[thepossum]

Hi all

This hand caused me a few problems at IMPs.

What would you do here. I chose the worst of several options. Note that EW will compete to 4C/4H

---

Please comment in relation to assessment of number of tricks, vulnerabiity, whether to compete/how high etc

Note North is a Bot so probably doesnt have very sophisticated jusgement of pre-empts in relation to vulnerability and tricks, but maybe assume North is more sophisticated. I judged North's bid as having approximately 6 tricks (as an average, based on PAvlicek's preempt page and assuming equal vulnerability )


regards P

[akwoo]

I bid 3♠, forcing. Partner can have ♠xxx ♥x ♦AKxxxxxx ♣xx

And if, as is most likely, partner doesn't have this hand for me, I still want to be in 4♦ if he doesn't have 3 spades and 4♠ if he does.

If opps want to play 4♥ I'm happy to let them, especially if partner doesn't have 3 spades. (Partner's lack of spades increases the chance that my AK are both tricks.) Yes, 5♦ might be better, but it might also be a disaster at -500 when defending 4♥ is +50.

[thepossum]

Hi Akwoo

Thanks, I missed that as an option. So used to deciding on pass/raise/NT when I have opener's suit

P

[TMorris]

I bid 4♦ at once (passing then bidding just makes life too easy for your opponents). I'd want a 6th spade to bid 3♠. Just bid to the level of the fit and let them worry about what to do next.

[thepossum]

Thx. I considered a 4D bid (I didn't feel we had enough for a 5D) bid; however I passed then came in later and foolishly competed past 4 to 5D (-500) when defending gets +100 in 4C or 4H. Those who risked the 3NT went -100

I don't know if anyone would have considered doubling 4H or 4C but clearly I took the worst option

I don't know if anyone has tips on identifying that as a better defensive hand but ... (for example I can see at least 3 or 4 defensive tricks hopefully)

---

[Tramticket]

 thepossum, on 2019-September-26, 23:02, said:

I don't know if anyone has tips on identifying that as a better defensive hand but ...

OK, I'll have a go. The reasons why this hand suggests defence are:
- It is a balanced hand in the weak NT range. One of the features of balanced hands is that they tend to have less playing strength and greater defensive strength.
- The Losing Trick Count can be a crude tool, but it is sufficient to identify that this hand has eight losers - in other words it has very little playing strength to play at the five level. Although you have three diamonds, you do not have an honour and there is a good chance of a diamond loser. Your heart holding is worthless in a diamond contract.
- You do not expect to make 5♦ and you are vulnerable. Two-off will be -500, which is greater than they will score for making 4♥.
- You have two very likely defensive tricks: ace and king of spades. You have very good chances of a defensive trick in clubs and also chances in hearts. It might be possible to defeat 4♥ without any support from partner. There is a reasonable chance that partner may show up with a trick or even two in defence (depending partly on preempting style).
- The opposing bidding is strange and you have no reason to think that they have a huge fit.
- A quick check on the Law of Total Tricks suggests that your side have 10 trumps and whilst it is difficult to estimate the number of trumps the opponents have they can't have more than 10. There are a maximum of 20 trumps on the deal and likely to be rather less than this. There are not enough trumps to suggest bidding to the five level.
- You passed 3♦ initially, then bid 4♦, then bid 5♦. If you are going to raise, do it on the first round - you have made it easy for opponents to judge to double.

Sorry, that all sound very negative, but you did ask and I feel that 5♦ was a poor choice.

[thepossum]

 Tramticket, on 2019-September-27, 01:52, said:

Sorry, that all sound very negative, but you did ask and I feel that 5♦ was a poor choice.

Thanks for the comments on how to evaluate the hand Tramticket. That is why I put it up. My initial decision on a pass was a good one/ at least would have worked out well - I don't know what the averages are.

Then I went wrong.

I thought it was a good example

PS I just (crudely) simmed it (before or after the double and 4C bid) and my (basic) double dummy sims (2000 deals using bdeal) clearly show that of all those contracts approx. inclusive probabilities (mean tricks - there is huge variance on most) before the double are 2C (81%), 2H (76%), 3D (84 %); 3C (53%), 3H (48%), 4D (49%); 4C (24%), 4H (21%); 5D (14%); 2NT (26%), 3NT (19%) etc. So the initial pass may be backed up by Sim (full choices are more complicated). Choices seem even clearer after double and 4C. It's a shame you don't have access to sim results during an auction

Interestingly nobody doubled EW

[AL78]

If I decide to pass the first time I am certainly not going up to 5♦ at adverse vulnerability. That is asking to be doubled, you didn't bid the first time so you know you can't make 5♦, so why shouldn't the opponents believe you?

I would probably raise to 4♦ the first time, then shut up. There are big fits both ways and evenly split HCP, so it looks like neither side can make more than a partscore, unless the opponents have beautifully matching hands. Raising the first time will probably be enough to silence LHO unless they have decent distribution along with opening strength HCP. If they do bid 4♥ or 5♣ regardless, let them have it, if you are feeling aggressive you might try a penalty double yourself. Note that even though the opponents have a double fit in the rounded suits, they are still losing the first four tricks thanks to the 3-3 spade break.

Soft holdings in the opponents suits (e.g. QJx, KJx QTx) suggest defending rather than declaring. Qxx in opponents suit is useless when declaring but has a decent chance of taking a trick in defence through a failed finesse or attempt to drop. When holding honor cards in opponents suits not including the ace, the law of total tricks overestimates the number or total tricks.

[P_Marlowe]

3NT.

We may or may not have a hole in hearts, if not, …, 9 tricks are quite often cold,
so I am going for it.
The downside of 3S is, that I cant go back, if Partner bids 4D.

If you decide to pass, … fair enough, pass 4C, you can decide, to hit 4H, they wont make
over tricks.

But bidding 4D over 4C, is just garbage, same bidding 5D over 4H.


With Kind regards
Marlowe

[Tramticket]

 P_Marlowe, on 2019-November-07, 05:35, said:

3NT.

We may or may not have a hole in hearts, if not, …, 9 tricks are quite often cold,

"9 tricks are quite often cold" - which nine tricks are you expecting to make? You are not making 3NT unless the diamond suit is coming home. It probably needs partner to hold AKXXXXX in diamonds.

I don't know what your preempting style is like, but 3NT would be very unlikely to make opposite one of my partner's preempts. The actual hand looks to me to be at the upper end of my expectations and 3NT is a hopeless contract.

[P_Marlowe]

 Tramticket, on 2019-November-07, 06:58, said:

"9 tricks are quite often cold" - which nine tricks are you expecting to make? You are not making 3NT unless the diamond suit is coming home. It probably needs partner to hold AKXXXXX in diamonds.

I don't know what your preempting style is like, but 3NT would be very unlikely to make opposite one of my partner's preempts. The actual hand looks to me to be at the upper end of my expectations and 3NT is a hopeless contract.

I expect sound preempts red vs. White, could still be a bit stronger, only first seat, but nevertheless, so 7 Diamonds and my 2 spades,
and if I have to Exit in Diamond, I expect a side Honor quite often.

So in short: The given North Hand is not even Sub. min for us, but we may still do it, if sun and moon are positioned Right,
or I am in the mood..

But I agree: know your preempt style.

[helene_t]

It is generally a bad strategy first to pass partner's preempt and then get in again later. If you want to make opps' decision difficult, bid as high as you dare on first opportunity and then stay calm for the rest of the hand.

Some exceptions:
- opps are likely to underestimate your bidding skills. So if you have a hand where you expect 4♦ to make, it may be a good bluff to pass first and bid 4♦ later, hoping to get doubled. This tactic is called "walking the dog".
- You have a good 7-card suit which you can't bid because you are too weak to make a forcing bid. So pass and hope to get a chance to bid your suit next time

But those are rare. So as a general rule, bit as early as possible and hope opps will misguess.

[Cyberyeti]

If I was going to back in at the point S bid 5♦, I'd do this with 4♠ showing 5♠/3♦ rather than a hand with lots of spades not good enough to bid over 3♦.

I think while you have a reasonable chance of making 3N (partner has opened 3♦ first in red v green, there must be a chance of ♥Jx, ♦AKxxxxx, or partner holding AQxxxxx and the K onside without them being able to cash out), it's a coinflip whether you pass or bid 3N. Also partner being dealer at red means you stand a decent chance of playing 3♦ as you quite likely have a combined 21 or so unless partner has KQJ10xxx and out or similar, I would bid an immediate 4♦ at other vuls.

Having passed I think I bid 4♦ but that's as high as I go.