[bluecalm]

I have this argument with my friend:

Me (after reaching 20% game) : "Well, if I know we have 23hcp and 9trumps I am in game basically ALWAYS".

Friend : "Come back to me after 10k hands and then we will talk"

Me : "C'mon, I saw enough hands of world class players and they just bash games every time there are some hcp and some shape, show me one hand where world class pair stopped below game with 9trumps and 23hcp"

Friend : "It only seems like that; in reality they have expert evaluation and they see things you don't see, this is why they reach so many thin games there is underlying reason for those bids which seems to be just bashes"

Me: "I don't believe in this stuff; I think on most hands wc players just bash on the basis that there will be some play and they hate missing games; I realize books are written for masses and players don't give much away but for example in Meckstroth's book he seems like a guy who just want to bid games and try to make it; he doesn't care much about nitty stuff and trying to stop on 3 level. The whole precision is build around the idea that 15+8 = game every time and 11+good 12 = game every time (2/1gf); it doesn't seem like those players are much into stopping below games"

Well, who is right ? Are top players just bashers or super sophisticated hand evaluators ?

[Hanoi5]

They evaluate better.
They play better.
They seize (and create and are given) opportunities better.

[jjbrr]

1. Bash to game
2. Take lots of tricks
3. ????
4. Profit.

[Codo]

1. They bash differently. The russians Gromov Duboin had been famous for a while for literally never playing 2 or 3 in a major. But I think they calmed down a little. Meckwell is famous for reaching 3 NT with "any" 23 HCP NT hand.
2. They outplay most opponents, so they make more 23 HCPS games then you and me.
3. If they play in strong fields, they know, "everybody" will bids the thin games. If they will lose 800, it will be most often a push.
4. What is right for them can be, but need not to be, right for you or me. IF you don't play like Meckwell (and you don't), it is questionable if you should bid like him. I try to reach his card play skills before I try his hand evaluation, because I do not have his skills to win so many tight games.

[655321]

Bash.

There is plenty of room for subtle valuation of hands in bridge, but it is a waste of time and effort on the hands where you know you have a good fit and somewhere close to game values.

[ArtK78]

Many years ago, the first time I reached the national level of the GNT, I was playing in the opening day round robin against Eric Rodwell and partner (not Meckstroth). We had a competitive auction, Eric's side bidding hearts, my side bidding spades. Eventually the auction reached 4♥ and I doubled. Before the dummy came down, Eric muttered to the table "I knew I should have just blasted into game - that's what Jeff keeps telling me" or something to that effect. The result was down 2 doubled. Eric's point was that he probably would have escaped the double had he just blasted on a hand where he knew he would allow himself to be pushed into game anyway.

So, it is not always just blasting to game to make game. Sometimes it is blasting to game to avoid being doubled in game.

[cherdanno]

Assuming you mean a 9-card major fit and 23 hcp, yes you should bid game (especially if you all you know is that you have 23+ hcp).

[MFA]

I'm definitely not a blaster but a technician. That doesn't necessarily mean underbidding to games, but I'm always willing to make invitational bids if I think partner's opinion matters.

It's oversimplistic to say that one should just blast game. It takes a lot of good judgement unless one is willing to get to a lot of silly ones, and there must be a limit to that.

[jdonn]

bluecalm, on Apr 7 2010, 07:09 AM, said:

Me : "C'mon, I saw enough hands of world class players and they just bash games every time there are some hcp and some shape, show me one hand where world class pair stopped below game with 9trumps and 23hcp"

If you're implying that there aren't any, well that's an exageration.

Great discovery when I first learned it a few years ago: The fact that if you stop in 3 it could go down is a reason to bid more games, not fewer. That is a large part of what makes it right to just bid tons of games when it's at all close.

[neilkaz]

"Defination of "game try" = bid game, try to make it."

I am quoting a W/C friend of mine who continues to play at the highest levels and still often represents our country in international competitions.

[blackshoe]

neilkaz, on Apr 7 2010, 01:01 PM, said:

"Defination of "game try" = bid game, try to make it."

I am quoting a W/C friend of mine who continues to play at the highest levels and still often represents our country in international competitions.

I think Hamman said something similar.

jdonn said:

The fact that if you stop in 3 it could go down is a reason to bid more games, not fewer.

Okay. I'm a li'l slow . Can you explain why this is so?

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Apr 7 2010, 01:28 PM, said:

jdonn said:

The fact that if you stop in 3 it could go down is a reason to bid more games, not fewer.

Okay. I'm a li'l slow . Can you explain why this is so?

Logic: If you were already down in 3 you didn't lose much by bidding another and going down one more.

Sample calculation: Holding a certain hand on an auction you are already in 3♠ and can calculate the following trick distribution:
8: 30%
9: 35%
10: 35%
Say you are vul and the other table will be in 3♠. Pass gets you 0 imps. Bidding 4 gets you
-3: 30%
-6: 35%
+10: 35%
The expected value is +0.5 imps for bidding game (a more significant gain than you would think!), even though 35% is less than the generally quoted percentage needed to bid game vul at imps. And that's with 3 going down 30% of the time which is a lot! That's because that percentage is based on 'making or down 1', so the possibility of going down 2 (or more) actually reduces the percentage chance needed to make game before it's worth bidding.

Counterintuitive and very much worth knowing.

[jdonn]

Here's another way to look at it. Say you're vul, in 3♠, and game makes 30% of the time. If you make 9 tricks the other 70% of the time then by bidding game you lose 1.2 imps per hand. But if instead you make 8 tricks 70% of the time (2 or 4 hand) you gain .9 imps per hand since that 70% you only lose 3 instead of 6. Over 2 imps per hand better! Cool huh?

Of course being doubled changes everything, but that further reinforces the notion to blast your games rather than inviting since it makes you much harder to double when you are unlimited. And it also increases the tricks you can expect to take since it hides your hand better. Put it all together and you can see why, if you are good at taking your tricks, it really pays to just bid game.

[rwbarton]

In Josh's first example, it is even better if you can show an invite and still stop in 2♠ (+1.5 IMPs versus 3♠ at the other table). It's not so much that you need to be bidding 35% games vul, but that the cost of exploring for game and stopping in 3 is substantial. So you would need to think that you had a big gain in bidding accuracy to make a game try rather than blast or pass.

[jjbrr]

some really good posts itt

[awm]

What Josh's example really says, is try to avoid playing "game-minus-one." It's actually not unusual for top pairs to stop in a partial with 23-24 hcp, but when they do this they are usually stopping well below game. For example, take the auction 1m-1M-1NT (12-14). It is probably right to pass with most eleven-counts and bid game with most twelves. The reason is that playing exactly 2NT is a net minus position.

Similarly, after 1♠-2♠ it's not that you should bash game all the time on dubious hands. The point is that you should (with rare exceptions) either bid game or pass. Again, you don't want to play in 3♠, where you get a bad result for both making four (missed a game!) and down one (went minus!).

The game try itself can also help the defense, and the invitational sequence makes a speculative double easier to manage.

In any case, I've seen top pairs play 1NT or 2M on 24 hcp on quite a number of occasions. Usually this pays off for them.

[Cyberyeti]

neilkaz, on Apr 7 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

"Defination of "game try" = bid game, try to make it."

I am quoting a W/C friend of mine who continues to play at the highest levels and still often represents our country in international competitions.

Yeah, but what goes with this definition of a game try is that a game invite is to bid game and invite partner to make it

[jdonn]

Well Adam, you could go down 3 too.

[awm]

jdonn, on Apr 7 2010, 04:29 PM, said:

Well Adam, you could go down 3 too.

Sure, but this is much less frequent and if it happens, often the breaks are so bad that you actually do get doubled.

[awm]

Some other points about this. Even if 2♠ is down one, the difference between 2♠-1 and 4♠-3 at vulnerable is a significant 200 points (5 IMPs).

The desire to avoid game-minus-one also explains some popular conventions. For example:

(1) Drury.
(2) Cuebid at the two-level as limit raise of partner's overcall.
(3) Three point notrump ranges (rather than four point ranges).
(4) Constructive raises.
(5) Semi-forcing 1NT response to 1M.
(6) Inviting in spades over partner's 1NT open via 2♣...2♠.
(7) 1NT response to 1♣ showing extras (like a mild invite).

All of these potentially allow you to avoid playing in 3M or 2NT on "invitational" hands. Some less popular conventions which potentially have the same effect:

(1) BART.
(2) Some Gazzilli variations.
(3) Transfers to 1♣ (if allowing you to play 1NT when opener has 18-19).
(4) Transfer advances after 1M-(X).
(5) Having two raises to 2M after 1X-P-1M-P.
(6) Drury opposite first-seat openings.