[the hog]

Imps. V vs NV

Qxxx
Jxxxx
xx
Qx

(1S) 2H (P) ?

[pbleighton]

Vul at IMPs, I bid 4H and hold my nose.

Otherwise, I would bid 3H.

Peter

[pclayton]

Pass. Don't want to tell them about their 20 point game or 26 point slam.

[nickf]

I'm not really a law fan but this hand says bid 4H now really really loudly.

nick
sydney

[paulg]

Despite an initial reaction to bid 4♥, I feel that all the danger signs are there to only bid 3♥.

Partner has not doubled, RHO has not raised spades, entries to my hand are very poor and so I will only raise competitively giving partner the option of getting it wrong.

Very tough decision.

Paul

[Fluffy]

If you want to 'psycke' your ♥ holding it is normally right to do it by 3 cards, so bid as if you had 2: pass.

[pbleighton]

"I'm not really a law fan but this hand says bid 4H now really really loudly."

I agree with 4H, but the fourth spade reduces the volume considerably

Peter

[flytoox]

4H is very wrong, RHO didnt raise spade. This is a very dangerous sign. If RHO raise to 2S, then pd rates to have singleton and I will bid 4H as well.


Here RHO passed, so I will pass too. If there is some balance, I will bid 3H later, but not now.

YOu can imagine def starts with spade lead, and you lose three spade tricks quickly. It is even possible they have a trump uppercut.

[hrothgar]

As usual, I think that a mixed strategy is best

Pass = 20% of the time
3H = 20% of the time
3N = 25% of the time
4H = 15% of the time
5H = 20%

The relatively uniform distribution suggests a very tough hand with no clear favorite bid.

[flytoox]

hrothgar, on Nov 21 2004, 01:41 PM, said:

As usual, I think that a mixed strategy is best

Pass = 20% of the time
3H = 20% of the time
3N = 25% of the time
4H = 15% of the time
5H = 20%

The relatively uniform distribution suggests a very tough hand with no clear favorite bid.

mixed strategy is right only if the payoff to all these bids are same. This is impossible in the given sequence.

[hrothgar]

flytoox, on Nov 21 2004, 07:26 PM, said:

mixed strategy is right only if the payoff to all these bids are same. This is impossible in the given sequence.

Mixed strategy is right only if the EXPECTED payoff is the same

[luke warm]

i can't afford to pass, it's possible my rho is completely busted and partner is the beast at the table... the normal bid, 4H, might not work here... i'll bid it if i have to, but for now i think 3H is enough, giving partner a chance to show more if he wants to

[flytoox]

hrothgar, on Nov 21 2004, 04:33 PM, said:

flytoox, on Nov 21 2004, 07:26 PM, said:

mixed strategy is right only if the payoff to all these bids are same. This is impossible in the given sequence.

Mixed strategy is right only if the EXPECTED payoff is the same

RIght. still, here how can you have a mixed strategy? Strictly speaking, this is a decision makig problem. There is no strategic interaction here. Cos so far pd and opp's decicision didnt rely on your bid of, from pass to 5H.

[Antoine Fourrière]

4♥. I don't think my hand warrants five opposite a 5422 or 5431 (which can't be with short spades imo), but either opener or partner is going to bid again if I do less, and I don't want opener to show a minor economically.

[pclayton]

nickf, on Nov 21 2004, 12:12 AM, said:

I'm not really a law fan but this hand says bid 4H now really really loudly.

nick
sydney

I think the balanced nature of the hand reduces the TT by at least one, maybe more, since my ODR isn't great.

[EricK]

flytoox, on Nov 21 2004, 05:25 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 21 2004, 04:33 PM, said:

flytoox, on Nov 21 2004, 07:26 PM, said:

mixed strategy is right only if the payoff to all these bids are same. This is impossible in the given sequence.

Mixed strategy is right only if the EXPECTED payoff is the same

RIght. still, here how can you have a mixed strategy? Strictly speaking, this is a decision makig problem. There is no strategic interaction here. Cos so far pd and opp's decicision didnt rely on your bid of, from pass to 5H.

What a mixed strategy gives you is not different bids for this hand but different hands for each of your bids. If 4♥ is always 5 card support, 3♥ is always 4 card support, 2♠ is always strong with 3 card support etc it gives the opponents too easy a time.

Eric

[hrothgar]

flytoox, on Nov 21 2004, 08:25 PM, said:

RIght. still, here how can you have a mixed strategy? Strictly speaking, this is a decision makig problem. There is no strategic interaction here. Cos so far pd and opp's decicision didnt rely on your bid of, from pass to 5H.

Bridge bidding can can/should be modeled as a multi-stage game. The set of available bids and definition of the available bids is contingent on earlier stages of the game.

You are completely correct that the specific meaningss of bids during earliier stages of the game do not change based on my current bid. However, my choice of bids this round will very much impact future bids by the opponents.

As a simple illustration, the entire problem can be considered as equivilent to output choices in a Stackelberg Equilibrium...

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Nov 21 2004, 07:16 PM, said:

As a simple illustration, the entire problem can be considered as equivilent to output choices in a Stackelberg Equilibrium...

Well, I'm glad that has clarified matters...

[mike777]

3H rather than 4 because

1)no spade raise
2) Qxxx of spades.

[hrothgar]

EricK, on Nov 21 2004, 10:20 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 21 2004, 07:16 PM, said:

As a simple illustration, the entire problem can be considered as equivilent to output choices in a Stackelberg Equilibrium...

Well, I'm glad that has clarified matters...

In Economics, one of the "classic" problems studies how firms decide the quantity that they should produce. Historically, economists focused on two polar extremes:

Under perfect competition, the number of firms is assumed to be infinite.
Under monopoly there is only one firm.

Both of these extreme conditions make life very easy since there is no "strategic" interaction. The output decision of the firm being studied does not depend on the output decision of any other firm.

Life gets much more complicated when one is studying "Oligopoly". Here, the output decision of one firm depends on the decisions made by other economic actors. Here, the simpliest model is so-called Cournot Duopoly. A Stackelberg equilibirum is a more complex condition in which one firm is assumed to have a dominant market position. The behaviour of other firms is conditional on the decisions made by the Stackelberg leader.

Stackelberg's model provides a good basic introduction to the dynamics introduced by multi-stage games...