[FrancesHinden]

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

cherdano, on Dec 23 2008, 02:42 AM, said:

foooooooooooooooo

3♥ sounds right.

Yell all you want. That does not refute the logic I presented above.

If you disagree, then address the bridge issues I brought up.

You didn't bring up 'bridge issues'. You talked about HCP and said that "We do not rate to have a game or even enough HCP to belong at the 3 level."

It's not about HCP.

Do a simulation. I bet you will discover that it is definitely wrong, looking just at your and partner's hand, to pass. The problem on the hand is nothing to do with us not having enough points. The problem is that the right contract might be
i) 2Sx (we should double)
ii) a minor suit game or partial (we should double)
iii) a heart game or partial (we should bid 3H)

I very much doubt that the right contract is 2S undoubled.

I don't believe the other passers disagree with this, they just believe that the chance of getting a worse score from selecting the wrong one of double/3H is greater than the expected result from getting it right. Nothing to do with whether we have 'enough HCP to belong at the 3-level'.

FWIW I'm a 3H bidder.

[ArtK78]

3for3, on Dec 22 2008, 08:52 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 22 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

The only time that double gains is when partner has a penalty pass.  That is not a common occurrence.

The only time that double gains is when partner has a penalty pass. That is not a common occurrence.

Art, this is not correct. 3♥ does not have to be right; far from it. Partner is entitled to hold some ordinary 3145 or some such where playing in the minor was just as good or better.

Danny

Danny, I don't doubt that double could land us in 3 of a minor and that 3 of a minor could be right on some hands.

I just think that 3♥ will be the winning call far more often. My hand will produce a lot of tricks with hearts as trump opposite a minimal heart fit, but not so many tricks in three of a minor. And if there is a game (which is unlikely, but not impossible) it rates to be in hearts.

[TimG]

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 02:40 AM, said:

We do not rate to have a game or even enough HCP to belong at the 3 level.

I guess the opening poster should have just said: LHO opens 2S, which is passed to us, we have 9 HCP, what to do? No need to give the actual hand so that considerations beyond HCP can be made.

[foo]

Frances, Tim:

I only =started= my analysis on HCP grounds.

I also included the CoC, the ODR of the given hand, and the likely shape and value location implications of the auction so far in my analysis.

It's more than a bit unsporting to claim my only focus was on HCP.

There are problems doing objective sims of contested auctions that are realistic, but I'll see what can be done on that front.

FTR, I do not like passing. I just hate it less than either
=making such an off shape takeout X (unless you play X is Penalty here) or
=making a 3H invitational bid when We do not rate to have 3+ level safety. I certainly do not want to end up in 4H if Advancer has the expected flat boring 12 count with something like 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s.

It's not that I think pass in the best call. It's that I think pass is the least bad call.

But I'm willing to be convinced. Let's see some objective sample hands and the odds of them for Advancer that makes 3H better than pass.

EDIT: BTW, Frances- if in 2/3 of the scenarios you think you should X, you should want to X instead of bidding 3H?

[ArtK78]

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

FTR, I do not like passing.  I just hate it less than either
=making such an off shape takeout X (unless you play X is Penalty here) or
=making a 3H invitational bid when We do not rate to have 3+ level safety.  I certainly do not want to end up in 4H if Advancer has the expected flat boring 12 count with something like 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s.

A 3♥ invitational bid? Who said 3♥ was invitational? It is a balancing call. Sure, it shows some values, but partner knows that the 3♥ call is a balance, so it could be based on very minimal values - certainly far less than a 3♥ call in direct seat.

If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts, partner is not a bridge player.

[TimG]

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

There are problems doing objective sims of contested auctions that are realistic, but I'll see what can be done on that front.

I agree, it will be difficult to set the constraints for responder's pass.

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Dec 23 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

FTR, I do not like passing.  I just hate it less than either
=making such an off shape takeout X (unless you play X is Penalty here) or
=making a 3H invitational bid when We do not rate to have 3+ level safety.  I certainly do not want to end up in 4H if Advancer has the expected flat boring 12 count with something like 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s.

A 3♥ invitational bid? Who said 3♥ was invitational? It is a balancing call. Sure, it shows some values, but partner knows that the 3♥ call is a balance, so it could be based on very minimal values - certainly far less than a 3♥ call in direct seat.

If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts, partner is not a bridge player.

Even more so because it is hearts (over a spade opening). I would expect 2S-P-P-3H to have a narrower range than 2S-P-P-3C.

[foo]

ArtK78, on Dec 23 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

FTR, I do not like passing.  I just hate it less than either
=making such an off shape takeout X (unless you play X is Penalty here) or
=making a 3H invitational bid when We do not rate to have 3+ level safety.  I certainly do not want to end up in 4H if Advancer has the expected flat boring 12 count with something like 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s.

A 3♥ invitational bid? Who said 3♥ was invitational? It is a balancing call. Sure, it shows some values, but partner knows that the 3♥ call is a balance, so it could be based on very minimal values - certainly far less than a 3♥ call in direct seat.

If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts, partner is not a bridge player.

So what is Balancer to do with a full, yet minimum, opening bid? Bid 4H all by themselves?! X and then bid ♥'s ?! Of course not. They bid 3H.

It is the oldest adage in Bridge that an opening bid opposite an opening bid belongs in game.

If direct seat Advancer has a full opening bid, they are supposed to bid a game if we bid 3H:
=3N with 4+S containing a stop & only 2 H's.
=4H with 3+H
=4H with only 2 H's but no ♠ stop (xxx or xxxx of ♠'s means We may be playing with a 3 suited deck from our PoV. The nasty is if Advancer has wasted ♠ values but not a stop.)

But Advancer certainly should not be passing 3H while holding a full opening bid under most conditions.

[mikeh]

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 02:40 AM, said:

Despite the 6 card H suit, this looks like a defensive hand in this auction.

Let me see... we have a stiff in their suit. Our longest suit is headed by the jack. We have two side cards, and they are Aces... and you think that this looks like a defensive hand?

We live in different universes.

I agree, virtually verbatim, with the sentiments expressed by Frances.

3♥ may indeed lead to a poor result, whether that is 3 or 4♥ failing, or partner bidding 3N over our 3♥. Bidding is an imperfect science. So what? The issue is a blend of frequency and magnitude. 35 years of experience suggests to me that 3♥, flawed as it is, represents the best chance of a decent result.

I suspect that a simulation would be problematic... not only do we have to account for 3rd seat's tendencies, but also opener's views of what a 1st seat weak 2 looks like, and, of course, what partner will do over any of our actions... and we all 'know' the hand, so it would be difficult to be objective. And this is a situation in which double-dummy analyses would be particularly unhelpful.... it's not what 'should' happen that counts, but what 'would' happen. I do, however, strongly suspect that Frances is correct in saying that such a simulation would say that SOME action is preferable to pass.

Finally, if I passed that hand out, some of my partners would insist on checking me for a pulse

[foo]

Fine. I'll change my vote to X.

This is a less deep position than 3H IMHO and a less deep position than pass in other people's opinion.

And FTR, while having a stiff in Their suit and a 6 card suit is nice, it's the nasty of having 8/9 of my points be A's in my short suits that drives the ODR of the given hand into the floor.

At least according to my understanding of what Robson and Segal had to say on the subject.

[MarkDean]

ArtK78, on Dec 23 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

FTR, I do not like passing.  I just hate it less than either
=making such an off shape takeout X (unless you play X is Penalty here) or
=making a 3H invitational bid when We do not rate to have 3+ level safety.  I certainly do not want to end up in 4H if Advancer has the expected flat boring 12 count with something like 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s.

A 3♥ invitational bid? Who said 3♥ was invitational? It is a balancing call. Sure, it shows some values, but partner knows that the 3♥ call is a balance, so it could be based on very minimal values - certainly far less than a 3♥ call in direct seat.

If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts, partner is not a bridge player.

Wow, not a bridge player, really?

[foo]

MarkDean, on Dec 23 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 23 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

FTR, I do not like passing.  I just hate it less than either
=making such an off shape takeout X (unless you play X is Penalty here) or
=making a 3H invitational bid when We do not rate to have 3+ level safety.  I certainly do not want to end up in 4H if Advancer has the expected flat boring 12 count with something like 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s.

A 3♥ invitational bid? Who said 3♥ was invitational? It is a balancing call. Sure, it shows some values, but partner knows that the 3♥ call is a balance, so it could be based on very minimal values - certainly far less than a 3♥ call in direct seat.

If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s, partner is not a bridge player.

Wow, not a bridge player, really?

Yes, evidently no "real" bridge player would raise (2S)-pa-pa-3H;pa-?? to 4H with any of the following:

xxxx_Ax_(KQx_Kxxx)

xxxx_Ax_(Kxx_KQxx)

Jxxx_Kx_(KQx_Kxxx)

Jxxx_Kx_(Kxx_KQxx)

Jxxx_Qx_(KJx_KQxx)

Jxxx_Qx_(KQx_KJxx)

Here are 12 =crappy= 12 counts that have play for 4H opposite even the given 9 HCP hand. I have admittedly cheated by putting cards exactly where they will do the most good or the least harm. Most 12 counts will not have their values so perfectly placed.

But Advancer does not know that you've balanced on a low ODR 9 count with a bad suit.

With the average 12 count, Advancer should be even more willing to raise 3H to 4H than they are with any of the above. I know I will be raising 3H to 4H with any 12+ hand with 2+♥ that I can envision having 50+ % chances (34+ % Red @ IMPs) of making 4H but less odds on making 3N. I like bidding my games and slams.

...but then, according to ArtK78, my actions are not those of a bridge player.

[han]

Gotta agree with Art there.

[TimG]

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

Yes, evidently no "real" bridge player would raise (2S)-pa-pa-3H;pa-?? to 4H with any of the following:

xxxx_Ax_(KQx_Kxxx)

xxxx_Ax_(Kxx_KQxx)

Jxxx_Kx_(KQx_Kxxx)

Jxxx_Kx_(Kxx_KQxx)

Jxxx_Qx_(KJx_KQxx)

Jxxx_Qx_(KQx_KJxx)

Here are 12 =crappy= 12 counts that have play for 4H opposite even the given 9 HCP hand.

Are you seriously suggesting that on this auction xxxx Ax KQx Kxxx is a "crappy" 12 count?

Any 12-count that has 4 small spades should probably be elevated from "crappy" status given the auction. Don't you think?

[FrancesHinden]

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

EDIT: BTW, Frances- if in 2/3 of the scenarios you think you should X, you should want to X instead of bidding 3H?

Only if all the scenarios are equally likely.

[ArtK78]

Apparently my definition of a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts differs somewhat from foo's definition.

How about this one:

KJxx xx QJxx KQx

Here you are off 4 tops and probably one off the bottom.

Or this one:

QJxx xx KJx KQxx

Again, 4 off the top and no assurance that you won't lose another one.

And the list goes on....

By the way, if partner has one of these flat, boring 12 counts, 2♠x may or may not make (depends on how many of your tricks can cash) and 3 of your 4-3 minor suit fit doesn't look that great, either.

[rogerclee]

ArtK78, on Dec 23 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

Apparently my definition of a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts differs somewhat from foo's definition.

How about this one:

KJxx xx QJxx KQx

Here you are off 4 tops and probably one off the bottom.

Or this one:

QJxx xx KJx KQxx

Again, 4 off the top and no assurance that you won't lose another one.

And the list goes on....

By the way, if partner has one of these flat, boring 12 counts, 2♠x may or may not make (depends on how many of your tricks can cash) and 3 of your 4-3 minor suit fit doesn't look that great, either.

Art I will admit that no bridge player would bid 4♥ on these two hands if you admit that no bridge player would pass on them.

[foo]

TimG, on Dec 23 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

Yes, evidently no "real" bridge player would raise  (2S)-pa-pa-3H;pa-??  to 4H with any of the following:

xxxx_Ax_(KQx_Kxxx)

xxxx_Ax_(Kxx_KQxx) 

Jxxx_Kx_(KQx_Kxxx)

Jxxx_Kx_(Kxx_KQxx)

Jxxx_Qx_(KJx_KQxx)

Jxxx_Qx_(KQx_KJxx)

Here are 12 =crappy= 12 counts that have play for 4H opposite even the given 9 HCP hand.

Are you seriously suggesting that on this auction xxxx Ax KQx Kxxx is a "crappy" 12 count?

Any 12-count that has 4 small spades should probably be elevated from "crappy" status given the auction. Don't you think?

Please remember that the exact issue I was responding to was

ArtK78 said:

If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥s (in this auction), partner is not a bridge player.

So I provided hands with average or less than average controls that fit the required definition.

[foo]

ArtK78, on Dec 23 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

Apparently my definition of a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts differs somewhat from foo's definition.

How about this one:

KJxx xx QJxx KQx

Here you are off 4 tops and probably one off the bottom.

Or this one:

QJxx xx KJx KQxx

Again, 4 off the top and no assurance that you won't lose another one.

And the list goes on....

By the way, if partner has one of these flat, boring 12 counts, 2♠x may or may not make (depends on how many of your tricks can cash) and 3 of your 4-3 minor suit fit doesn't look that great, either.

These rate not to make much opposite the 9 count that this thread is about.

Opposite an Opening bid with 5+♥ in it, they both look like decent hands for declaring 3N on this board.

Now, how good are you at being able to tell, via some method legal within bridge, which kind of hand it is that Balancer has?

If you can't Advance 3H to 3N with these, you are going to miss a lot of games.

[CSGibson]

General observation: Every time foo answers a thread, it gets hijacked to a example-counter example argument, foo vs everyone, with neither side ever giving any ground.

Can we all just agree not to argue with foo, as regular posters already know that he is not to be taken seriously as a bridge authority? I call for a cone of silence around foo!