have the king of spades....

♠QJ9xx
♥KQJx
♦Axx
♣x

You start drinking again?

Correction: we both can have the king of spades but we can't both have the king of hearts.

Winstonm, on Dec 10 2008, 04:43 PM, said:

All of a sudden, Kxx, Kxxx, xx, xxxx looks to be a pretty good hand.

[han]

Some double dummy results with partner having 6-9 pts and 3-card support or 5-8 points with 4-card support, no shortness, out of 400 deals:

6 tricks: 9 times
7 tricks: 58 times
8 tricks: 123 times
9 tricks: 160 times
10 tricks: 43 times
11 tricks: 7 times

That should add up to about 400.

Game makes on 13% of those hands, 3S goes down on 47% of the hands.

If you play constructive raises then your expectations should be considerably better, if you play drury like we do then your expectations should be slightly worse. I expect double dummy results to favor the defense here by a small amount.

[H_KARLUK]

3H natural, We play 1M>2M "8-10 HCP" ; 1M>1N, 2x>back to 2 Opening Major "6-10 HCP" and does not guarantee 3 cards support

♠QJ9xx
♥KQJx
♦Axx
♣x

With his minimum best 8 HCP does not worth a try? At worst we have chance to run for 9 tricks. Easy to abort game. Isn't it?

[Winstonm]

Quote

I'm not sure what restrictions you are talking about.

I meant this:

Quote

I expect partner to bid drury with a good 9-count and with all 10-counts.

All 10 counts. That says to me he cannot make a judgement as to whether some 10-counts aren't good enough.

[han]

When I started posting on the forums I would often write things like "1NT = 15-17 HCP, or a decent 14-count with a nice 5-card suit or an bad 18-count with 4333-shape".

Once I passed 8000 posts I made two changes. I stopped downgrading 18-counts and I started writing "15-17 points" for the above, hoping that the rest was common sense.

[Winstonm]

han, on Dec 10 2008, 09:37 PM, said:

Some double dummy results with partner having 6-9 pts and 3-card support or 5-8 points with 4-card support, no shortness, out of 400 deals:

6 tricks: 9 times
7 tricks: 58 times
8 tricks: 123 times
9 tricks: 160 times
10 tricks: 43 times
11 tricks: 7 times

That should add up to about 400.

Game makes on 13% of those hands, 3S goes down on 47% of the hands.

If you play constructive raises then your expectations should be considerably better, if you play drury like we do then your expectations should be slightly worse. I expect double dummy results to favor the defense here by a small amount.

Thanks. That's good. So under the parameters you set up, the hand makes 10 or 11 tricks 50 times and makes exactly 8 tricks 123 times. So the gain there would be 40.7% which should justify bidding game.

Now, I don't know if that is mathematically correct to compare only the times the hand makes exactly 8 tricks to the game hands - but if you are going down in 2 I don't think it will matter greatly if you go down in 3 - unless doubled.

[Winstonm]

han, on Dec 10 2008, 09:52 PM, said:

When I started posting on the forums I would often write things like "1NT = 15-17 HCP, or a decent 14-count with a nice 5-card suit or an bad 18-count with 4333-shape".

Once I passed 8000 posts I made two changes. I stopped downgrading 18-counts and I started writing "15-17 points" for the above, hoping that the rest was common sense.

Han,

You should know by this time there is nothing common about common sense.

[han]

Winstonm, on Dec 10 2008, 09:57 PM, said:

han, on Dec 10 2008, 09:37 PM, said:

Some double dummy results with partner having 6-9 pts and 3-card support or 5-8 points with 4-card support, no shortness, out of 400 deals:

6 tricks: 9 times
7 tricks: 58 times
8 tricks: 123 times
9 tricks: 160 times
10 tricks: 43 times
11 tricks: 7 times

That should add up to about 400.

Game makes on 13% of those hands, 3S goes down on 47% of the hands.

If you play constructive raises then your expectations should be considerably better, if you play drury like we do then your expectations should be slightly worse. I expect double dummy results to favor the defense here by a small amount.

Thanks. That's good. So under the parameters you set up, the hand makes 10 or 11 tricks 50 times and makes exactly 8 tricks 123 times. So the gain there would be 40.7% which should justify bidding game.

Now, I don't know if that is mathematically correct to compare only the times the hand makes exactly 8 tricks to the game hands - but if you are going down in 2 I don't think it will matter greatly if you go down in 3 - unless doubled.

If you compare the numbers 100 and 200 then you could say that they differ by 50% or you could say that they differ by 100%, and both could be correct, depending on your viewpoint. But if you are talking about these things with someone else, it is a good idea to make sure that you have the same viewpoint otherwise it can lead to confusion.

If we ignore the hands where you have 6, 7 or 9 tricks then there are 173 hands left and 50 of those make game. My calculator says that is about 29% of those hands, not enough to make trying for game a good idea.

But you shouldn't ignore the hands with 6 or 7 tricks, because with those hands you score less well when you try for game. And you also shouldn't ignore the 9-trick hands, because no matter how accurate your invitations are, you will be in game on some of those hands and you will be in 3 when you actually should be in 4. Also, you will get to game on some hands where you only have 8 tricks, and then you will be down 2, and the usual odds needed to be in game don't apply.

If these numbers are close to accurate than it is really clear to pass. We can argue about whether the odds this simulation gives are accurate or not but we cannot argue about what they suggest if they are accurate.

[Winstonm]

han, on Dec 10 2008, 10:41 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 10 2008, 09:57 PM, said:

han, on Dec 10 2008, 09:37 PM, said:

Some double dummy results with partner having 6-9 pts and 3-card support or 5-8 points with 4-card support, no shortness, out of 400 deals:

6 tricks: 9 times
7 tricks: 58 times
8 tricks: 123 times
9 tricks: 160 times
10 tricks: 43 times
11 tricks: 7 times

That should add up to about 400.

Game makes on 13% of those hands, 3S goes down on 47% of the hands.

If you play constructive raises then your expectations should be considerably better, if you play drury like we do then your expectations should be slightly worse. I expect double dummy results to favor the defense here by a small amount.

Thanks. That's good. So under the parameters you set up, the hand makes 10 or 11 tricks 50 times and makes exactly 8 tricks 123 times. So the gain there would be 40.7% which should justify bidding game.

Now, I don't know if that is mathematically correct to compare only the times the hand makes exactly 8 tricks to the game hands - but if you are going down in 2 I don't think it will matter greatly if you go down in 3 - unless doubled.

If you compare the numbers 100 and 200 then you could say that they differ by 50% or you could say that they differ by 100%, and both could be correct, depending on your viewpoint. But if you are talking about these things with someone else, it is a good idea to make sure that you have the same viewpoint otherwise it can lead to confusion.

If we ignore the hands where you have 6, 7 or 9 tricks then there are 173 hands left and 50 of those make game. My calculator says that is about 29% of those hands, not enough to make trying for game a good idea.

But you shouldn't ignore the hands with 6 or 7 tricks, because with those hands you score less well when you try for game. And you also shouldn't ignore the 9-trick hands, because no matter how accurate your invitations are, you will be in game on some of those hands and you will be in 3 when you actually should be in 4. Also, you will get to game on some hands where you only have 8 tricks, and then you will be down 2, and the usual odds needed to be in game don't apply.

If these numbers are close to accurate than it is really clear to pass. We can argue about whether the odds this simulation gives are accurate or not but we cannot argue about what they suggest if they are accurate.

I certainly do not argue your mathematics skills. I am not mathematically inclined.
I am looking at this this way. The auction is 1S-2S. We are at 2 already so the only thing that matters is what happens if I make a game try - now a game try can get to 4 or stop in 3.

Of the times we bid on, only 50 times will we make game and 160 times we will be limited to 9 tricks - that is 31.2% - not enough reward.

Well done. Thanks for running the simulations.

[cherdano]

Lets say we are vulnerable at IMPs. The gains for a game try are easy to compute:
50 hands make game for a gain of 50*11 = 550 IMPs.

123 hands make 8 tricks for a loss of 123*5=615 IMPs.
67 hands make less than 8 tricks for a loss of 67*3 = 201 IMPs.

I hope this s clarifies how wrong it is to ignore the hands where 2S is down...

[maggieb]

That calculation assumes that you always get to game on the hands where you have 10+ tricks and always stop in 3 with the hands where you have at most 9 tricks. So the odds are actually larger than 816 vs 550. (adding... getting old! )

Of course Arend's calculation is enough to see that inviting (at these odds) can't win.

I'm not sure I trust double dummy results in such a contract though.

[han]

Following rogerclee's suggestion I reran the simulation with a similar but better hand: KJ9xx KQJx Axx x. We both think that this is a clear invite so hopefully the simulation would support that. If not, perhaps the results shouldn't be taken seriously.

Out of 400 hands:

6 tricks: 3
7 tricks: 20
8 tricks: 100
9 tricks: 166
10 tricks: 99
11 tricks: 9
12 tricks: 3

So now if we assume that our inviting is perfect and we get to game on all hands with 10+ tricks and stop in 3S on all others then our results are:

111 times win 11: +1221 IMPs
100 times lose 5: -500 IMPs
23 times lose 3: -69 IMPs

This gives a total of +660 IMPs, overwhelming odds in favor of trying for game.

Of course the assumptions here are a little too rosy but these same assumptions said we should pass with the previous hand.

What a difference 1 HCP can make.. as expected?

[655321]

Thanks for these sims, Han, they are interesting.

BTW, it doesn't affect the results in any way but a vulnerable game is worth 10 IMPs not 11.

I have probably asked this question before, but what do people use to do the double dummy analysis of generated hands?

[Fluffy]

I had assumed 2♠ showed 8-10 (bad 10)

the hand Han posted (Kxx Axxx xx xxxx) althou I would also raise with it, is far from ideal then.

Trying for game when partner has shown a 6-9 raise is nuts.