[andy_h]

gnasher, on Oct 28 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

fred, on Oct 27 2009, 10:35 PM, said:

Suppose you open 1C (I would) and partner responds 1S.

Would you Pass or bid 1NT? Why?

If you said you would Pass a 1S response, would you also Pass a 1H response?

I almost never pass partner's response with a hand that I'd have opened in first seat. I don't see why I should make it easy for them to compete, and I don't see why I should unilaterally decide what strain we're playing in. The risk of partner moving isn't that great, and if he does it doesn't have to be bad.

I used to think that as well that I didn't want to make it easy for the opponents to compete, until I was that opponent and balanced into where the responder, my LHO, had a decent hand. I don't think it's explicitly "unilaterally deciding which strain we're playing in" but more towards the fact that by passing it could be our best contract and that we don't want to excite partner too much. Partner's limited so if the opps DO balance our pass would have told him some information. If they don't, I'm happy for us to be playing at the 1level than if partner had invited over 1NT.

But otherwise I tend to agree that I don't generally pass a hand that I'd have opened in 1st/2nd seat, with the exception that if my 3rd/4th seat openings are a bit below average than normal openings (like this one, 12 bal count with stray honours) then I'd pass if I have 3 card support.

[andy_h]

Hanoi5, on Oct 29 2009, 12:52 AM, said:

This is the complete hand. My partner didn't want to open his 12-count either so we got 0 instead of the 600 that everyone got in 3NT. How would you divide the fault here?

South has an opening for sure. By passing bal 12 counts in the 2nd seat is just giving the 3rd seat a free shot (if we pass and let LHO open at w/r, and RHO responds, we will never be in the auction again) and if you open with the South's hand you take away tremendous pressure off partner if he has a borderline opening. Or maybe he just has a 9 or 10 count and this hand gets passed out netting -3 or -4imps.

Besides, South has two tens and 3-4 in the majors...what's not to like?

Edit: Also, I would have opened with West's hand too. Then good luck to N/S getting to game after p-p-1C-p-1D-p-p and North now has a problem with 3-3majors, suspect ♦K and partner passing 2nd seat and again over East's 1♦ response.

[rhm]

I would not have taken either decision. Nor would I pass with the West hand in third position, also conservative.
I doubt that you would have reached 3NT if only North had opened the hand in fourth position.
The two tens in South hand makes pass too conservative, but neither ten was really instrumental for the success of 3NT, though the ♥10 is nice.

I would distribute the share 30-70 between N-S, but neither did something terrible.
It was a bit unlucky.
It is fairly rare that opponents have 4 top tricks in 3NT and no chance of developing a fifth trick in time.

Rainer Herrmann

[jdonn]

rhm, on Oct 28 2009, 09:26 AM, said:

It is fairly rare that opponents have 4 top tricks in 3NT and no chance of developing a fifth trick in time.

Well, maybe. Suppose a spade lead. We can't play a spade (west would duck then they have 5 tricks) or a heart (west would win and duck a spade, same thing) so suppose we play on diamonds. However east counters us by ducking. If we play either major we are in the same position as before, but if we play another diamond east ducks that as well and then the opponents have 5 (well 6) tricks ready to run and we have just 8.

So, supposing we play 5 rounds of clubs first. This is the position after 4 rounds:

Scoring: IMP

---

On the 5th club, east and south throw hearts, and west is squeezed in a strange way. Throwing the A of spades or A or K of hearts obviously gives up. Throwing a low diamond lets us play on diamonds. Throwing a low spade lets us play on spades then diamonds. The opponents can't get anything other than their 4 top tricks.

But wait, if west throws a diamond and east ducks one diamond, wins the next, and plays a spade, west can keep us out of our hand as he ducks a spade. So I think (?) we can't make it on best defense.

In any case I agree south is more to blame. He has quite a clear opening bid! This is not 1965 any more.

[fred]

gnasher, on Oct 28 2009, 08:11 AM, said:

fred, on Oct 28 2009, 12:46 AM, said:

I thought these were interesting questions to ask, because it seems weird to me that rebid considerations in an unobstructed auction when you hold a balanced 12-count should factor into the decision as to whether or not you open in 4th position.

But with this particular balanced 12-count I would feel rather sick about both of the only two choices in the (rather favorable) circumstance of the auction continuing 1C-P-1H-P-?.

A 1S response wouldn't exactly make me feel warm all over either. While passing clearly seems right on the basis of 1S rating to be a better contract than 1NT and also because Pass lets partner in on the fact that I have a crappy hand that rates to play reasonably in spades, passing could be really awful from a tactical point of view, especially at this vulnerability.

All of this has given me some cause to think that the decision as to whether or not to open 1C is closer than I originally thought.

Do you have your cart and your horse in the right order?

As I understand it, your reasoning is:
- 1♣-1♥-1NT shows a better hand than this
- 1♣-1♥-pass lets the opponents in cheaply
- Either of those is bad, so maybe I shouldn't open.

Instead, how about this:
- I want to open this hand, because it's more likely to be our hand than not
- I don't want to bid 1♣-1♥-pass
- Therefore 1♣-1♥-1NT includes this hand, and partner should bid accordingly.

Not sure about the proper ordering of carts and horses here, but I don't think you characterized my reasoning correctly (perhaps intentionally in the interest of streamlining it and perhaps I did not do a good job of explaining my reasoning). More important, I disagree with this:

Quote

- I want to open this hand, because it's more likely to be our hand than not

First of all, it doesn't matter if it is our hand or not unless you actually end up getting a plus score. The concept of "our hand" relates to double dummy. How the bidding and play actually go does not.

Also, as DBurn correctly points out, the magnitudes of the possible plus (or minus) scores you actually achieve and the relative frequency of various outcomes that lead to these scores is important at IMPs.

The "magnitude" aspect may not count for much here (since large plus or minus scores are unlikely) so, in practice, a pure frequency analysis of plus vs. minus may well lead to a good approximation of the winning action with this particular hand. But regardless, DBurn's point is certainly true and this notion is not captured in your reason for why you should open.

The right reason to open (ignoring considerations like "state of the match") is that, by doing so, you guesstimate you IMP expectation to be positive.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hatchett]

Quote

It is fairly rare that opponents have 4 top tricks in 3NT and no chance of developing a fifth trick in time.

And indeed this hand is no expection, since a ♠ lead beats 3NT

[pooltuna]

Hanoi5, on Oct 28 2009, 08:52 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

This is the complete hand. My partner didn't want to open his 12-count either so we got 0 instead of the 600 that everyone got in 3NT. How would you divide the fault here?

Clearly you have an agreement for opening only sound hands in 1st and 2nd chair so your partner is at fault as he must act to protect your holding.

[gnasher]

fred, on Oct 28 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

Not sure about the proper ordering of carts and horses here, but I don't think you characterized my reasoning correctly ...

OK, but my point was this:

We start by thinking "If we can get to a sensible partscore and play there, it's probably right to open this. However, 1♣-1♥-pass has too great a risk of the opponents outbidding us."

From there, as I understand it, you reason "1♣-1♥-1NT is an overbid, so I should consider not opening."

Instead, I think one's reasoning should be "1♣-1♥-1NT is the best way for us to meet the objective of playing in a sensible partscore, so unless there's a good reason not to, we should agree that 1♣-1♥-1NT includes hands like this."

[billw55]

Hanoi5, on Oct 28 2009, 08:52 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

This is the complete hand. My partner didn't want to open his 12-count either so we got 0 instead of the 600 that everyone got in 3NT. How would you divide the fault here?

Two tens and two 8s are worth at least one point, south should definitely open.

[Jlall]

rhm, on Oct 28 2009, 08:39 AM, said:

Now your argument goes

"When it comes down to it, you aren't going to win by downgrading often"

Why?

This seems obvious to me. There is an aspect of bridge that is not bidding, it is called card play. If you are in close contracts all the time then if you have an edge in the card play you will be doing well on those. This is even true if *gasp* double dummy you have a slightly negative expectation in these contracts. There will also be more decisions in the bidding to make, if you create competitive auctions and have superior competitive judgement you will be winning.

If you are downgrading often, you are taking yourself out of these situations. Passing with 12 counts (like partner did on this hand), and just looking for reasons to downgrade in general, is not winning bridge. You don't apply pressure in either the bidding or the cardplay if you do it.

Look at this hand, both guys passed with 12 counts and there they are. IMO it is not a winning style to look for reasons to downgrade, and nobody who I would consider a winning player downgrades very often, if ever. I mean I'm still waiting for the day meckstroth looks at a 14 count and doesn't open a 14-16 NT because it's too soft. It's never gonna happen. "Winning" bridge to me is applying pressure, and being better than your opponents on the close and marginal hands that can go either way.

I know there are many smart people like you who do not understand why one would upgrade more than they downgrade, but there is a reason why this is universal among good players.

[sathyab]

Jlall, on Oct 28 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

rhm, on Oct 28 2009, 08:39 AM, said:

Now your argument goes 

"When it comes down to it, you aren't going to win by downgrading often"

Why?

I know there are many smart people like you who do not understand why one would upgrade more than they downgrade, but there is a reason why this is universal among good players.

IMO, it depends to a very large extent on when you learnt this game. Anyone who learnt this game twenty or thirty years ago is not easily persuaded by arguments in favor of frequent upgrading, undisciplined preempts etc, even though they would have realized that those methods are harder to deal with. Learning is hard, unlearning is harder.

[eyhung]

fred, on Oct 28 2009, 07:56 AM, said:

The right reason to open (ignoring considerations like "state of the match") is that, by doing so, you guesstimate you IMP expectation to be positive.

I just ran a 1000-hand sim on this hand, computing the par score for the deal on each deal that fit the criteria (none of the other players has an opening bid or preempt, East does not have an aggressive preempt) :

Average North HCP = 9.349 (theoretical average = 9.33)
Average NS par score = 4.2

I imagine a great player would find opening this to be positive IMP-expectation.

[cherdanno]

Despite the problem of possibly being in the wrong spot or letting in opponents when we pass 1♥, I think we are still ahead of the double dummy contract. If opponents compete, partner will have a fairly good guess about what my hand looks like. Opponents guesses about each other's hand will be worse.

With regards to the simulation, most East's also won't have a subminimum opening with a 5-card major, or a subminimum opening with a good 4-card major. That really increases our IMPs expectation I think. (West is also more likely to open light or an aggressive preempt in 1st seat than partner in 2nd seat.)

[jdonn]

eyhung, on Oct 28 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 28 2009, 07:56 AM, said:

The right reason to open (ignoring considerations like "state of the match") is that, by doing so, you guesstimate you IMP expectation to be positive.

I just ran a 1000-hand sim on this hand, computing the par score for the deal on each deal that fit the criteria (none of the other players has an opening bid or preempt, East does not have an aggressive preempt) :

Average North HCP = 9.349 (theoretical average = 9.33)
Average NS par score = 4.2

I imagine a great player would find opening this to be positive IMP-expectation.

Two factors:

You don't seem to have adjusted for east opening light in 3rd seat at the 1 level. Although that would be quite hard to do. That not only reduces his expected strength, but to a slight extent also reduces his expected major suit length.

We are opening a good suit, which should give us an advantage over double dummy simply in case partner is on lead.

[eyhung]

jdonn, on Oct 28 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

Two factors:

You don't seem to have adjusted for east opening light in 3rd seat at the 1 level. Although that would be quite hard to do. That not only reduces his expected strength, but to a slight extent also reduces his expected major suit length.

We are opening a good suit, which should give us an advantage over double dummy simply in case partner is on lead.

You are right that my sim ignores light 3rd openings, so the true expectation is higher than +4.2. But how does opening a good suit give us an advantage over double-dummy par? It would give us an advantage over real-life outcomes, but I'm not modeling a real-life outcome. In fact, if the sim came out slightly negative par for N/S I would still conclude that it's right to open given the factors Justin mentioned, and the 4-5% declarer's advantage that part-score single-dummy contracts have.

[jdonn]

eyhung, on Oct 28 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 28 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

Two factors:

You don't seem to have adjusted for east opening light in 3rd seat at the 1 level. Although that would be quite hard to do. That not only reduces his expected strength, but to a slight extent also reduces his expected major suit length.

We are opening a good suit, which should give us an advantage over double dummy simply in case partner is on lead.

You are right that my sim ignores light 3rd openings, so the true expectation is higher than +4.2. But how does opening a good suit give us an advantage over double-dummy par? It would give us an advantage over real-life outcomes, but I'm not modeling a real-life outcome. In fact, if the sim came out slightly negative par for N/S I would still conclude that it's right to open given the factors Justin mentioned, and the 4-5% declarer's advantage that part-score single-dummy contracts have.

It means we will do better, relative to the double dummy par, than if we had opened a bad suit since partner would be more likely to make a bad lead in that case.

[kenrexford]

Open 1♣ and then rebid 1NT. That's one reason why I now play 14-16 1NT openings in 3rd/4th seat. Partner doesn't get excited when I rebid 1NT.

[fred]

eyhung, on Oct 28 2009, 08:12 PM, said:

Average NS par score = 4.2

Sorry if I am being dumb, but what units are you using?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

fred, on Oct 28 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

eyhung, on Oct 28 2009, 08:12 PM, said:

Average NS par score = 4.2

Sorry if I am being dumb, but what units are you using?

I'm fairly sure he is using total bridge-points, as in +50 for setting them one trick, so 4.2 would be extremely tiny and suggest passing was about as good as opening. However I still feel the missing factors suggest opening as well.

[fred]

jdonn, on Oct 29 2009, 12:15 AM, said:

fred, on Oct 28 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

eyhung, on Oct 28 2009, 08:12 PM, said:

Average NS par score = 4.2

Sorry if I am being dumb, but what units are you using?

I'm fairly sure he is using total bridge-points, as in +50 for setting them one trick, so 4.2 would be extremely tiny and suggest passing was about as good as opening. However I still feel the missing factors suggest opening as well.

That's what I thought too, but wanted to make sure. If so then the KR hand evaluator is looking better and better

I assume that +50 and -100 are impossible scores in this analysis because, since we are talking about par, all contracts that are going down will be doubled. That probably skews the results because in real life +50 and -100 will be very common scores on a deal life this one.

If not too difficult, Eugene, I would be interested in knowing the frequency of various bridge scores (and also the total number of plus scores and minus scores but I can work that out myself from the frequencies) in your sample.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com