[kfay]

Scoring: Chicago

(P)-P-(3♣)-Dbl
(P)-?

---

[jdonn]

Passsssssss

[kaitlink]

Josh can you please explain your decision? I find things like 3NT vs pass with this kind of hand to be very hard decisions, and I'm never sure what I should do here. What factors about this hand in particular make you want to try for a nonvulnerable penalty instead of a vulnerable game?

[Fluffy]

I like 3NT, slow stoppers in opponents suit are good.

[Hanoi5]

3NT, we're Vulnerable, it's money bridge.

[TimG]

kaitlink, on Jan 5 2009, 12:37 AM, said:

What factors about this hand in particular make you want to try for a nonvulnerable penalty instead of a vulnerable game?

I think it is more like "what makes you want to collect a NV penalty instead of try for game?" I'd prefer taking the sure thing.

[whereagles]

it's money, so we take the money

[ASkolnick]

Along the lines of Tim G., how often do you need to be right when NV versus Vul.

Let's assume the following:

Some percentage of the time:

If Pass Gives you +300, versus +600. You lost 300 points.
If you are wrong, you lost -100 versus +300. You lose 400 points.

If this were the only two possiblities. You would only need to be right 42.6% (I may be off a decimal) to think leaving the double in is the winning option.

On this particular hand, I am not sure why you would think you necessarily have 9 tricks. you have no tricks in clubs (but you do have defensive tricks), your hearts are not a good fit with partner. The spades do fit nicely and your diamonds are ok.

[whereagles]

Don't forget this is money bridge. It's like

pass = win some
do the right thing = win more
do the wrong thing = lose

At imps, its more like

pass = win (if it's the right thing) or lose (if it's the wrong thing)

It's more vital to get it right at imps. In money, just cash out and play next hand.

[kfay]

whereagles, on Jan 5 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

Don't forget this is money bridge. It's like

pass = win some
do the right thing = win more
do the wrong thing = lose

At imps, its more like

pass = win (if it's the right thing) or lose (if it's the wrong thing)

It's more vital to get it right at imps. In money, just cash out and play next hand.

Good point.

What would you do on this hand if it were MPs?

[whereagles]

kfay, on Jan 5 2009, 05:05 PM, said:

Good point.

What would you do on this hand if it were MPs?

I would do the right thing, of course

[Fluffy]

I don't know if that's the right way to think NUNO, obviously at money bridge, the difference with 300 vs 600 is not as huge as it is in IMPs, but anyway you should target to your maximum possible benefit.

After reading more posts I feel more inclined to pass, I didn't like that idea at first because there is always a chance that they make it, but here the chance its very slim.

[Cascade]

whereagles, on Jan 6 2009, 06:03 AM, said:

Don't forget this is money bridge. It's like

pass = win some
do the right thing = win more
do the wrong thing = lose

At imps, its more like

pass = win (if it's the right thing) or lose (if it's the wrong thing)

It's more vital to get it right at imps. In money, just cash out and play next hand.

I think it is more like:

Pass = win some with probability x and lose some with probability (1-x)

Bid 3NT = win with probability y and lose with probability (1-y)

Bid 3♦ = win with probability z and lose with probability (1-z)

etc etc

Now the best thing to do depends on the maximum of how much you win multiplied by the probability subtract the amount you lose multiplied by the probability of that loss for each of the various options.

[gnasher]

whereagles, on Jan 5 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

In money, just cash out and play next hand.

This is Chicago. On the next hand (or in three hands' time) the opponents will be vulnerable and we will not.

[RichMor]

kfay, on Jan 4 2009, 11:16 PM, said:

Scoring: Chicago

(P)-P-(3♣)-Dbl
(P)-?

---

Isn't the vulnerability in 'Chicago' scoring neither, dealer, dealer, both ?

[kfay]

RichMor, on Jan 5 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

kfay, on Jan 4 2009, 11:16 PM, said:

Scoring: Chicago

(P)-P-(3♣)-Dbl
(P)-?

---

Isn't the vulnerability in 'Chicago' scoring neither, dealer, dealer, both ?

I've always played none, not dealer, not dealer, both. Does it really matter that much?

[gnasher]

RichMor, on Jan 5 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

Isn't the vulnerability in 'Chicago' scoring neither, dealer, dealer, both ?

I think it varies from country to country.

[RichMor]

kfay, on Jan 5 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

RichMor, on Jan 5 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

kfay, on Jan 4 2009, 11:16 PM, said:

Scoring: Chicago

(P)-P-(3♣)-Dbl
(P)-?

---

Isn't the vulnerability in 'Chicago' scoring neither, dealer, dealer, both ?

I've always played none, not dealer, not dealer, both. Does it really matter that much?

Just a little bit.

If we are vul on the next hand then it is more attractive to pass the double for penalties; take the points now and hope for a vulnerable game on the next hand.

Kinda trivial.

[ArtK78]

Pass. Take the sure plus. It could be a large plus.

Besides, while 3NT may be likely to make, it is not 100%. Sometimes 3♣x is the last plus score available.

[gnasher]

RichMor, on Jan 6 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

If we are vul on the next hand then it is more attractive to pass the double for penalties; take the points now and hope for a vulnerable game on the next hand.

This isn't win-lose Chicago. The objective is to maximise the number of points we win. Given that no one has a partscore, and no one is going to make a partscore here, this deal and the next deal are two independent events, each representing an independent opportunity to make money. Whether we're going to score +420, +620 or -2800 on the next deal has no bearing on the correct action on this one.