[mrdct]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-May-26, 03:06, said:

Completely disagree with this. Most of the time, I have 7 tricks in 4♠ so it's cheaper than 4♥ making at this vul. Is 4♥ making, you'd be unlucky if it wasn't, but that is possible and also depends how little is required by the partnership to dredge up a response. The reason for not bidding 4♠ last time is that if hearts are 2-2, there must be a decent chance of the bidding dying in 3♠-2 or 3♠x-1 vs -140, so at least have a go at finishing there. I think that since you protect on some pretty weak hands, the 4♥ bidder has an opening hand to bid this at red and the only reason for this auction is that he has too many spades to X, a 3352 14 count with 5 bad diamonds would not be atypical.

If I had a singleton heart, I think I could bid 4♠ with impunity as now partner can have say ♥QJ109 and be thinking about doubling. As it is, he only has 3 so this is difficult to envisage (although if I had a void in spades opposite I might think about doubling to prevent partner doing something stupid, although I might then realise that thinking then passing might dissuade an ethical partner from bidding 4♠ on hands that should, so I might feel forced to X).

With the hand DBurn gave opposite, I think I'd X 4♥. I've overstated my hand with the jump to 3♠ and if I had the 2 minor suit Qs opposite I'd certainly expect to beat 4♥ or be getting a horrible result anyway if I didn't. Partner is more likely to have 18 or 19 points than 13 the way I think.

If we ran some simulations, I'm quite sure that 4♠ would come out on top as the winning option in the majority of cases where my vulnerable opponents have 22-27 hcp, a major fit, bid a game with apparent intent to make and I'm looking at a pretty certain minimum of 7 tricks for a -500 save. However, that isn't the test here. The question is does North's BIT suggest that 4♠ would be better than other logical alternative (e.g. pass)? Pass is going to win whenever 4♠x is going for 800 or when we can beat 4♥ and there will surely be a reasonably portion of hands where that is case; but this BIT by North undoubtedly tips the scales towards 4♠ being the superior choice.

[nigel_k]

 mrdct, on 2011-May-26, 20:55, said:

If we ran some simulations, I'm quite sure that 4♠ would come out on top as the winning option in the majority of cases where my vulnerable opponents have 22-27 hcp, a major fit, bid a game with apparent intent to make and I'm looking at a pretty certain minimum of 7 tricks for a -500 save. However, that isn't the test here. The question is does North's BIT suggest that 4♠ would be better than other logical alternative (e.g. pass)? Pass is going to win whenever 4♠x is going for 800 or when we can beat 4♥ and there will surely be a reasonably portion of hands where that is case; but this BIT by North undoubtedly tips the scales towards 4♠ being the superior choice.

I would suggest that your proposed test is not the right test here. Even if there are a reasonable portion (whatever that means) of hands where pass will work best, this does not mean that pass is a logical alternative.

Suppose I deal and hold an ordinary balanced hand with 13 HCP. Passing will work better than opening on a reasonable portion of hands, but pass is not a logical alternative because hardly anybody would regard it as the best action. In my view, this hand is similar. Choosing an action with known negative expectation is almost the exact definition of illogical. What matters is not the magnitude of the negative expectation, but the proportion of the player's peers who agree that a negative expectation exists.

[Hanoi5]

When South bids 3♠ s/he's trying to show a good hand with some defense, s/he already knows that 4♠ would be a good sacrifice but opponents haven't bid it yet and he could also bid 4♠ with a hand with less defense (KQJ9xxxx x x AKxx, here you could find black singletons in the opponents' hands). However, when they reached game and partner didn't react by doubling (with some defense and no spade fit, for example) or bidding 4♠ South could take the action s/he knows is better scoring-wise.

Of course one may argue that South defense is not that good in front of a passed partner and that a passed partner will never have good enough defense for a double but this could have been solved by having the Director ask South (away from the table) what were his reasons for bidding like this.

[AlexJonson]

Another learning experience.

We already have the dubious fact that passing gets you out of most ethical problems, because it's too hard for the TD to work anything else out.

Now we have the new fact that we have to bid 4S immediately on this hand in case partner should imagine he is not playing snap, and we then can't bid on.

I'm happy enough with this new bit of guidance, I'll just bid 4S first time round, much better than trying to play a difficult card game.

Who are these judgements for? My experience against strong players, and forays into watching matches online (eg the recent excellent trials) suggest that strong players think when they choose, with more or less total impunity. So who are the players who are not allowed to think without compromising partner?

[gordontd]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-May-27, 13:57, said:

My experience against strong players, and forays into watching matches online (eg the recent excellent trials) suggest that strong players think when they choose, with more or less total impunity.

I think it's probably just that their partners avoid taking advantage of it without making a big song & dance. You probably haven't noticed that they've accepted the limitations placed on their decisions by their partner's tempo break.

[AlexJonson]

 gordontd, on 2011-May-27, 14:06, said:

I think it's probably just that their partners avoid taking advantage of it without making a big song & dance. You probably haven't noticed that they've accepted the limitations placed on their decisions by their partner's tempo break.

Thanks for the clarification Gordon. Of course you may be right, or alternatively wrong.

[Bbradley62]

 lamford, on 2011-May-26, 05:15, said:

I would disallow 4S, and impose a PP for the bid.

Where is jallerton? A PP here would be absurd, given that 10 out of 24 voters would allow the bid to stand (shifting Hanoi5's vote).

[bluejak]

 jh51, on 2011-May-26, 11:55, said:

I am not sure what is meant by "allowing" 4♠.

I would think that the rules of bridge require that the hand be played at 4♠ and then an adjustement be made if appropriate. It seems to me that if partner has a random pointless holding with as few as 2 ♠, the most you figure to lose is 6 tricks for -500 if doubled. Whatever the slow pass means. If you are getting that result, 4♥ is certainly on for EW. I will not dispute that there is UI, but is pass really a LA?

I really do not see the point in this post [and similarly from Ed]. Yes, of course you are right, but when someone asks whether we would disallow an action, please please please please can we accept that as just shorthand for saying we allow the hand to be played out, consider the facts and now would we disallow the action? Surely we can accept that as being what is meant? Please?



Incidentally I agree with the principle that when partner thinks and passes in this type of auction his hand is invariably more suited to bidding on than when he passes without any hesitation. Whether logic supports it or not, that is my belief based on experience.

As to those who consider 4♠ automatic have you ever tried trusting partner?

[bluejak]

When someone reaches over to the bidding pad, puts his pen near it, then considers and takes it back, this is just the same as someone who reaches for a card in the bidding box, stops, considers, takes his hand back, then takes a card out. It is UI showing doubt. No question.

[blackshoe]

 bluejak, on 2011-June-02, 16:45, said:

Yes, of course you are right, but when someone asks whether we would disallow an action, please please please please can we accept that as just shorthand for saying we allow the hand to be played out, consider the facts and now would we disallow the action? Surely we can accept that as being what is meant? Please?

Fair enough, but when some new director comes along, reads this forum, sees talk about "disallowing" bids when there is UI, and then rolls the auction back at some club game, it's on you.