[Mbodell]

Scoring: MP

P - P - 1♦ - 2♦
P - 4♥ - P - P
5♣ P - P - ??

---

[gwnn]

pass is your friend. looks like you don't have extra defence and extra offence and looks like partner passed. good for him.

[Free]

Pass, what else?

[mohitz]

Pass. You already bid what you have.

[Mbodell]

My problem with the hand, and why I didn't think it was a "wtp pass" is how likely is it that pass is better than both double and 5♥? I.e., if you pass you are saying that you think both that they are making it and that we would go down 3 in 5♥, because if you think anything other than that then some other call must be right, no? If you think they are going down then X beats pass (and 5♥ may or may not beat pass). If you think they are making it and we are going down less than 3 then 5♥ beats pass. So pass aims for them making it and us being down at least 3. Is that really quite likely on the hand where a passed hand is coming in at the 5 level?

[the hog]

Mbodell, on Apr 29 2010, 06:12 PM, said:

My problem with the hand, and why I didn't think it was a "wtp pass" is how likely is it that pass is better than both double and 5♥?  I.e., if you pass you are saying that you think both that they are making it and that we would go down 3 in 5♥, because if you think anything other than that then some other call must be right, no?  If you think they are going down then X beats pass (and 5♥ may or may not beat pass).  If you think they are making it and we are going down less than 3 then 5♥ beats pass.  So pass aims for them making it and us being down at least 3.  Is that really quite likely on the hand where a passed hand is coming in at the 5 level?

Don't you think it might be wise to include your partner in the decision making process as well rather than take unilateral action? He heard the bidding just as well as you did. Do you have anything out of the ordinary for your Michael's bid? No! 5H says he does not know what he is doing. Further, look at this 5C bid out of the blue. Do you trust opponents who bid like this? Perhaps your partner knows that they are in a good spot - for you - and does not want to disturb them.

[mich-b]

Mbodell, on Apr 29 2010, 06:12 AM, said:

if you pass you are saying that you think both that they are making it and that we would go down 3 in 5♥

No, I am saying that this is what my partner thinks , and I have no reason to overrule him since he knows much more about my hand than I know about his.

[Codo]

When I first read the OP, I thought that we are the partner of the Michaels bidder. In that case, I found it quite hard to decide to bid more with this great double fit or stay quite and be happy that the are not in slam.

Than I realised my error and do not see this is an interessting bridge hand any more.
As Ron said: We have nothig to show which we did not show already.

[jjbrr]

Mbodell, on Apr 29 2010, 05:12 AM, said:

I.e., if you pass you are saying that you think both that they are making it and that we would go down 3 in 5♥, because if you think anything other than that then some other call must be right, no?

No.

[pooltuna]

Codo, on Apr 29 2010, 07:08 AM, said:

When I first read the OP, I thought that we are the partner of the Michaels bidder. In that case, I found it quite hard to decide to bid more with this great double fit or stay quite and be happy that the are not in slam.

Than I realised my error and do not see this is an interessting bridge hand any more.
As Ron said: We have nothig to show which we did not show already.

bidding again is anti-partnership. When you make partner captain it is rarely correct to bid again

[Jlall]

Not this again.

True: In (almost) all pass, double, bid situations, pass is not the best action on that particular hand.

False: It is (almost) never right to pass in such situations.

It's like saying if someone bets the river it is never right to call if raise and fold are both available options.

[jdonn]

I have no extra offense, defense, values, shape.... my head is spinning from the simplicity.

[Phil]

Mbodell, on Apr 29 2010, 06:12 AM, said:

My problem with the hand, and why I didn't think it was a "wtp pass" is how likely is it that pass is better than both double and 5♥? I.e., if you pass you are saying that you think both that they are making it and that we would go down 3 in 5♥, because if you think anything other than that then some other call must be right, no? If you think they are going down then X beats pass (and 5♥ may or may not beat pass). If you think they are making it and we are going down less than 3 then 5♥ beats pass. So pass aims for them making it and us being down at least 3. Is that really quite likely on the hand where a passed hand is coming in at the 5 level?

Woolsey spent a lot of time justifying these sac or double situations in Matchpoints. I need to read this again, but at the time I read it I didn't drink the Kool-Aid.

There's no reason why 5♣ isn't a completely normal spot. 5♥ can easily be 800 (conceding 500 is possible). We might not have been making 4♥ and we made them guess wrong. Maybe we should have been the ones cracked in 4♥.

I don't understand the double >pass argument. Other than the 200>100 argument, you can just as easily say 600>750 so this washes out. I don't see any compelling reason why -1 defending 5♣ is any more likely than making, but we don't have a clue what pard bid 4♥ on.

I'm guessing on this - but pass seems to keep us in the 40-60% spectrum. I'd rather win the event on another board, although if I really needed something here, I might be tempted to do something other than pass.

[Bbradley62]

Jlall, on Apr 29 2010, 10:16 AM, said:

It's like saying if someone bets the river it is never right to call if raise and fold are both available options.

Excellent!

[lmilne]

Jlall, on Apr 29 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

It's like saying if someone bets the river it is never right to call if raise and fold are both available options.

jlall, master of analogy

[Mbodell]

Phil, on Apr 29 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

Mbodell, on Apr 29 2010, 06:12 AM, said:

My problem with the hand, and why I didn't think it was a "wtp pass" is how likely is it that pass is better than both double and 5♥?

Woolsey spent a lot of time justifying these sac or double situations in Matchpoints. I need to read this again, but at the time I read it I didn't drink the Kool-Aid.
...
I don't understand the double >pass argument. Other than the 200>100 argument, you can just as easily say 600>750 so this washes out. I don't see any compelling reason why -1 defending 5♣ is any more likely than making, but we don't have a clue what pard bid 4♥ on.

I'm guessing on this - but pass seems to keep us in the 40-60% spectrum.

Yes, I was thinking of Woolsey in terms of double as the dominated strategy.

Woolsey, on Matchpoints "HIGH-LEVEL DECISIONS" circa 1982, said:

Unless one side is taking a sacrifice which is down more than the value of game, it is clearly correct to bid [5♥] if either [5♣ or 5♥] makes, but double if neither does.... If the decision is really close and you have no idea who can make what, it is usually better to bid on.... two ways to win - either you might make or they might make.  If you defend, you are right only when both contracts go down....[third way to win is they keep bidding]... If you choose to defend in a high-level competitive auction, it is always correct to double rather than sell out undoubled if your previous bid had been to make rather then as a save.... A double, if wrong, as opposed to pass, will only cost one-half matchpoint against other tables in [5♣, since there is no possible score between -600 and -750].  However, the double gains one-half matchpoint against these same tables if it is right.  Since you have chosen to defend you must believe that [5♣] is more likely to go down than not, for if you thought that [5♣] was a favorite to make you would have bid 5♥ as a save with an outside possibility of making.  Consequently, the odds favor the double [over the pass].

The argument sounds more persuasive to me in the abstract than what people in this thread suggest; however, it is possible it doesn't apply to this hand as maybe partner's 4♥ was not to make but an advanced sacrifice. So it certainly doesn't apply directly for sure. However, to me, the auction sounds like partner has the goods to expect to be at least close to making, as all red there wasn't much strength shown with LHO passing twice already so partner doesn't need to think opponents have a making game unless partner is super weak with a huge ton of shape and a very, very high ODR.

Jlall, on Apr 29 2010, 10:16 AM, said:

It's like saying if someone bets the river it is never right to call if raise and fold are both available options.

The analogy only sort of applies though because the payouts, in poker, are different where you can be losing money on the bet you are calling (and hence raising would be bad - not counting fold equity) but still have it be the correct move because of the overlay that the pot (or other callers in multiway action) are laying. For instance, if the pot is 90 and heads up on the river the bet is 10 then if you have a 30% chance of winning the hand you should call the river but not raise (pretending that you have no fold equity since the opponent is a calling station) and not fold. This is because 70% of the time you lose 10 (your call) but 30% of the time you gain 100. This is a EV of +23 compared to the 0 EV you have of folding. If you were to raise 10 more and always be called (and never raised) but still have the 30% winning percentage then 70% of the time you would lose 20 and 30% of the time you would win 110 which has an EV of +19. In poker it is easy to come up with situations where fold > call > raise and others where call > raise > fold and so on for all three orders.

In this case, unlike poker, the only place where pass beats both X and 5♥ is if ♣ make at least 5 and ♥ is down at least 3. Maybe it is the case that both 5♣ makes at least 11 tricks and 5♥X makes no more than 8 tricks at least 50% of the time, but if not, then it is hard for pass to be the right bid (even if figuring out what is the right bid between X and 5♥ is hard).

Even comparing just one to the other, if you think pass is better than X you are saying you think they are more than 50% likely to make their contract. If you think pass is better than 5♥ you are saying that more than 50% of the times either both contracts are down OR (5♣ makes and 5♥ is down 3+ tricks).

On the actual hand both sides take 10 tricks in their strain and the common table result was 4♥= and the payoffs were X gives you 37%, pass gives you 22%, and 5♥ gives you 3%. I guess in one way the table results argue for X, in that you gain 15% of a board for making the X, but in the other side maybe it argues for pass because if you truly can't tell between the two non-pass calls and flip a coin between the two non-pass calls you'll get only 20% on average instead of 22% for a very narrow loss (the reason for this was there were boards between the +100 and -200 with -100 for down 1 undoubled [probably in our cold game] and -130 for selling out to opponents bidding and making 4♣). So maybe by the very end of this tl;dr post I finally get what Jlall means by his True and False statements (when I don't get distracted thinking about poker).

[gwnn]

The auction sounds to partner as if you had 5-5 in the majors and ~10 points. And partner already knows all this stuff, he knows about bridge scoring, he knows about matchpoints. Partner is wonderful.

The auction should sound to you as partner could have:
*3-4 in the majors, 11 hcp
*1-5 in the majors 6 hcp (for some reason he didn't open 2H)
*other hands where he thinks 4♥ is a good place to be but it is not immediately obvious to him that 5♣ makes or 5♥ could make
*anyway partner thinks that 5♣ passed out is a good place to be provided you don't have extra strength (that you would double with) or extra length (that you would bid on with)

This is a very simple situation, partner is extremely wide-ranging.

[aguahombre]

yes, another case of having bid one's hand early and accurately -- then not having to do anything else, because partner has decided.

If you need to amuse yourself with further analysis, work out the difference between -620 and 5C XX +1.

[gwnn]

I noticed your link to this thread in the other thread too, but really nice of you to make another pointer:)

[whereagles]

I'm in a bid-on mood, so 5♥ for me