[gwnn]

pooltuna, on Sep 21 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

After all how does one program partner's judgment

If partner guesses randomly he has a 50% chance of success. So in a reasonable model you can use 30 to 40% in practice

[Phil]

Winstonm, on Sep 20 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

Vulnerable at imps you would want to get to game opposite xxxx, QJ, xxxx, Kxx. The only way this would be remotely possible would be with a short suit game try.

That's a funny looking constructive raise.

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on Sep 21 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Sep 21 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

After all how does one program partner's judgment

If partner guesses randomly he has a 50% chance of success. So in a reasonable model you can use 30 to 40% in practice

and where did the 50% chance of guessing right come from? It seems to me this is what we are trying to determine!

[pooltuna]

Phil, on Sep 21 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 20 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

Vulnerable at imps you would want to get to game opposite xxxx, QJ, xxxx, Kxx.  The only way this would be remotely possible would be with a short suit game try.

That's a funny looking constructive raise.

Agree! It certainly doesn't meet my definition but

---

does, albeit about if not the weakest one I would make.

[gwnn]

pooltuna, on Sep 21 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

gwnn, on Sep 21 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Sep 21 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

After all how does one program partner's judgment

If partner guesses randomly he has a 50% chance of success. So in a reasonable model you can use 30 to 40% in practice

and where did the 50% chance of guessing right come from? It seems to me this is what we are trying to determine!

There are two possible answers to the question (3 spades or 4 spades), so it's like a multiple choice question. If you guess randomly, you get 50% accuracy. If you do not guess randomly you will deviate from that. Nigel_k used a model where partner guesses with 100% accuracy (he always bids 3S when there are only 9 tricks and always bids 4S when there are 10 tricks). You can define this % without considering the actual hand or any constraints at all.

How much our descriptive game try helps partner is the crux of the matter. Even the 7-8 vs 9-10 should get us above 50% but will fall quite far from 100%. However if we involve partner's judgment sometimes it will fall below 50

[kenrexford]

Let's see if I understand this correctly.

If partner makes a "constructive raise" by applying a definition of a "constructive raise" that is not normal and in fact is strange,

and if we make a game try that asks partner to bid game based on his HCP count

and if partner accepts randomly based on his HCP count

then if partner has a hand pattern that is particularly limited to the worst of all patterns,

then inviting game is a bad idea?

Responses:

1. Learn what is meant by a "constructive raise"
2. Learn how to make game tries constructively
3. Learn when to accept constructive game tries properly, or to re-invite properly

[ArtK78]

Phil, on Sep 20 2009, 12:58 PM, said:

I would make a game try opposite a constructive raise, but not a simple raise.

Who plays constructive raises as a passed hand? Is this some kind of old-fashioned precision?

Up until a short time ago, I played constructive raises only by a passed hand. But my definition of a constructive raise was stronger than the definition set out in the OP: 8-11 HCP, three or more trump. A double raise by a passed hand was stronger still - essentially, a hand upgraded to a full opening bid in light of partner's opening.

With a raise not good enough for a constructive raise, the passed hand responder bid 1NT (virtually forcing).

Now that I play Drury (which I resisted for many years) I have discarded the constructive raise by a passed hand.

Matt Granovetter is a proponent of constructive raises by a passed hand and no Drury.

[bill1157]

[quote name='ArtK78' date='Sep 21 2009, 10:40 AM'] [quote name='Phil' date='Sep 20 2009, 12:58 PM'] .

With a raise not good enough for a constructive raise, the passed hand responder bid 1NT (virtually forcing).

Now that I play Drury (which I resisted for many years) I have discarded the constructive raise by a passed hand.

Matt Granovetter is a proponent of constructive raises by a passed hand and no Drury. [/quote]
Sounds like a good idea (constr raise by passed hand).

Bill

[nigel_k]

Jlall, on Sep 21 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

Why cant partner have a stiff and bid 1S p 2S?

Also LOL you think partner bidding game with any 9-10 and signing off with any 7-8 is closer to accurate than if you bid 3C and partner uses their judgement? Wat?

Ok maybe I wasn't clear the first time.

Of course partner can have a singleton or four trumps but he will then have fewer high cards. Obviously it won't be anything like 10 HCP with four card support and a singleton - the playing strength should be roughly equal to a 7-10 HCP 4432 hand. I could come up with a set of realistic rules for what constitutes a constructive raise, but it would be much more complicated, would not significantly affect the overall number of tricks we expect to take, and no doubt people would still find fault with it.

The possible 1.35 IMPs per board vul is not 'partner using their judgment'. It is partner choosing the best double dummy action - assuming he knows all the opponents cards. All I'm suggesting is that the location of the missing 26 cards will have a bigger effect on how many tricks we take than the holding partner has in the suit where me make our game try.

I do agree with Cherdanno's point that you won't necessarily get to play 2♠ when that is all you can make. Of course you may get doubled when you bid a no play 4♠ as well. It's hard to say how much these factors affects the result.

Unless you have a way to assess the costs and benefits of a game try over all the hands partner might hold, instead of just writing down a couple of suitable ones, I think you should be more open to using simulations in this kind of situation.

[frouu]

Thanks all, this thread was very helpful to me.
I was a point counter and passed without thinking too much.

Result at table: Partner had ♠Txxx ♥xxx ♦AKxx ♣xx made 5, +200 after ♣J lead, ♠2-2.

[jdonn]

nigel_k, on Sep 21 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

I could come up with a set of realistic rules for what constitutes a constructive raise, but it ... would not significantly affect the overall number of tricks we expect to take

Really? How do you know that? So you don't do a better sim because you guess that it won't make much difference anyway?

Anyway game try is quite clear opposite a constructive raise.