[Phil]

jdonn, on May 4 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

Phil:

- Since you point out I had the vul wrong, I'll return the favor and point out that it's matchpoints. Not that I think it's very close at imps either...

- Yes if partner raises you too high and you reach a bad game you 'arent down yet', just like if he raises you to a good game you 'havent made yet'. I don't see the point, if partner has that particular hand and you overcall you will reach a bad game, period.

- NO I would not overcall with 3532 or the ten of hearts!!! You don't see why I feel so strongly because you think it's close? I'll help you see. It's not close!

You're right, I didn't notice the scoring.

At MPs, I'll pass. I still bid at IMPs

[kfay]

Phil, on May 4 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 4 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

Phil:

- Since you point out I had the vul wrong, I'll return the favor and point out that it's matchpoints. Not that I think it's very close at imps either...

- Yes if partner raises you too high and you reach a bad game you 'arent down yet', just like if he raises you to a good game you 'havent made yet'. I don't see the point, if partner has that particular hand and you overcall you will reach a bad game, period.

- NO I would not overcall with 3532 or the ten of hearts!!! You don't see why I feel so strongly because you think it's close? I'll help you see. It's not close!

You're right, I didn't notice the scoring.

At MPs, I'll pass. I still bid at IMPs

In this field? IDK....

At my local club people generally don't double me and once or twice have run from doubled contracts when they would have made overtrickS because most of the time I wrap it around their heads. In short... weak MP field wouldn't dissaude me from being a bidder.

This is a hand I would have bid 3♥ on a year ago but now I would pass and feel fine about it.

[rbforster]

Remember to consider your club holding. With 3 and 7 for preempter, partner will find a balancing double (or bid) with 1-2 clubs whenever he's got a reasonable hand. So it seems like much of the time passing won't end the auction.

For the bidders, make sure you're only considering game-making hands that wouldn't have balanced.

[akhare]

whereagles, on May 4 2009, 05:47 AM, said:

Matchpoints, expert pard, intermediate field.

NV vs V, you hold:

♠ A9
♥ AJ853
♦ T43
♣ A42

RHO deals and opens 3♣.

Pass or bid?

I am late to the party here, but I must concur who consider bidding 3♥ as a joke.

Poor suit, balanced shape and the danger of egging pard into bidding too much...three strikes (and counting) all point to a pass in tempo...

[ulven]

The big points here for action are vulnerability and my three little diamonds. There will be auctions where we play too high going one or two off (for -50/-100) here they make 3D with 7 diamonds and a couple of sidesuit tricks. We know partner is very likely to be short in diamonds and why should he balance with 6-8 hcp and a void? Holding an aceless hand, i.e poor defensive values, I'd be really scared that partner sat for it with the wrong hand. Sure, my LHO is just as likely to be short and finesses for K's will not work.

Anyone so inclined can do a simulation. My sim (Scania Bridgedealer, ca 40 deals with a probably biased "human" analyst, i.e. me) showed that no action is a huge winner but bidding is correct pretty often. You wouldn't be far off by passing but calling bidding a joke shows some lack in taking all factors into proper consideration, in my view. By passing you will lose out on making games without a partner with a real knack for taking double-dummy actions in balancing seat (some which I'm then likely to call a joke).

The sim result depends upon the preemptive style for 3D. When it can be hands like AQJxxxx and a sidesuit K, passing is more often right. When most a queen on the side, bidding is attractive. Holding all aces, we're also likely to escape marginal doubles when action is wrong. People tend not to double on trump length and strength alone.

3H can turn out bad, but will be a winner often enough for me to stand by my choice, despite all Little Old Ladies (and a JLOL ;-) here...

Whereagles! Let's see the actual deal so you can laugh at me.

[cherdanno]

Ulf, would it change your opinion if you re-read the original post and noticed it was a clubs preempt, not a diamonds preempt?

[gnasher]

I don't agree that partner will raise with a fairly balanced 8- or 9-count and three-card support. I'd be much more worried about the hands where partner isn't going to raise me.

Edit: Sorry - got rid of the nonsensical example.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-May-04, 13:57

[jdonn]

ulven, on May 4 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

Whereagles! Let's see the actual deal so you can laugh at me.

I'm scared to, I strongly fear bidding will have worked out well!

[ulven]

cherdanno, on May 4 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

Ulf, would it change your opinion if you re-read the original post and noticed it was a clubs preempt, not a diamonds preempt?

Oops!

Definitely changes things. For some reason I read it as a 3D opening, as evidenced by my post.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[eyhung]

Count me in the camp of not even close to bidding 3H. I don't see why we should be stretching to bid at the 3-level at either IMPs or MPs when we have length in the enemy suit, and a weak notrump. It's hard to imagine game on even if partner has a fit if partner is also balanced with 3 clubs, or weak with short clubs. Whenever partner has balanced 8-11 and hearts, he will raise and we will likely be too high. And when partner is broke or heartless, he will pass and we will still be too high.

The general rule of thumb I like is : If you have 3 or more enemy trumps, you shouldn't be eager to enter over a preempt. You should have a "classic" hand for your action. However, if you are short, then you can be aggressive. Change the hand to A42 AJ8543 A94 2 and now 3H seems right -- most hands with 8 working HCP and 3 hearts will now provide us with reasonable play for game, and partner is unlikely to balance since you are short in clubs.

[Fluffy]

Nobody pointed it out yet, but 3♥ leads to 4♥ many times, when it is very likelly that your best game is in 3NT wich we will bid whenever partner reopens with 3♦/♠.

I am nowhere close to bid with this, About a King short for a bid, but being MPs makes it more likelly to bid than the contrary (those 1400 aren't that painy after all).

[ulven]

I asked Tjolpe Flodqvist to make a sim with his program, which is able to generate HTML.

Here it is:
http://www.syskon.nu...Preemt_poll.htm

I haven't checked the deals yet as I'm hitting the sack now (1 am here).

[cherdanno]

At matchpoints, this may be much closer than Justin and Josh are making it. Looking through the simulations, there were many gains from 4H-2 undoubled (or 3H-1/-2) against 3C making. It seems to depend a lot on how sound RHO's preempts are (if he is very classical as in good suit, little outside strength that favors bidding), how aggressive partner is in balancing, and how aggressive LHO is in doubling (might be a good idea to double aggressively against Ulf!).
At IMPs, I think bidding is suicidal.

[awm]

Looking at these, it seems like there are a lot of hands where 3♥ goes two down but might be hard to double, or where 3♥ is likely to get raised to 4♥ for two down, but might be hard to double. These are all good "saves" against 3♣ making. My quick scan didn't see many good games that wouldn't be reached anyway.

So it appears that bidding 3♥ might be good at MP scoring, since all the -100 results actually score up pretty well. But at IMPs it seems suicidal, since opponents have the occasional big number and many chances at +300 opposite air.

[xcurt]

I don't buy the argument that 3H is ok since we can go -100 vs -110. minus scores that beat par matchpoint poorly if we aren't in wc field. Bidding lays big mp odds. I'm passing smoothly.

[xcurt]

ulven, on May 4 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

I asked Tjolpe Flodqvist to make a sim with his program, which is able to generate HTML.

Here it is:
http://www.syskon.nu...Preemt_poll.htm

I haven't checked the deals yet as I'm hitting the sack now (1 am here).

It looks from the bottom of this page like it only took 472 deals to generate 102 hands. If this is the case, I'm skeptical about the accuracy of the probability distributions until proven otherwise.

[Codo]

Thanks Ulven,

I love it when an opinion is backed up with facts.

Most contributors like to back up their opinion just with strong fealings.

[gnasher]

It's an overstatement to describe the results of a simulation as fact. In this case, I think it's quite a long way from the real world.

On at least six of the first ten deals I would have opened RHO's hand at the one level. I know my views on what constitutes a preempt aren't quite middle of the road, but even so I don't believe that a majority of good players would open 3♣, first at adverse, on a ten-count with a side ace.

The conditions of the simulation require that North have six losers. That almost guarantees that he'll have a side ace or king. If that is their agreement, it will be a lot easier for LHO to double us, so on many of the hands where it looks like we'll get away with 3♥-2 or 4♥-2 we will, in fact, be doubled.

Alternatively, if they don't have the agreement that the preempt promises six losers, the simulation is of little value, since it excludes a large number of deals which should have been included.

[Codo]

Hi Andy,

the given hands are facts. How they are generated is a fact.

I would never argue that all these hands are 3 club openings, nor that these hands are the ultimate proove that 3 HEart (or pass or any other bid) are the one and onyly way to win.

But these are 102 deals, where anybody can get his own conclusion whether or not bidding 3 HEart on these deals had been right or wrong and whether the conditions of the simulation matches reality as good as possible.

Ulf stated himself that his analyses are influenced by his opinion, same is true for all of us, so which conclusion you take from these hands is your personal thing- and no fact.

I agree that 6 losers (for east) is quite regressive and makes it easier for them to double. And at least to me it is far from clear what will happen if you allow lower limit openings, I belive that it makes bidding more dangerous, but what do I know.

[whereagles]

Well, I must confess I wasn't expecting such a lively discussion. The actual deal was probably quite far from any simulation:

Scoring: MP

East South
3♣ ...??

---

I posted this because it seemed to me like nice practical deal to illustrate that very important principle of post-preemtptive bidding, which is to ask oneself the question:

"Do I need to bid NOW?"

to which the answer is, in his case and in my opinion, "Probably not. We are long in clubs, so pard is likely to be short there and will balance if he has some cards."

Ok, you can argue East's hand is no where near a red 3♣ opener, but these things happen and you have to deal with them, whether you like it or not. For the record, I held the South hand and passed (& have witnesses to prove it.. lol). It went -2 for most of the matchpoints. Bidding would have led to a really bad score.

I think it would have been a much more difficult problem if we held club shortage.