[ajm218]

Scoring: IMP

1♥ p 2♥ x
4♥ p p ?

---

I doubled first time because i wasnt' sure 3♥ was western, do people think it is?

Opps are playing a strong club and 5cM.

[helene_t]

I like 3♥ as western here but with an unknown p I would assume Michael's.

Now 5♦.

[Fluffy]

3♦ the round before, you have to bid your suit at least once. So 5♦ after the previous missbid.

[billw55]

Looks clear that 5♦ is down two if ops are sane. That's -500 v. -420 at these colors, right? And occasionally partner will get a trump trick (Jxxx, diamond ruff) and set 4♥.

Agree 3♦ first time.

[ajm218]

I have to admit that i never thought of bidding 3♦...

imagine p holding:

---

or some other hand where they wouldn't dream of bidding

[cherdanno]

I would bid 5♦ now. Obviously 3♥ the round before is better if it shows this hand...

[pooltuna]

cherdanno, on Feb 8 2010, 09:41 AM, said:

I would bid 5♦ now. Obviously 3♥ the round before is better if it shows this hand...

of course the opps won't let you sit for 3NT. And while in a minority here with 3♥ unavailable I prefer the X so I can keep the 3♦ call a weaker hand. Over 4♥ I call 5♦ more as insurance than to make which is very rare at these colors.

[ArtK78]

I cannot imagine bidding 3♦ on the previous round with 9 tricks in hand. 3♥ if it shows this hand (which makes sense), double otherwise.

I bid 5♦ now.

[billw55]

I am surprised how many are willing to sacrifice at these colors, with -500 probable and 4♥ not always making. Wassup?

[hanp]

Fluffy, on Feb 8 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

3♦ the round before.

Fluddy you are a great guy but 3D is idiotic.

[jdonn]

I'm sure Fluffy was being sarcastic since no one would make that comment seriously.

3♥ is a great bid with an agreement but too risky without one.

5♦ now is the only option.

Wtps for all my statements?

[awm]

Dunno about 5♦ here... at other colors I'd agree but we are unfavorable. It seems like:

(1) If partner has nothing much, then we go for -500 instead of -420
(2) If partner has one trick, then we go for -200, but 4♥ was down
(3) If partner has two tricks we'd make 5♦, but this seems unlikely

It's true that not every trick partner produces in 5♦ is a trick against 4♥ and vice versa. But there seem to be more cards that produce a trick against 4♥ and not in 5♦ than vice versa (like a slow heart trick, or the club queen).

Bidding 5♦ seems to lose pretty much every time it doesn't make, and given the bidding making 5♦ appears quite unlikely. At minimum we could double again, giving partner the opportunity to leave it in (and correcting a black-suit bid from partner to 5♦).

[jdonn]

Adam did you consider those sneaky opponents at favorable vulnerability might be stealing from you? He can bid 4♥ on almost any hand he wants to with 6+ hearts. Also anything partner has in spades is over the "strong" hand, and that's where any of partner's values are most likely to be. In short I think you underestimate the odds we will make. KJx of spades is play.

Also, again loving that favorable vulnerability, they will sacrifice in 5♥ a lot too.

[PhantomSac]

Definitely think 3H should be michaels here even if you think 4m is leaping michaels (I don't think leaping michaels should be on here but most people seem to).

[awm]

I generated 20 hands where opener has 6+♥ and 10-15 hcp, responder has 3+♥ and 5-9 hcp. Here are the results for the various contracts. In some cases a double-dummy result differs from what seemed likely/possible at the table (i.e. a great lead was needed or some double dummy play in a suit).

(1) 4♥=, 5♦-2
(2) 4♥+1, 5♦-2
(3) 4♥-1, 5♦-2
(4) 4♥-1, 5♦-1
(5) 4♥=, 5♦-2 but 5♦-1 possible
(6) 4♥=, 5♦-2
(7) 4♥-1, 5♦-1
(8) 4♥-1, 5♦-2 but 5♦-1 possible
(9) 4♥+1, 5♦-2
(10) 4♥-1, 5♦-2 on trump lead, but 5♦-1 likely
(11) 4♥=, 5♦-1
(12) 4♥=, 5♦-1, but 5♦= likely
(13) 4♥-1, 5♦-2, but 5♦-1 possible
(14) 4♥-2, 5♦-1
(15) 4♥-1, 5♦-1
(16) 4♥=, 5♦-2
(17) 4♥-1, 5♦-2
(18) 4♥= but 4♥-1 possible; 5♦= on best play
(19) 4♥-1, 5♦=
(20) 4♥-1, 5♦=

Assuming opponents always double 5♦ and that we always obtain the best likely results for our sides (i.e. opponents don't make any spectacular leads or plays) I've got lose 9 for bidding 5♦, or lose 0.45 IMPS/board. Of course, it's occasionally possible that opponents would compete over 5♦ or fail to double, but that potentially also reduces some of the wins (i.e. opponents find good sac on 18-20, as well as maybe overcompeting some of the others). In addition, this is assuming opener always bids 4♥ with six of them and never without; in fact opener will sometimes bid 4♥ with only five, usually when holding max values (these are very bad cases for the 5♦ bid)... and opener might not always bid 4♥ with six when his hand is quite bad (reducing some of our best cases).

Inconclusive really, but I still don't think bidding is a "wtp"...

[kenrexford]

I don't understand the concept of going hungry simply because the restaurant is out of your favorite dish.

Over 2♥, you want to be in 3NT if partner has the heart Ace. However, you don't have 3♥ available to ask for the heart Ace, because that's Michaels. So, you consider the second-best option of bidding 3♦. However, 3♦ is seen as not ideal because partner will not know to bid 3NT with the heart Ace.

So?

So, you pass because you cannot figure out how to get to 3NT if partner has the heart Ace? Seems bizarre. I'd rather play in 3♦ making an overtrick, knowing that 3NT could have made, than defend 2♥, which is not scoring a game bonus either.

[jdonn]

Ken who passed over 2♥?

[jdonn]

awm, on Feb 8 2010, 03:24 PM, said:

I generated 20 hands where opener has 6+♥ and 10-15 hcp, responder has 3+♥ and 5-9 hcp. Here are the results for the various contracts. In some cases a double-dummy result differs from what seemed likely/possible at the table (i.e. a great lead was needed or some double dummy play in a suit).

(1) 4♥=, 5♦-2
(2) 4♥+1, 5♦-2
(3) 4♥-1, 5♦-2
(4) 4♥-1, 5♦-1
(5) 4♥=, 5♦-2 but 5♦-1 possible
(6) 4♥=, 5♦-2
(7) 4♥-1, 5♦-1
(8) 4♥-1, 5♦-2 but 5♦-1 possible
(9) 4♥+1, 5♦-2
(10) 4♥-1, 5♦-2 on trump lead, but 5♦-1 likely
(11) 4♥=, 5♦-1
(12) 4♥=, 5♦-1, but 5♦= likely
(13) 4♥-1, 5♦-2, but 5♦-1 possible
(14) 4♥-2, 5♦-1
(15) 4♥-1, 5♦-1
(16) 4♥=, 5♦-2
(17) 4♥-1, 5♦-2
(18) 4♥= but 4♥-1 possible; 5♦= on best play
(19) 4♥-1, 5♦=
(20) 4♥-1, 5♦=

Assuming opponents always double 5♦ and that we always obtain the best likely results for our sides (i.e. opponents don't make any spectacular leads or plays) I've got lose 9 for bidding 5♦, or lose 0.45 IMPS/board. Of course, it's occasionally possible that opponents would compete over 5♦ or fail to double, but that potentially also reduces some of the wins (i.e. opponents find good sac on 18-20, as well as maybe overcompeting some of the others). In addition, this is assuming opener always bids 4♥ with six of them and never without; in fact opener will sometimes bid 4♥ with only five, usually when holding max values (these are very bad cases for the 5♦ bid)... and opener might not always bid 4♥ with six when his hand is quite bad (reducing some of our best cases).

Inconclusive really, but I still don't think bidding is a "wtp"...

Why are opener's lightest hands our best cases? If you are saying we rarely make 5♦ then our best cases are opener's heavier hands so that at least they were making and might push to 5 to still try and make.

Anyway I don't find your results plausible. I think this clearly lends itself badly to a sim given the wide range of hands people will have for 4♥, and the chances they bid one more as a save, or to make, or because they don't know who makes what. And what is this always doubling 5♦, if opener has 10-15 with 6+ hearts then he is closer to never doubling 5♦, especially if he thinks he has pushed us up. And I just plain don't believe 5♦ will make that rarely in practice.

[ajm218]

I bid 5♦ at the table and didn't think too much of it but it got ticked on the way out, p put down:

---

3 off when trumps were 5-0 onside and opps defended properly and didn't let me elope with my small trumps... sigh

I had doubts about 5♦ afterwards but most good people i asked agreed with what i had done, interesting split on 3♥ though - some thought western, some michaels. Doesn't look like there is a standard expert agreement for it...

[kenrexford]

Something just occurred to me, from this problem.

1♥-P-2♥-X
P-3♣-P-3♦

Would 3♦ in this sequence be ELC? I think so.