[Wayne_LV]

---

What do you bid?

[apollo1201]

I would pass as partner could be weak and the 5D bidder at red is supposed to be sound, although we cant be sure the contract makes. So risking 500 with the expected bad breaks while I could have (just myself) 2 tricks on defense is not super appealing.
I would venture 5H with a more meaty hand with (pick 2 out of 3) more robust trumps (or a 5th trump), more quick tricks, or an establishable side suit (eg Axxx Kxxx AKJxx, AQxx Kxxx KQJxx or Axxx KQxx KQJxx, Ax Kxxxx AKxxxx) to keep trump control and being able to run the Cs while Ss are not opened (likely D lead).

[billw55]

5♥ at matchpoints, pass at IMPs.

[BRBanger]

5♥. A tough choice, but a decent 2-way bet at green. I'm not convinced hearts will break so badly; the 5♦ bidder will upgrade his hand with AQx of hearts, and will downgrade club values.

[gszes]

Anytime I have a close decision and I would be on opening lead I look to see if I have a decent opening lead and if not I bid. Makes no difference IMPS or MP. I think this is a close call btn p x and 5h (slightly more tempted to x than p at MP).

5H

[aguahombre]

The poll is incomplete. I prefer a slow pass.

[mikeh]

I think bidding here is for gamblers, not bridge players.

Partner bid 1♥. That is all he did.

Why do we feel the need to get involved? If partner has a modest hand, say 4 hearts or even 5, and 5-9 hcp, do we really want to be laying down dummy in a 5-level contract, probably doubled?

Meanwhile, if he has a good hand...a hand on which he feels that we have ownership of the hand....he gets a chance to tell us about it. Our pass lets him bid.

Now, it is highly unlikely that he can do anything other than pass or double. If he does do anything else, we will be delighted and can (assuming there is room) cue 6♦. More realistically, if he passes, we have probably not missed an 11 trick contract, and may go plus here, for a pickup. If he doubles, then we have a problem, in that it could be right to pass, but bidding would make far more sense after partner shows hand ownership than when we have no idea as to his values. With a red v white 5♦ bid, I think it pretty clear to pull the double.

I am not denying that there will be times when guessing to bid immediately will work better than my strategy, but I think that in general it pays to involve partner when doing so is pretty easy, as it is here.

[rmnka447]

Guess I'm a gambler on this one. I have the distribution, so I'll bid 5 ♥.

[Jinksy]

Not going near 5♥. N's expected number of Hs is close to 4, which could make it very hard to keep control of the hand. Even if they're going a few down and P can't double them, that might be a good score at this vul.

[phil_20686]

mikeh, on 2015-July-27, 10:24, said:

I think bidding here is for gamblers, not bridge players.

Partner bid 1♥. That is all he did.

Why do we feel the need to get involved? If partner has a modest hand, say 4 hearts or even 5, and 5-9 hcp, do we really want to be laying down dummy in a 5-level contract, probably doubled?

Meanwhile, if he has a good hand...a hand on which he feels that we have ownership of the hand....he gets a chance to tell us about it. Our pass lets him bid.

Now, it is highly unlikely that he can do anything other than pass or double. If he does do anything else, we will be delighted and can (assuming there is room) cue 6♦. More realistically, if he passes, we have probably not missed an 11 trick contract, and may go plus here, for a pickup. If he doubles, then we have a problem, in that it could be right to pass, but bidding would make far more sense after partner shows hand ownership than when we have no idea as to his values. With a red v white 5♦ bid, I think it pretty clear to pull the double.

I am not denying that there will be times when guessing to bid immediately will work better than my strategy, but I think that in general it pays to involve partner when doing so is pretty easy, as it is here.

I think that its usually right to bid in these situations. In fact I was told by andrew robson after a similar hand (paraphrasing) that when you have "A fit, a void, and are unsure about the distribution of points, its more or less always right to bid", and its been my experience that that is pretty sound advice.

This was the hand, found it in the vugraph archives so you can judge how similar it is for yourselves :

---

I passed, and this hand always stayed with me because I was surprised at the near total consensus among the UK's top bridge players that bidding over 4S was clear opposite a double. In my naivete I thought that I had already kind shown my hand and that partner could reopen with a double if he had reasonable points. In fact, I made all the points that mikeh makes above. In actual fact partner is often stuffed if you pass, when it would be better to bid, and bidding is seldom expensive. Often LHO can't double because he knows no more about the distribution of the points than you do! My partners double was actually an aberration, he has a clear 2D bid, and that's what happened at the other table(s), 1C 1S 2d 4S, now Tony Forrester had a rather better view of what this hand was worth, since he bid 4N, and then over a 5d response he raised it to six! You can see the whole hand: here, board 27

Obviously, the OP hand is a little different as partner's double shows marginally more than a 1H bid would have, but I don't think the extra few points is really that crucial.

The upshot of this is that I would bid 5h over 5d. I am not sure whether I am bidding to make, sacrificing, or trading -1 for -1, or even if my partner is going to bid a slam, but at IMPS at these colours I really think you can't afford to (risk!) pass.

This post has been edited by phil_20686: 2015-July-28, 07:48

[mikeh]

Phil

I understand your point but don't agree that the example you gave is relevant, notwithstanding the superficial similarity between the two opening hands.

I think the hand you held was slightly better (AKxxx in your long suit rather than KJ98x, and the heart texture), partner has promised more by his double than by a 1♥ response, and he is reopening the OP hand over a preemptive (albeit red v white) 5 level bid. He is FAR more likely, imo, to double 5♦ to show values than 4♠ to show values, since on many such doubles, we defend and there is a huge difference between defending the 4 level and the 5 level.

In short, I am open to persuasion that bidding is better than passing on the OP hand....I'm not persuaded yet...but your analogy doesn't work for me. Btw, fwiw, if you are going to argue that the hands are similar, why not bid 5♥ on your example hand? Which would have worked out even worse than your pass .

One other point: in NA, many pairs would have done what your partner did: double and hope to survive, for the simple reason that 2♦ promises a better hand. I admire bids like 2♦ when they work, and I do bid 2/1 in competition lighter than I used to, but with xxx in spades and xx in clubs, I would have passed or doubled if playing strong NT. However, in a weak NT structure, bidding 2D becomes more attractive, since opener has shape or lots of hcp.

Finally the slam they reached against you wasn't exactly a wonderful contract even on the auction.

[phil_20686]

mikeh, on 2015-July-28, 09:10, said:

In short, I am open to persuasion that bidding is better than passing on the OP hand....I'm not persuaded yet...but your analogy doesn't work for me. Btw, fwiw, if you are going to argue that the hands are similar, why not bid 5♥ on your example hand? Which would have worked out even worse than your pass .

One other point: in NA, many pairs would have done what your partner did: double and hope to survive, for the simple reason that 2♦ promises a better hand.

So, yes, some (inc Robson) suggested that 5H was the optimal bid, but both the decision of what to bid over 1S and the decision of what to bid over 4S were not completely clear and had some interesting dimensions. I just didn't want to clutter my original post too much. So on this hand the consensus over 1S was that 2D was best, but that if that wasn't in style, the second choice was to bid 1N showing 8-11, and that double was bad, because you should only double with 3 hearts when you have a GF hand, otherwise its just too hard for partner. At least one person advocated pass, though I think that was an NPC iirc. With that partner I bid all the time in that type of competition so 2D was very much in style. I think at least one other table actually bid 1N over 1S. Over 4S, some advocated bidding 4N, some said 4N should show a hand with 6 clubs and 4 of a red suit, and that this hand just has an easy 5H bid. In their mind you couldn't have a three suited hand opposite a partner who had shown a suit because you just support partners primary suit. Others said they might well double with 4 hearts and longer diamonds or clubs. Some thought you could only have longer diamonds and 4 hearts if you were less than GF, mostly this was a function of how you played your short club. That's why I carefully said the consensus was for "bidding over 4S", because what to bid is certainly open to interpretation, and no one else who actually played the hand got a dble opposite, most people got a 2d bid, and obviously that matters a great deal. It was a much discussed hand. Or rather, I asked literally almost everyone for their thoughts on the hand.

Obviously, the analogy isnt perfect, but when are they?

I don't think this is the kinda situation where people are 'persuaded'. You can make all the arguments and get all the relevant logic but ultimately weighing up what each part is worth is just experience, and peoples experiences differ. I would say that this kinda hand is a bit open to the double dummy trap, where you look after the hand and say 'glad I didnt bid cause 5h x was going for 3 or 5', when actually they might struggle to double on lots of hands. That is certainly my experience, that you are allowed to play in 5h undoubled a lot more often than a DD analysis of the hands would suggest, and that you often make more tricks than you might even when doubled because the defence isn't sure whether they should be looking for the maximum penalty or just trying to beat it. If people start doubling me more I might change my mind again

[aguahombre]

Forrester is too great a player to have bid the slam without the 8 of hearts.

[MrAce]

@ Phil_20686 : I actually have a lot of sympathy to your way of thinking. But my own personal experience tells me there is a huge difference between 1 sided preempt and when they find a fit and then preempt (such as in your example 1sp-4sp)

Despite what I said though, I also have experience that when someone jumps to 5♦ all by himself, especially when they are red vs white, they usually are either cold for it or 5 ♦ is lead/ defense dependent contract. On this particular hand I want to play 5♥ but not sure if this is what i will play if i bid 5♥. I'd probably end up bidding at the table, instead of forum, since it will take me some time to decide what to do. And i do not want to slow pass and put my pd into corner. After all I am not in pass out seat.

[mike777]

Wayne_LV, on 2015-July-26, 21:23, said:

---

What do you bid?

easy pass

[WesleyC]

My first instinct was the choice between pass/5H is pretty close, but at the colours I would lean towards bidding.

However, I was interested enough to run a (very rough) simulation using Thomas Andrew's Deal.

Coming up with precise criteria for the various calls was tricky.

I removed North hands that wouldn't pass fairly conservatively.
I removed East hands that wouldn't respond 1H based on the wrong shape (5/5 majors etc), but didn't add any restriction based on HCP.
I gave South 8+ diamonds to at least the KQT but didn't add any other criteria.

In order to compare passing vs bidding I took the double dummy result and converted to total points using the following tables:

East's tricks in hearts

8 = -500
9 = -300
10 = -50
11 = 450
12 = 480
13 = 510

South's Tricks in diamonds

8 = 300
9 = 200
10 = 100
11 = -600
12 = -620
13 = -640

The tables are deliberately skewed in favour of passing. For example, bidding 5H never gets our our side to slam (looking at the hands 6C was often a safer contract than 5H) and we always gets doubled when going down, but never when making. Both sides also defend with double dummy accuracy which real life results tend to (slightly) favour the declarer.

Over 10000 hands, I compared our score defending 5D vs playing 5H.

In the first 5000 hands, I didn't limit partner's HCPs at all (and made the assumption they would never reopen).

In this case our side did on average 152 Total point better by playing 5H rather than defending 5D.

In the next 5000 hands, I limited partner to a maximum of 11 HCP (which very roughly approximate hands that might not reopen).

In this case our side did 111 Total points better by playing 5H rather than defending 5D.

I wouldn't put much faith in the actual numbers, but the exercise was enough to convince me that bidding 5H is definitely the winning action on this hand.

[apollo1201]

Wesley, your simulation is interesting at red vs. white because here, East has obviously more than KQ 8th and out. He is a trick heavier at least.

OTOH, never doubling 5D and being always doubled when down at 5H should compensate, but it only marginally affects the scoring, not the mathematic expectation of tricks won. We should also factor 6H-1 when partner sees us freely bidding 5H.

Overall, a very hard simulation to make and thanks a lot for running these 10 000 deals.

Could you pls give us the frequencies of the number of tricks made? If you still have them ;-)

[mikeh]

Wesley, I appreciate the effort that went into the simulation, but (and I mean this) with a great deal of respect for the effort, I think your simulation is so flawed as to be basically meaningless.

Some of your assumptions, as you say, understate the benefit of bidding. I think the biggest one, in that regard, is that you assume that partner will NEVER raise when it would be right to do so, and this is clearly a big distortion.

However, you make some assumptions that in my view are of even greater magnitude in the opposite direction, and don't even mention two of the biggest ones.

You do mention that you allowed the preemptor to be as weak as KQ10xxxxx and out. Red v white, I find that to be silly to the point of absurdity. At best that is a 4♦ call red v white.

But that, big tho it is, isn't the worst problem, or even the second-worst.

Imo, the worst problem is that it appears that your simulation is based on the clearly unwarranted assumption that partner is barred whether we bid or, and this is huge, pass.

I don't have a problem about not assuming that we ever defend doubled: my view is that if partner doubles, we bid, (edit to remove nonsense) to bring slam back into the picture so I will never collect 500 or 800 etc.

But I have a huge issue with the notion that the only way to play 5♥ is for us to bid it. Don't we have a partner? I suggest that if you were to look at the partner holdings on which we make 5♥ or more, on quite a few of them you will find that partner won't pass 5♦. It is simply wrong, and a huge distortion, to assume that N will always pass if we pass. This mistake invalidates the simulation imo, even ignoring the other issues.

Here is another major problem: your assumption that we will never bid a making slam after our 5♥ skews the results against bidding, but reaching slam after a 5♥ by us isn't always a win. Partner might well bid a slam hoping for a better hand, and so bidding now may get us to a minus score at the 6 or 7 level when passing gets us out at 5♥ (I assume he won't pass out 5♦ on hands that would drive to slam over a 5♥ bid, but even that may be incorrect).

I am not suggesting that I could run a better simulation. I have done a number of sims over the years and what I have learned is that there are situations that just don't lend themselves to such an approach. This is classic: we cannot well define RHO. I do think that you have significantly lowballed his worst hand, but we'd also have to consider the best hands that a sim would generate and maybe exclude a few of those on the basis that maybe another call would be made irl. More, we have to guess what partner would do with a variety of hands. There will be hands on which some experts would double and others pass. Hands on which some would bid clubs, and others would do something else. Hands on which some would drive to slam over an immediate 5♥ but not if we pass first and then pull a double, and vice versa.

In short, we have to exercise a great deal of judgement to determine the outcome of any choice, and sims are no good at that: at best a sim provides plausible hands to the decision-point, but thereafter everything becomes subjective.

[lamford]

Pass. For all the reasons mikeh gives.

[PhilKing]

FWIW I do not believe WesleyC is being as naive as is perhaps being assumed, but I do not agree with the approach (the outcome has some interest, in that it hugely favours bidding, where I would assume the actions were close, even with a bludgeon sim).

One has to weigh the stated limitations of the sim accordingly, and he sets them out clearly. Personally, I would always go for a human-filtered sim in cases like this.