[mtvesuvius]

V vs NV at IMPs, you hold:

KQJTxx
J
------
JT98xx

RHO opens a strong, artificial and forcing 2♣, your bid?

[rogerclee]

4♠

[NickRW]

In the absence of having agreed some way of showing 2 suiters in this situation, 4♠. This hand is probably good for 8 playing tricks and if partner can't contribute even one to that total, then 4♠x is surely a good save against a highly likely slam the other way even at these colours. Heck, we could even make it.

Nick

[whereagles]

Agree to 4♠. Seems like an adequate bid, even with a bid for 2-suiters available.

[JLOL]

4S red/white? Wow you guys are brave!

I would bid 3S.

[whereagles]

JLOL, on May 30 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

4S red/white? Wow you guys are brave! I would bid 3S.

me tarzan, you jane

[rogerclee]

JLOL, on May 30 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

4S red/white? Wow you guys are brave!

I would bid 3S.

I believe my r/w opponents.

[Phil]

4♠ for me too. Unlikely to go for -800. -200 +790 are likely outcomes.

-1400 is theoretically possible but only if they can tap me. and we are off the club suit.

[neilkaz]

Phil, on May 30 2009, 08:46 PM, said:

4♠ for me too. Unlikely to go for -800. -200 +790 are likely outcomes.

-1400 is theoretically possible but only if they can tap me. and we are off the club suit.

I have to agree with Phil here.

Looking at my hand, it is unlikely that opener has a strong NT hand. He almost certainly has a red suited oriented 2♣ either a 1 or 2 suiter.

4♠ while risky, really limits the opps ability to explore for slam. If PD is broke, the opps may have a grand. Let them guess !

3♠ does preempt, but even at these colors, I gotta go 4♠

[NickRW]

Phil, on May 31 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

4♠ for me too. Unlikely to go for -800. -200 +790 are likely outcomes.

-1400 is theoretically possible but only if they can tap me. and we are off the club suit.

Yes, there can be some -1400s - some of them will still be good saves against a grand - though, to be fair, a lot of folks are not good at bidding grands.

I tried running a sim for my own benefit as I was actually quite rattled that Justin thought 4♠ was too much. Meaningful analysis is next to impossible of course as you can't model the psychology of the situation, not to mention that people debate endlessly about what is and what is not a 2♣ opener. Never the less, there seem to be enough cases of

1. Making 4♠
2. One off against a game
3. More, but few enough, off against a slam

that 4♠ is a reasonable matchpoint bet. At IMPs - well - I'm not going to crunch the numbers this late at night here especially as they don't really prove anything anyway - but it seems quite touch and go whether 4 beats 3 as a call - I think I still go with 4 - but it is as much the psychology side of it that I think may work our way with the higher call. Of course, the psychology may work against us - sometimes a preempt pushes an opponent into something they wouldn't have done if you'd just kept quiet!

Nick

[rogerclee]

NickRW, on May 30 2009, 08:02 PM, said:

Phil, on May 31 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

4♠ for me too. Unlikely to go for -800. -200 +790 are likely outcomes.

-1400 is theoretically possible but only if they can tap me. and we are off the club suit.

Yes, there can be some -1400s - some of them will still be good saves against a grand - though, to be fair, a lot of folks are not good at bidding grands.

I tried running a sim for my own benefit as I was actually quite rattled that Justin thought 4♠ was too much. Meaningful analysis is next to impossible of course as you can't model the psychology of the situation, not to mention that people debate endlessly about what is and what is not a 2♣ opener. Never the less, there seem to be enough cases of

1. Making 4♠
2. One off against a game
3. More, but few enough, off against a slam

that 4♠ is a reasonable matchpoint bet. At IMPs - well - I'm not going to crunch the numbers this late at night here especially as they don't really prove anything anyway - but it seems quite touch and go whether 4 beats 3 as a call - I think I still go with 4 - but it is as much the psychology side of it that I think may work our way with the higher call. Of course, the psychology may work against us - sometimes a preempt pushes an opponent into something they wouldn't have done if you'd just kept quiet!

Nick

How did you run your simulation? I am particularly interested in how you decided whether the opening side doubles 4♠ or bids over it.

Or did you just look at how many tricks we can make in spades and how many tricks they can make in whatever their best strain is? If that was your procedure I don't think your simulation was accurate to real world conditions at all, and I would expect 4♠ to be a much better call than your simulation indicates.

[NickRW]

I think I sort of hinted that I couldn't model the human factor at all - it is just number crunching.

[JLOL]

I assumed the 4S bidders were doing so to mess with the opponents more than anything (such as making). Fair enough, but 800 seems quite plausible to me, or 1100 sometimes. I don't think that big risk (800) is worth the gain of the extra preemption.

Hoping for making really seems off to me. On hands where you are making, it is unlikely to opponents are doubling you.

[Phil]

JLOL, on May 30 2009, 11:03 PM, said:

Hoping for making really seems off to me. On hands where you are making, it is unlikely to opponents are doubling you.

Considering that they should be in a forcing pass over 4♠, playing 4♠ undoubled seems unlikely don't you think?

[hanp]

That does not mean they have to defend?

[Phil]

hanp, on May 30 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

That does not mean they have to defend?

It means we won't be playing 4♠ undoubled obv. If they guess to bid, that's a good thing don't you think?

[hanp]

On the hands where they bid over 4S, we are probably better off after having bid 4S than after 3S in the long run. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. The point that was that if they decide to defend 4S doubled then you are very unlikely to make it.

I believe this was Justin's point, the extra preemptive damage that you do is not worth the times that you will go for a big number. I ended up backing 3S because your arguments have been so poor.

[Phil]

hanp, on May 31 2009, 02:51 PM, said:

I ended up backing 3S because your arguments have been so poor.

What?!? I don't think I need to explain preemptive theory to you. Even Justin's wonderful rule about preemption applies here.

Do I really need to go into detail why 4♠ will make a fair amount of the time or / go -1? Do I need to explain how -500 / -1100 is nearly impossible and how -1400 is technically possible? Do I need to show how -800 is also possible?

I mean, I'm happy to spell it out to for you (and the others) if that's necessary but I give you a lot of credit.

Frankly, no one is really giving explicit reasons for their bids; just giving some likely outcomes, which is a function of personal experience.

[hanp]

I don't think we disagree by so much (although I really don't agree with you that -500 is nearly impossible).

When the 2C opener is balanced or semi-balanced and they end up defending 4SX it is very unlikely that you will make. On those hands partner is not likely to have good spade support for you and the opponents have the vast majority of the missing highcards. Here it is quite unlikely that you will make 4S, and if you lose control then the vulnerability may be painful. On the hands where the opponents would have doubled 3S too you obviously do not do well by bidding 4S.

When the 2C opener is unbalanced they often have a tough guess to make. On quite a few hands they miss slam, get too high, or bid when they should have defended 4S. I expect that on those hands, 4S is an overall winner compared to 3S.