[nige1]

slothy, on Feb 25 2008, 07:13 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1. Playing Acol,
1♣ (_P) 1♦ (_P)
1♠ (_P) 1N (_P)
??


2. For those who bid 3♣, or assume that N did,
what is South's bid over 3♣?

---

1. IMO 2♣ = 10, 3♣ = 8. P = 3
3 ♣ is a slight overbid. Also, I intend to bid 3♣ over 2N.
Usually, in Acol, my 1♠ rebid would already show 5 ♣ and 4 ♠.

2. IMO 3N = 10, 4♠ = 7, 3♠ = 5, _P=3.
Over partner's 3♣ I would bid 3N.

[Cascade]

nige1, on Feb 28 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

slothy, on Feb 25 2008, 07:13 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1. Playing Acol,
1♣ (_P) 1♦ (_P)
1♠ (_P) 1N (_P)
??


2. For those who bid 3♣, or assume that N did,
what is South's bid over 3♣?

---

1. IMO 2♣ = 10, 3♣ = 8. P = 3
3 ♣ is a slight overbid. Also, I intend to bid 3♣ over 2N.
Usually, in Acol, my 1♠ rebid would already show 5 ♣ and 4 ♠.

2. IMO 3N = 10, 4♠ = 7, 3♠ = 5, _P=3.
Over partner's 3♣ I would bid 3N.

1. I too leaned towards 2♣ rather than 3♣ although I am not completely convinced that it is right. I would have given 3♣ more and Pass less than you suggest.

2. Here I am completely unconvinced about bidding 3NT. Partner had two ways of inviting game - 2NT or 3♣. There seems no point to this distinction if we are going to bid game with any maximum.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Feb 28 2008, 04:47 AM, said:

I am completely unconvinced about bidding 3NT. Partner had two ways of inviting game - 2NT or 3♣. There seems no point to this distinction if we are going to bid game with any maximum.

My first though was that you could define 3♣ as inviting game opposite any maximum and opposite a minimum with help in clubs. Thinking more about it, a minimum with help in clubs would probably have taken preference with 2♣ rather than bidding 1NT. Especially in Standard English Acol in which 1♠ implies 5+ clubs.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Feb 27 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

That approach is truly idiotic. If we don't trust our partner to evaluate correctly over 3♣, don't bid 3♣. If partner bids 3N on the hand she held, that was a mistake. But imagine how she would feel if she bid 3N on xx J10xx KJxxx Ax and you pulled to 4♣. Yes, 3N MAY go down, but it is a contract you need to be in at imps.

Can we leave the insults aside? That's really childish. Why do you keep doing that?

Now to the technical stuff. I think you may have misunderstood what I said.

Cascade's simulation showed 5♣ was better than 3NT. When you bid 3♣, you're not inviting to 3NT, but to FIVE CLUBS. Pard of course doesn't know this, so, when he bids 3NT and you pull to 4♣, the message is "I don't wanna play 3NT. My invite was to 5♣. How do you fancy that?". Note that by bidding this way, you avoid having to play 4♣ if pard passes 3♣.

Of course, what I said is backed by simulations that show 5♣ is, in general, better than 3NT. At table, having no simulations, I would have to trust my judgement to know whether 5♣ is better than 3NT. And if I were to judge 5♣ more likely, it would be consistent to pull 3NT. If I were to judge otherwise, it would be inconsistent to pull 3NT. Yes, 3NT is better if pard has the hand you gave, but simulations show 5♣ is the long run winner and that justifies pulling 3NT.

[nige1]

Cascade, on Feb 27 2008, 10:47 PM, said:

1. I too leaned towards 2♣ rather than 3♣ although I am not completely convinced that it is right.  I would have given 3♣ more and Pass less than you suggest.

2.  Here I am completely unconvinced about bidding 3NT.  Partner had two ways of inviting game - 2NT or 3♣.  There seems no point to this distinction if we are going to bid game with any maximum.

On reflection, I think Cascade, Helene_T and Co are right and I was wrong. 3♣ is OK and may be better than 2♣.

Also, I concede that 3N over 3♣ is bullish on this misfit

• I dare say that 3N might have been right, had opener's 3♣ been stronger or his ♣ suit better
  e.g. ♠A9xx ♥- ♦Jx ♣AKQTxxx
  
• With opener's actual hand, on the likely ♥ lead, 3N is almost hopeless, whereas 5♣ retains remote chances (♠ 3-3 with ♠Q well-placed, and ♣J singleton or doubleton)
  
• Opener's ♠ are so good that 4♠ has slightly better prospects than 5♣, but it doesn't degrade so gracefully on unfavourable breaks
  
• ♥s are more likely to be led against 3N than against a suit contract. On a non ♥ lead, suit contracts have better prospects.

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Feb 28 2008, 06:44 AM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 27 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

That approach is truly idiotic. If we don't trust our partner to evaluate correctly over 3♣, don't bid 3♣. If partner bids 3N on the hand she held, that was a mistake. But imagine how she would feel if she bid 3N on xx J10xx KJxxx Ax and you pulled to 4♣. Yes, 3N MAY go down, but it is a contract you need to be in at imps.

Can we leave the insults aside? That's really childish. Why do you keep doing that?

Now to the technical stuff. I think you may have misunderstood what I said.

Cascade's simulation showed 5♣ was better than 3NT. When you bid 3♣, you're not inviting to 3NT, but to FIVE CLUBS. Pard of course doesn't know this, so, when he bids 3NT and you pull to 4♣, the message is "I don't wanna play 3NT. My invite was to 5♣. How do you fancy that?". Note that by bidding this way, you avoid having to play 4♣ if pard passes 3♣.

Of course, what I said is backed by simulations that show 5♣ is, in general, better than 3NT. At table, having no simulations, I would have to trust my judgement to know whether 5♣ is better than 3NT. And if I were to judge 5♣ more likely, it would be consistent to pull 3NT. If I were to judge otherwise, it would be inconsistent to pull 3NT. Yes, 3NT is better if pard has the hand you gave, but simulations show 5♣ is the long run winner and that justifies pulling 3NT.

You are the one misunderstanding matters

Wayne's simulation did not support the conclusion that 3N was never right. As I understood his post, he claimed that, based on the constraints he used, 5♣ would make on more hands than would 3N. But 3N will make sometimes. In particular, it will make whenever responder holds the ♣A and the opps can't run 5 tricks. It will also make if partner has both reds well stopped.. which may require some degree of luck: xxx QJ9x KQ10xx Jx is a construction on which 3N is far superior to the hopeless 5♣.. it is not cold, but the odds are it will make.

3♣, as the majority of the better players posting so far seem to think, is an invitation to GAME, not an invitation only to 5♣. When you invite partner to consider bidding game, and partner says.. I think 3N is better than 5♣.... it is truly idiotic to pull 3N.

Returning for a moment to simulations of the situation when one bids 3♣. If asked, before responder calls, which game is more likely, I can accept that Wayne's simulations show that the answer is 5♣. However, if we then change the constraints to be consistent with a 3N rebid by responder, and NOW re-run the simulation, I strongly suspect that the answer would suggest passing 3N. The point is that partner's 3N call shifts the probabilities. Failing to understand that point is suggestive either of haste in posting, ignorance of the use of simulations, or idiocy.

[aisha759]

I am convinced that 3nt by me was wrong with the kind of hand I held....Most of you or I should say ALL of you who answered this post are seasoned bridge players..... If I asked anyone who plays bridge at my level, they would bid a quick 3NT and live to regret it..... 3♣ is not forcing, never thought it was..... Everything looks different in the morning This was a great discussion, but I was convinced I was wrong before all the posts..... In a few days I may agree with the 3♣ bid, who knows..... I would have prefered it, if Alex posted only his hand and then posted mine.... it's easy to judge when all hands are shown..... or post only mine and his bid..... I think that would have been extremely interesting..... When I look at the hands now, I kick myself for having bid 3NT.....i have a clear pass..... I did not judge his hand properly..... I just assumed.... and that is why I will never be a good bridge player, or at least a consistent one...
I don't want to give names to protect the innocent, but the few intermediate players wo read this post disagreed with the 3♣ bid, and now it was my turn to convince them it was correct!!!!!

[mikeh]

nige1, on Feb 28 2008, 07:11 AM, said:

[*]I dare say that 3N might have been right, had opener's 3♣ been stronger or his ♣ suit better
e.g. ♠A9xx ♥- ♦Jx ♣AKQTxxx

I very much doubt that 3♣ would attract many votes in a serious bidding contest with 8 tricks in hand and a partner promising red suit stops. Yes, 3N may fail opposite some hands, and 5♣ might be better, but I cannot imagine merely inviting game. I think, as some of us posted earlier, that responder should NOT include solid clubs as one of opener's hand-types.. solid clubs bid 3N.

[mikeh]

aisha759, on Feb 28 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

When I look at the hands now, I kick myself for having bid 3NT.....i have a clear pass..... I did not judge his hand properly..... I just assumed.... and that is why I will never be a good bridge player, or at least a consistent one...

Don't beat up on yourself

You display all the traits of a player who can improve... and so long as you are improving, there is no limit to how strong you can become.

And this forum is a wonderful resource to players who recognize that they have a lot to learn. When I started, the only comparable resource was the bar after the game, where I hung on every word by players better than myself, which, to start with, was just about everybody

Here, in this forum, we have access to some truly knowledgable players, so it is even better than the old 'bar after the game' scenario.

Show me a player who thinks he or she never errs, and I will show you a player who will never get better. Show me a player who admits to error and is open to rethinking his or her approach, and I will show you a player who is going to get better and better. Well, I hope so, since I make more than my share of mistakes so I hope that means I'm going to get better

[whereagles]

look, michael hargreaves, whatever. I'm not going to debate anymore with you having that assine attitude of yours. have a nice day

[han]

aisha759, on Feb 28 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

I am convinced that 3nt by me was wrong with the kind of hand I held....Most of you or I should say ALL of you who answered this post are seasoned bridge players..... If I asked anyone who plays bridge at my level, they would bid a quick 3NT and live to regret it..... 3♣ is not forcing, never thought it was..... Everything looks different in the morning This was a great discussion, but I was convinced I was wrong before all the posts..... In a few days I may agree with the 3♣ bid, who knows..... I would have prefered it, if Alex posted only his hand and then posted mine.... it's easy to judge when all hands are shown..... or post only mine and his bid..... I think that would have been extremely interesting..... When I look at the hands now, I kick myself for having bid 3NT.....i have a clear pass..... I did not judge his hand properly..... I just assumed.... and that is why I will never be a good bridge player, or at least a consistent one...
I don't want to give names to protect the innocent, but the few intermediate players wo read this post disagreed with the 3♣ bid, and now it was my turn to convince them it was correct!!!!!

If this is the worst kind of mistake you make then you are not an intermediate player. I think you are taking the criticism of the 3NT bid too personal. We are a bunch of people who love to discuss bridge hands and sometimes use strong terms to express our opinions, don't take this to mean that we think that a person who would bid 2C with Alex's hand is necessarily not a good bridge player.

(I'm not even mentioning the fact that there were a couple of very serious bridge players who posted here and thought that 2C was right. Of course, I disagree with them so I will be quick to call their opinions insane )

[slothy]

i certainly did not post here for the discussion to get personal and for people to swing broadsides at each other .. i am referring to 2 people in particular (other than Aisha and I that is jajaja: i certainly wasnt going to mention who my partner was but she decided to stick her Perelli underwear on the washing-line as it were ) and i wish they would cool down, shake hands and not be so eerie (ok ok bad pun) ....

When i bid 3 ♣, i believed that my 3♣ was correct. I posted the hand in this forum to convince myself that my credo was in fact justifiable, and it would have needed a very persuasive argument to sway me contrarily.

I wanted to convince Aisha that, all things considered, bidding 3N was not the right bid on this auction and it would have needed a very persuasive argument to sway me contrarily. In some peoples minds, it is correct: they are entitled to, and may even cherish, their opinion, but it certainly disagrees with mine. The easiest way of convincing her was the power of popular opinion - and there was me thinking i could never be able to find a common thread interweaving bridge and politics

Of course, there was no judgement made (by me) on her proficiency as a bridge player, just, maybe, on her assessment of a particular hand in a particular auction. Maybe, it may have ramifications beyond this, who knows.

I agree with mike and with han to an extent. Of course, everything Aisha has said about me is scurrilous and libellious and i am taking legal action as we speak, jaja. I personally have learnt a lot from these forums and in a few cases some thread-sets have altered my mind-set quite tangentially on topics which i thought i was quite unwavering to. I have also taken great glee in being able to causterise some threads with one post

The day i stop learning from players better than, and even not as good as, me and become numb and irreceptive to the persuasive arguments of others is a day that i think i would genuinely stop playing this beautiful game - stubborn dogma as well as reckless evangelism bear sour fruit in bridge (as well as life). I also wish someone very dear to me, who is improving all the time, has, nay continues to adopt, the same attitude.

Yalla

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Feb 29 2008, 12:36 AM, said:

Cascade, on Feb 28 2008, 04:47 AM, said:

I am completely unconvinced about bidding 3NT.  Partner had two ways of inviting game - 2NT or 3♣.  There seems no point to this distinction if we are going to bid game with any maximum.

My first though was that you could define 3♣ as inviting game opposite any maximum and opposite a minimum with help in clubs. Thinking more about it, a minimum with help in clubs would probably have taken preference with 2♣ rather than bidding 1NT. Especially in Standard English Acol in which 1♠ implies 5+ clubs.

Club preference on Ax is reasonably unlikely unless partner does not have stoppers in the red suits.

[Cascade]

mikeh, on Feb 29 2008, 05:23 AM, said:

Returning for a moment to simulations of the situation when one bids 3♣. If asked, before responder calls, which game is more likely, I can accept that Wayne's simulations show that the answer is 5♣. However, if we then change the constraints to be consistent with a 3N rebid by responder, and NOW re-run the simulation, I strongly suspect that the answer would suggest passing 3N. The point is that partner's 3N call shifts the probabilities. Failing to understand that point is suggestive either of haste in posting, ignorance of the use of simulations, or idiocy.

I could end up doing this forever.

I changed the contraints so that partner had loosely two heart stoppers and two diamonds stopper or one stopper in each suit and the ♣A and some sort of maximum. Actually i was a bit looser on the diamond stopper since we had bid the suit.

What Mike suggested is exactly what happens the odds of making 3NT increased to around 50% (actually the odds of 5♣ increased to a similar number). I only did a small simulation of 100 hands.

The exact constraints were:

8-10 hcp (maximum)

Ax, Kx Qxx, Jxxx of hearts with the ace of clubs

or

AK, AQ, AJx, KJx, QJxx or Q10xx of hearts with at least two clubs

and

A, K, QJ, Q10, J10xxx of diamonds or a lesser diamond holding with the ace of clubs.

I could tighten these and we would I predict see an increased chance of 3NT making.

[Cascade]

These numbers are interesting. On the above constraints but further limiting partner to specifically 8 hcp, 9 hcp and 10 hcp I got the following:

8 hcp 5♣ 32% 3NT 21%

9 hcp 5♣ 51% 3NT 45%

10 hcp 5♣ 65% 3NT 62%

Possibly these numbers argue against 3♣ as with some of the ten counts partner might have stretched to 2NT on the previous round especially with Ax or Axx or even Jx or Jxx of clubs.

Inviting with 3♣ didn't seem to cost much though

6hcp 8 tricks 20% 9+ tricks 74%

7hcp 8 tricks 14% 9+ tricks 86%

8-10 hcp (but not accepting) 8 tricks 12% 9 tricks 85%

(some of these later group might accept and move towards 5♣).

[whereagles]

Well, obviously 3NT has a good chance when pard has ♣Ax. Trouble is, he might bid it with lesser club holdings and we have no way to tell which is his holding.

[Cascade]

whereagles, on Feb 29 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

Well, obviously 3NT has a good chance when pard has ♣Ax. Trouble is, he might bid it with lesser club holdings and we have no way to tell which is his holding.

That's why we bid 3♣ and not 2NT so partner can evaluate based on knowing the nature of our hand.

It was consultative so now we trust what she does.