[Fluffy]

Q1:

♠A105
♥Q10
♦108763
♣653

Nobody vul, partner deals
2NT-(pass)-??

2NT 20-21

Q2:

♠A1095
♥J8753
♦-
♣AK42

EW vulnerable, we deal and open
1♥-(pass)-1♠-(pass)-??

(1♠ natural 4+ cards)


Q3:

♠A109643
♥-
♦QJ
♣Q10952

All vul, RHO deals

(1♣)-??

1♣ = 2+ cards (♦ promises 4)

[mtvesuvius]

1. 3N seems normal.
2. 3♠, what else can you bid? 2♠ is a huge underbid.
3. 1♠.

[mikeh]

1. If we have a way of finding a 5-3 spade fit I'd use it. I gather we do so I do.

2. 3♠

3. 1♠...wtp? Sorry, but on this one I must be being obtuse today...I couldn't think of any plausible alternative....unlike on the first two problems where on (1) I am very, very close to 3N, and on (2), while I think 3♠ is clearly best, I understand other calls.

[mgoetze]

mtvesuvius, on 2010-December-13, 14:46, said:

2. 3♠, what else can you bid? 2♠ is a huge underbid.

I think the idea is that, while 2♠ is a huge underbid, 4♦ is only a slight overbid.

[Cyberyeti]

1: I'll play in 4♠ if partner has 5 otherwise 3N

2: 3♠

3: I will pass, but only because I have an agreement over a 2+ club that allows me to show both blacks next time.

[Phil]

mikeh, on 2010-December-13, 15:46, said:

1. If we have a way of finding a 5-3 spade fit I'd use it. I gather we do so I do.

2. 3♠

3. 1♠...wtp? Sorry, but on this one I must be being obtuse today...I couldn't think of any plausible alternative....unlike on the first two problems where on (1) I am very, very close to 3N, and on (2), while I think 3♠ is clearly best, I understand other calls.

Agree with this. Nothing more to add, really.

[mfa1010]

3NT
3♠
2♠. If p bids 3♠ I will raise myself to game. 1♠ is also possible, but I like the pressure bid.

[655321]

3NT
3♠
1♠

On the first hand, I would not consider looking for a 5 card spade when when my shortage is QT doubleton. It would be a different story with a singleton heart.

[l milne]

1. Puppet
2. 3♠
3. Would someone more enlightened than myself tell me why my 2♠ bid is so wrong?

[Fluffy]

Thx for the replies

Q1:
Puppet was used at both tables for -200 when LHO doubles it with ♣KQJ10x, 3NT +13


Q2: I think this is the most interesting, IMO 3♠ is wrong, partner will misevaluate a lot of stuff:
-♥ shortness
-♥K (when alone)
-♥Q (when alone)
-♦A
-♦K
-♦Q on a combo with the ace or the king
-♣Q (undervalued)
-♣QJ (undervalued)

And the only thing he will evaluate accordingly is ♠KQJ, ♥A and spade lenght.

Partner is not on a position to make an intelligent decision, both tables picked 4♠ for a push, partner's hand ♠QJxxx ♥x ♦Qxxxx ♣Qx


Q3:
partner has ♠Kx ♥10xx ♦K9xx ♣Axxx, 2♠ got -15 IMPs in 4♠ vs 4♥ both making (althou 4♥ shouldn't but that's another story), because partner found no reason to make any bid opposite a weak 2. Anything else should be a push.

EDITED Because Csaba pointed out misspelling

[gwnn]

Sorry to be less than helpful, but as long as there are no "-" votes on the forums, I'd like to mention that "miss" means not to make an appointment or an (unmarried) lady, and in words like "misclick", "misevaluate", "mispronounce" etc it's always with one "s".

Otherwise I wouldn't puppet, I'd only make a single raise and only bid 1♠ (and I think I misvoted on two of them).

[rhm]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-14, 04:06, said:

Thx for the replies

Q1:
Puppet was used at both tables for -200 when LHO doubles it with ♣KQJ10x, 3NT +13

Quite rightly so. Puppet Stayman is probably a sensible convention over 2NT. But I would refuse to play it with any partner who felt obliged to use it indiscriminately whenever he holds a 3 card major.
There is an old book by Kelsey for intermediate player called "How to improve your Bridge". It has a chapter headed "Overusing conventions".

Quote

Q2: I think this is the most interesting, IMO 3♠ is wrong, partner will missevaluate a lot of stuff:
-♥ shortness
-♥K (when alone)
-♥Q (when alone)
-♦A
-♦K
-♦Q on a combo with the ace or the king
-♣Q (undervalued)
-♣QJ (undervalued)

And the only thing he will evaluate accordingly is ♠KQJ, ♥A and spade lenght.

Partner is not on a position to make an intelligent decision, both tables picked 4♠ for a push, partner's hand ♠QJxxx ♥x ♦Qxxxx ♣Qx

So what is your suggestion? If you bid 2♠ partner will pass. I am a 4♦ bidder. I admit it is a calculated overbid, but with more upside than downside. (easier in a strong club context)

Quote

Q3:
partner has ♠Kx ♥10xx ♦K9xx ♣Axxx, 2♠ got -15 IMPs in 4♠ vs 4♥ both making (althou 4♥ shouldn't but that's another story), because partner found no reason to make any bid opposite a weak 2. Anything else should be a push.

I am a 1 ♠ bidder, but it is not clear how you would reach 4♠, unless you get pushed there.

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

655321, on 2010-December-13, 17:50, said:

On the first hand, I would not consider looking for a 5 card spade when when my shortage is QT doubleton. It would be a different story with a singleton heart.

I though the same when I saw dummy, today I am convinced that the key thing to look on this decisions is the club holding, with minors reversed I wouldn't mind bidding 3♣, but with weak clubs you've gotta be careful. Maybe I am overlearning from this hand.

[whereagles]

1. puppet, yes. Why is this a problem?
2. 3♠. Closer to 4 than to 2 lol.
3. 2♠. LHO may easily have only 7-8 hcp, in which case the 3 level may be too much for him.

[awm]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-14, 04:06, said:

Q2: I think this is the most interesting, IMO 3♠ is wrong, partner will misevaluate a lot of stuff:
-♥ shortness
-♥K (when alone)
-♥Q (when alone)
-♦A
-♦K
-♦Q on a combo with the ace or the king
-♣Q (undervalued)
-♣QJ (undervalued)

And the only thing he will evaluate accordingly is ♠KQJ, ♥A and spade lenght.

Partner is not on a position to make an intelligent decision, both tables picked 4♠ for a push, partner's hand ♠QJxxx ♥x ♦Qxxxx ♣Qx

I think there's a fallacy to this reasoning. Certainly partner will sometimes pass 3♠ when game is making, and sometimes bid 4♠ when it is down. But all else being equal, surely game is more likely to make if partner has a good hand (even though there are good hands with lots of diamond cards where game fails) and less likely to make when partner has a lousy hand (even though there are very pure lousy hands where game makes). The goal is not to get partner to always get it right, but rather to improve our odds of getting it right over what would happen if I blasted 4♠ (or bid just 2♠). I think the given hand (5-5 shape in the pointeds) is a game bid in any case.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-14, 04:06, said:

Thx for the replies

Q1:
Puppet was used at both tables for -200 when LHO doubles it with ♣KQJ10x, 3NT +13


Q2: I think this is the most interesting, IMO 3♠ is wrong, partner will misevaluate a lot of stuff:
-♥ shortness
-♥K (when alone)
-♥Q (when alone)
-♦A
-♦K
-♦Q on a combo with the ace or the king
-♣Q (undervalued)
-♣QJ (undervalued)

And the only thing he will evaluate accordingly is ♠KQJ, ♥A and spade lenght.

Partner is not on a position to make an intelligent decision, both tables picked 4♠ for a push, partner's hand ♠QJxxx ♥x ♦Qxxxx ♣Qx


Q3:
partner has ♠Kx ♥10xx ♦K9xx ♣Axxx, 2♠ got -15 IMPs in 4♠ vs 4♥ both making (althou 4♥ shouldn't but that's another story), because partner found no reason to make any bid opposite a weak 2. Anything else should be a push.

EDITED Because Csaba pointed out misspelling

It may just be sour grapes on my part, since my choices didn't work out well, but I think that to derive conclusions like these from the actual hands is resulting. No single lie of the cards should ever be used to 'prove' the right call.

I could play the first hand tomorrow and catch partner with KQxxx Jx AKx AKx and 'prove' that puppet was best (altho I agree that it was a poor choice by me when I voted initially).

On the second hand, why don't we reach game via 3♠?

[Fluffy]

I don't say you don't mike, but IMO there are hands where invitationals do not enhance your options, partner has a very different hand in mind when you raise to 3, and he will very often make a wrong decision. Just blasting 4 IMO is better.

[mikeh]

I did a quick simulation on 1 and 2. On 1 I specified 20 hcp for the 2N opener, with 5 spades and no 4 card side suit...so 5332. On 100 double dummy hands (I didn't have time to do any hand selecting), 3N made 79% of the time and 4♠ 81%, so allowing for the giving away of information via the 3♣ call, which I couldn't factor into the computer analysis, it seems that puppet has no advantage and may be a loser, but it's close.

On the middle hand I gave partner 4-6 spades, no more than 2 hearts, and 6-7 hcp, which I think is generous, since he may have only 5 on some hands. I wanted to estimate the chances of 4♠ being an overbid. The reason for the short hearts is that with a 'one bid hand' and 3+ hearts, partner should raise hearts rather than bid spades.

4♠ failed 60 times out of 100, and when I started looking at the hands, many of the makes were hands on which partner would probably accept a 3♠ raise.....several of them were 5-5 hands, for example.

Of the hands that would either certainly or probably pass 3♠, it seems as if about 70% of them fail in game.

So the simulation suggests that 4♠ was a serious overbid on this one.

I'm not a big fan of double dummy simulations, but when the outcome is this one-sided, it seems to me to be a clear indicator.

[mikestar13]

1. 3NT. We do very well rejecting a possible 5-3 major fit when both hands are balanced and stoppers are adequate.

2. 3♠. I feel closer to 2♠ than to 4♠, splinter is out of the question.

3. 1♠ is enough for me at these colors, but it depends on your partnership style for preempts.

[rhm]

mikeh, on 2010-December-14, 10:26, said:

I did a quick simulation on 1 and 2. On 1 I specified 20 hcp for the 2N opener, with 5 spades and no 4 card side suit...so 5332. On 100 double dummy hands (I didn't have time to do any hand selecting), 3N made 79% of the time and 4♠ 81%, so allowing for the giving away of information via the 3♣ call, which I couldn't factor into the computer analysis, it seems that puppet has no advantage and may be a loser, but it's close.

I consider this not close at all. First opposite this hand opener will hold a 5 card ♠ suit in less than 6% of all deals, the exact figure depends slightly what you consider suitable for a 2NT opening.

I repeated your simulation with 100 deals and I got roughly the same result: 3NT made on 77% and 4♠ on 79% of all deals. However, it is well known that declarer's advantage single dummy over double dummy analysis is greatest in 3NT, mostly because in practice the defense does not always find the right opening lead, which often is crucial in 3NT. The actual deal is not so rare. Many tend to lead passive against a 2NT opener, which would suit you fine when you have a 5-3 fit in ♠. I would not be surprised if 3NT made more often not less often in practice, in spite of the 5-3 ♠ fit.

Quote

On the middle hand I gave partner 4-6 spades, no more than 2 hearts, and 6-7 hcp, which I think is generous, since he may have only 5 on some hands. I wanted to estimate the chances of 4♠ being an overbid. The reason for the short hearts is that with a 'one bid hand' and 3+ hearts, partner should raise hearts rather than bid spades.

4♠ failed 60 times out of 100, and when I started looking at the hands, many of the makes were hands on which partner would probably accept a 3♠ raise.....several of them were 5-5 hands, for example.

Of the hands that would either certainly or probably pass 3♠, it seems as if about 70% of them fail in game.

So the simulation suggests that 4♠ was a serious overbid on this one.

I'm not a big fan of double dummy simulations, but when the outcome is this one-sided, it seems to me to be a clear indicator.

If the issue would be mainly whether to bid game or stay in 3♠, I agree that bidding game is an overbid, though not by much. (It is not a serious overbid, if game would make 30% of the time, when partner would pass 3♠)
But having a ♠ fit and opponents, who did not compete, in spite of your void in an unbid suit, how likely is it that your partner is minimum and opponents have at least half the deck? Possible but not very likely.
But when it comes to decide whether to stay in game or try for slam I believe 4♦, though a slight overbid, is superior.
If partner has the right hand, very little is needed to make slam. He only needs secondary honors in the black suits and a shortage in hearts or KQ in both majors for slam to be good. I know many will reach six with such hands on paper if you bid 3♠. However I have my doubts at the table.
I am not claiming reaching all slams even after splintering with 4♦, nor that I will stay out of all bad ones, but partner will be in a far better position to judge how well these hands fit.
Incidentally, I do not think 4♠ to be a sensible option. 4♠ should neither be weaker nor stronger than a splinter. 4♠ just shows a different hand, 4=5=2=2 distribution with around 17+ HCP. Otherwise I do not understand how partner is ever supposed to make an intelligent decision when you bid 4♠.