[gnasher]

Bids like 5♥ don't fall into neat categories like "weak distributional hand" or "mild slam-try". When you bid 5♥ in this type of auction, you don't think "I can make eleven tricks so I'll bid it", or "They can make eleven tricks so I'll save". What you think is "I have quite good offence and not that much defence, so bidding 5♥ has several ways to win."

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2014-March-19, 17:34, said:

Bids like 5♥ don't fall into neat categories like "weak distributional hand" or "mild slam-try". When you bid 5♥ in this type of auction, you don't think "I can make eleven tricks so I'll bid it", or "They can make eleven tricks so I'll save". What you think is "I have quite good offence and not that much defence, so bidding 5♥ has several ways to win."

Quote

2- Be able to make a slam invite- make a bid that suggests we stay in defense- make a bid that suggests we are better in offense - be able to let pd decide.

Yes, this is what i was trying to say, you put it better .

[Trinidad]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-19, 16:46, said:

Because I was focusing on Trinidad's initial argument which seemed to center on fear that 5d is making.

Then I haven't been clear.

I replied to Cascade's post, which was centered on fear that 5♥ wouldn't make ("turning +100 into -100").

I find that an odd idea. I have opened a hand that has very good offense and poor defense (good ODR). Partner has said that we will take 10 tricks if I hold a minimum opening with poor ODR. Then there are going to be 11 tricks when I hold a hand with good ODR.

So my argument is centered around 5♥ making and at the same time not getting rich defending 5♦ doubled.

Cascade feared that we would turn +100 into -100 by bidding 5♥ when partner has a clear penalty double. While that is a possible outcome ("nothing is certain in life, let alone in bridge"), it is also possible that we turn +450 into -550 if we pass with offensive hands (give each side one extra trick only) and partner has a minimum for his 2NT raise (which will force him to double).

I only added the argument that 5♦ might make when Cascade came with an argument that 5♥ might go down. (Kind of "If pigs could fly".)

The most likely outcome (frequency!) with these high ODR hands (opposite hands where partner will double if we pass) is that we turn +100 into +450 by bidding 5♥. That is the reason why I will bid 5♥, not fear that 5♦ will make.

The whole discussion started around the question whether 5♥ was a mild slam invitation. My answer is a clear no. It is a hand that would have wanted to play 4♥ opposite a minimum Jacoby 2NT raise if left alone (or if they would have bid 4♦) but is willing to take the push to 5♥ when they bid 5♦.

And if you have a misunderstanding with partner where he thinks that 5♥ is a slam invitation then you will turn a lot of + nx100's into -100's.

Rik

[Stephen Tu]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-20, 01:29, said:

I find that an odd idea. I have opened a hand that has very good offense and poor defense (good ODR). Partner has said that we will take 10 tricks if I hold a minimum opening with poor ODR. Then there are going to be 11 tricks when I hold a hand with good ODR.

I think maybe it's a non-dispute based on how one defines "mild slam invitation". If a hand with good ODR has 11 tricks opposite an ordinary min Jacoby 2nt, if partner has what looks like an extra trick shouldn't there be 12?

[Trinidad]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-20, 09:08, said:

I think maybe it's a non-dispute based on how one defines "mild slam invitation". If a hand with good ODR has 11 tricks opposite an ordinary min Jacoby 2nt, if partner has what looks like an extra trick shouldn't there be 12?

The short answer: Sure.

The longer answer: "looks like an extra trick" is not enough. He will need good controls. There must be a reason why you bid 5♥, killing slam investigations. This is, of course, not so obvious when we bid 5♥ over 5♦, when there is little room anyway. But if we bid 5♠ over 5♣ it is clear that we are closing the door for anything constructive. Then partner needs to have a little bit more than "what looks like an extra trick". Just having 3-4 HCP in reserve (normally the equivalent of a trick) is not good enough.

Rik

[awm]

I think a singleton diamond (or 3+ small) is expected for a forcing pass, but the sixth heart and the 6-4 shape are more offensive than usual. I actually like pass-and-pull because it's hard to construct hands for partner where slam isn't good (barring some very unlikely diamond cards and a minimum, with which partner will pass 5♥ anyway).

[ggwhiz]

I'm too late to the initial discussion but what does the pass and pull crowd do if pard bids 5♥ instead of double?

[Trinidad]

ggwhiz, on 2014-March-20, 11:07, said:

I'm too late to the initial discussion but what does the pass and pull crowd do if pard bids 5♥ instead of double?

Still pull

If partner bids 5♥ then they would bid a confident 6♥. Pass and pull is inviting slam. If partner's hand is so offensive that he won't double but will bid 5♥, that means that he would accept a slam invitation.

If partner bids anything other than 5♥, pass and pullers will be on their way to the grand.

Rik

[Stephen Tu]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-20, 11:21, said:

If partner bids anything other than 5♥, pass and pullers will be on their way to the grand.

Really? If partner bids 6 you are bidding 7?

[gnasher]

ggwhiz, on 2014-March-20, 11:07, said:

I'm too late to the initial discussion but what does the pass and pull crowd do if pard bids 5♥ instead of double?

They start by wishing they were playing pass-double inversion.

[mike777]

ggwhiz, on 2014-March-20, 11:07, said:

I'm too late to the initial discussion but what does the pass and pull crowd do if pard bids 5♥ instead of double?

I was always forcing to 6. I am just not sure the most effective way to 7 after the 5d preempt.

[MrAce]

mike777, on 2014-March-20, 14:47, said:

I was always forcing to 6. I am just not sure the most effective way to 7 after the 5d preempt.

Why do you always force to 6 ? Pd is allowed to hold hands like;

AKx Jxxx Jxx KJx

JTx AKJx xx KJxx

KJx KJxx Jx KJxx

KJx AKJx Jxx Jxx

I am not sure how pd will stop before slam with those hands, or should he ? After pass and pull.

I still don't know what is pd supposed to do. We talk in forums theories, which sounds great, and lets agree for the sake of argument that we all are in same page about the message that needs to be send to pd, and again agree that we all chose the same bid for that message, it still comes down to more or less where we started and requires a guess most of the time. It is very hard to confidently decide for pd.

As you see slam is awful opposite OP hand. Now make a little change in OP hand, which is also suitable for pass and then pull, slam will be great. Same goes for direct 5♥ bid, if those who advocated it believe direct 5♥ shows a hand like the one we have in OP. Same also goes with those of us who advocate direct 5♥ shows a weaker hand but offensive and not willing to let them play 5♦. There are simply too many hands that fit in the category we represent each time and it is not even close to expect a confident decision by pd.

I have seen very good players who stated that the benefits of forcing passes and the expected gain from them are overrated. I believe this and i also started to believe it is basically passing the ball to each other because no one knows exactly or confidently what to do. They expect pd to understand and make the right decision with the info he has due to forcing pass and pull or direct bid or this and that. As if the message we send makes it crystal clear for him. This is far from the facts. In one hand they expect pd to bid slam with AK of trumps, while in another hand and same auction they expect something else to be figured by pd and bid slam with this and not with an other.

Maybe...just maybe, instead of creating a huge mess, passing and passing the double is the action that optimizes our chances irl. Particularly at these colors. I confess, this did not even occur to me when i saw the hand, thinking naively that with the tools i have in my hand, we will frequently make the right decision about when to stay in 5 or when to bid slam. Forget about making the right decision, looking at replies, we are not even on same page about the message we are sending to pd, let alone pd receiving the message correctly and then making the right decision confidently.

So far in my subjective experiences, the best usage of FP is to allow us to pass 1 round to hear what pd has to say, without the fear that it may go all pass. And the info we send about our holding in their suit. Other functions of FP are overrated imho.

[mike777]

Since you asked me the answer for the most part is no pard cannot hold those hands for the most part. I don't force to game let alone bid 2nt. As for the others sure pard could hold the worst type of hand possible after 5d.

But sure 6h may not make. Again I am much more worried about missing 7h than 6h going down.

What surprised me the most was the debate of whether we want to play in 5h or 5dx.
I guess the answer to the concern is your example hands are typical. That 8 or even 9 loser LTC hands bid 2nt.

[MrAce]

mike777, on 2014-March-20, 16:46, said:

Since you asked me the answer for the most part is no pard cannot hold those hands for the most part. As for the others sure pard could hold the worst type of hand possible after 5d.

But sure 6h may not make.

So you play jacoby 2 NT 15+ or something ? And no these are not the worst hand types, very unlikely due to bidding but i already took out the hands that may contain some ♦ hcps, which Cascade was talking about

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Jacoby_2NT

http://www.acbl.org/...nvention=jacoby

http://web2.acbl.org...s/jacoby2NT.pdf

http://www.bridgebum.../jacoby_2nt.php

http://www.betterbri...ndard200409.pdf

FYI

[Cascade]

MrAce, on 2014-March-20, 16:50, said:

So you play jacoby 2 NT 15+ or something ? And no these are not the worst hand types, very unlikely due to bidding but i already took out the hands that may contain some ♦ hcps, which Cascade was talking about

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Jacoby_2NT

http://www.acbl.org/...nvention=jacoby

http://web2.acbl.org...s/jacoby2NT.pdf

http://www.bridgebum.../jacoby_2nt.php

http://www.betterbri...ndard200409.pdf

FYI

You should try reading the posts. It was you that started talking about points in diamonds. But you then conveniently in your analysis discounted it to no points in diamonds although now I see you are admitting examples with the diamond jack. Although you did not even acknowledge my previous post after you claimed you had not said something which I had directly quoted.

The fact is there is a non-zero probability that partner will have a significant diamond honour. And that probability is higher than you are admitting in your examples.

On the assumption that partner has two of the missing diamonds the probability of no king or queen without any other consideration is:

10/12 * 9/11 = 15/22 that is nearly a third of hands with two diamonds will have either the king or queen.

This becomes

9/12 * 8/11 = 6/11 if partner has three diamonds.

Sure some of the hands (or rather players with the hands) with eight or more diamonds may not bid 5D with a bad suit but some will. But we have to discount the probabilities absent this information a lot before the 31% or 45% becomes negligible.

My comments about diamond honours were simply because you suggested considering hands without much in diamonds then produced examples all of which had nothing in diamonds. As such your reasoning appeared flawed to me.

[mike777]

Wow I must admit I did not know that it is 33%+ that responder has the QD or KD If we assume 2+d if I read your post correctly?

As a nonexpert I did assume that the probability was something close to zer0 on the typical hands for responder I came up with.

Kxx..AKxx...xx...Kxxx was a typical minimum and I expected more often.
With an 8 or 9 loser LTC type hand I would not bid 2nt or it would be extremely rare at best.

I did assume a balanced hand with 4h, 7 LTC or better or a hand with shortage and 6 :LTC or better,but not 4333 with stoppers .

[PhilKing]

mike777, on 2014-March-20, 17:47, said:

Wow I must admit I did not know that it is 33%+ that responder has the QD or KD If we assume 2+d if I read your post correctly?

It isn't. The maths is only "true" if the 5♦ bidder is basing his call on the possession of some diamond length, but no regard for any other factors.

[MrAce]

Cascade, on 2014-March-20, 17:39, said:

You should try reading the posts. It was you that started talking about points in diamonds. But you then conveniently in your analysis discounted it to no points in diamonds although now I see you are admitting examples with the diamond jack. Although you did not even acknowledge my previous post after you claimed you had not said something which I had directly quoted.

You sound like Samuel L Jackson in "Pulp fiction" movie saying something like "This is a ***** miracle and i want you to ***** acknowledge it ! "

http://www.miramax.c...zQwZxZRYqvKxtw5

I said "your pd will not have K-Q of diamonds ..."

I also say things like " it is not gonna happen " or " this lead killed declarer" Am i supposed to show a psychic certification or an autopsy report for these wordings ?

I will not and you will (hopefully) get over it and move on.


@ Mike777: You have to also take into consideration the possibility of having a RHO, who is bidding 5♦, white vs white, when his LHO opened, and RHO showed a usually balanced GF hand, missing 2 or 3 of AKQ in his suit Ohhh my, even if that is the case, he expects pd to hold the missing ♦ honor, not West Of course, pd who is holding Qx Kx in that suit, will count them as full value, sitting in front of 5 ♦ bidder, when we invite him to slam

This is what happens, when someone is obsessed with literacy and numbers rather than the bridge logic.

Yes, he has a point perhaps about how i chose my wording to express the unlikeliness of pd having anything more than a J, if any, But i do not get why is he stuck there, not even recognizing the hands i constructed w/o wasted diamonds honors at my first reply, all of which were actually showing the hands that does not make slam, i did not use those hands to support my claim. In fact those were the hands that actually suggests taking the low path, thus supporting his view rather than mine, but he chose to debate my literacy, rather than the point i was trying to make.

[Trinidad]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-20, 11:34, said:

Really? If partner bids 6 you are bidding 7?

I stand corrected. If partner bids anything else then 5♥ or 6♥... But I think you were smart enough to figure that out yourself.

Rik

[Cascade]

PhilKing, on 2014-March-20, 18:13, said:

It isn't. The maths is only "true" if the 5♦ bidder is basing his call on the possession of some diamond length, but no regard for any other factors.

Which is what I claimed.

Those numbers are a starting point. Nevertheless an opponent has to pass a lot of kj 8th or more or qj 8th or more before the probabilities reduce to partner not having either of those cards as mr ace claimed earlier. I reckon partner will have a diamond honour a significant minority of the time when you sit at the table and hear this bidding.

Further the numbers are based only on the relative suit lengths. Yes there is a pull away from these numbers based on the tactics of the 5d bidder. There is also a pull in the other direction towards greater probabilities of responder having a diamond honour because he has announced more than his share of strength.

Given our side's announced strength is very likely that the opponents are advanced sacrificing or just jamming the auction. I certainly know players who would bid 5d without waiting for mr aces's no hole suit simply to put pressure on.