[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

BPO-006F
Partner deals and opens 1♦ and your RHO preempts to 4♥

---

This highly controversial hand is open for discussion. People either loved it or hated it. I will post some of the comments about it later.

[hrothgar]

BPO-006F: 6C

COMPLETELY pointless question... Standard American 1D openings are poorly defined. Partner could have 3 Diamonds and a weak NT. Partner could have 6 Diamonds and an 18 count. There's no way of knowing. White versus Red 4H preempts are equally poorly defined. I have no clue what RHO was bidding on.

The combination of two nebulous bids and virtually NO bidding space makes it impossible to have an intelligent auction. I fail to understand the point of even asking the question. Are we trying to show that preempts work? We already knew this... Maybe the theme is that partner's Hearts honors are worth much versus a void. Nope. Knew that also. Guess that the real theme to this hand is GIGO...

Regardless, I'm going to play partner for 4=3=4=2 14 count... Swans play better in their long suit, so I'm gonna suggest a Club contract. With luck, whatever partner tables will give me the same chances as

xxx
xxxx
AQ98
Kx

However, this is a blind guess. I'll be amazed if anyone can show a reasonable gizmo that allows us to make an intelligent decision. I'll be even more amazed if its actually part of the bidding system that gets used for these contests.

I suspect that someone will propose trotting out 4NT as pass or correct, intending to raise either 5C or 5D to slam. I consider this a losing proposition. We expect partner to hold 4-4 in the “pointy” suits. A 5D rebid will avoid 6C on an 8-1 fit, however, it will get us to some miserable 6D contracts.

[han]

Great problem, very tough.

I wonder what the people who think that this question is pointless do when they hold it at the table.

I chose 5C... after pondering for a long time about 5D and 5NT (pick a slam).

At these colors partner will know that I expect to make 5C and may be able to raise to 6C.

I will bid 6D if partner bids 5D.

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Oct 7 2005, 07:12 PM, said:

Perhaps we are trying to see how experts deal with high level preempts, and what their judgement is. What seems to seperate the experts from the good players is that the experts will go right on judgement calls more often.

You call it a blind guess, yet we see our hand and we know the range of hands partner or RHO could have. This is more like an educated guess.

Judgement is all fine and dandy... it might even give you an extra 1% edge on this hand. However, this edge is going to be swamped by all of the noise cluttering up the system.

I'd prefer to focus on hands where that judgement provides a more meaningful edge.

[fred]

Jlall, on Oct 7 2005, 04:12 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 7 2005, 10:55 AM, said:

I fail to understand the point of even asking the question?

Perhaps we are trying to see how experts deal with high level preempts, and what their judgement is. What seems to seperate the experts from the good players is that the experts will go right on judgement calls more often.

You call it a blind guess, yet we see our hand and we know the range of hands partner or RHO could have. This is more like an educated guess.

Agree. I thought this was a great problem for several reasons:

- Several possible actions none of which are especially appealing
- Judgment is involved
- Tactics are involved
- Language is involved (ie interpretting the meanings of bids like 5NT)

This may seem like an impractical problem because the hand and situation are so unlikely, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't interesting. I think this problem is interesting (and therefore worthy of discussion).

There is a certain skill in bridge that I call "doing the right thing" that is not fully appreciated in my view. The people who keep winning at the highest levels are good at all aspects of the game, of course, but their ability to judge accurately (or guess better) on the "big hands" is one of the main things that sets them apart.

That is another reason why I think this is a good problem. People who read the panel's answers will gain some insight into what goes through an expert's mind when a "big hand" comes along.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

I thought this was a good, albeit somewhat unrealistic, problem.

Going right at high-levels in competition is probably the most important indicator of a true expert. I read recently that Bobby Wolff (yes, he of many World Championships) said that high-level judgment was his weakest area... And anyone who has watched the finals of major team events will know that this is the arena in which most matches are won or lost. All experts can play the cards. All experts can handle unimpeded constructive auctions and all expert pairs have good defensive technique. The one area in which feel for the game has to be more important than technique is when the opps have deprived us of the bidding space in which our system was intended to operate. We are 'guessing', but our guess is not random: it is informed by experience, by our expectations of the other hands, based on methods, vulnerability, match situation, partnership tendencies, knowledge or lack of knowledge of the opps' tendencies and so forth.

Some of these factors are missing in a poll situation, but others are not.

I think that this kind of problem offers a real opportunity to work on this area of one's game.

I do not hold myself out as great in this area: Wolff's game is far superior to mine
but we share this view of our greatest weakness.

BTW I voted for 5♣, with 5N over partner's 5♦ (which cannot be GSF after I bid a non-forcing 5♣)

[Blofeld]

I was being optimistic, so I wanted to choose between 5NT and 6♣. Both of these have some merit, and both will sometimes lead to the wrong slam. In the end I bid 5NT.

I disagree with Richard about this being a bad problem. Yes, everything is a guess. But each guess will have an associated success rate, and the idea is to pick the guess with highest chance of success. If they all had almost equal chances of success, then his point would be valid. But I see no reason to believe that this is the case.

[Walddk]

I also think this is a good problem. Judgement is needed so often, not least when pre-empts slap you in your face as is the case here. I did not go with the majority it appears, although I agree that the hand has great potential.

The problem is, however, that we do not yet know how many wasted values partner has in hearts, so I think it's too early to insist on slam. What did I bid then? You will be the first to see if you are awake when Ben posts the votes of the panelists.

Roland

[inquiry]

Walddk, on Oct 7 2005, 12:55 PM, said:

You will be the first to see if you are awake when Ben posts the votes of the panelists.

I suspect they will be the second, as I have already read your answers... :-)

[Winstonm]

I also thought this was a reasonable problem - getting these types hands right or even close to right more often than not is the most difficult aspect of bridge in my view.

I tried to folllow my own advice and this looked like a situation where bidding looked clear cut - so I bid what I thought we might make: 5C.

Winston

[pigpenz]

i thought this was the hardest problem of the set....still thinking

and they have already called for the move for the next round

I would double and if partner pulls....hope then too be better placed to make deciscion

partner could still be 5-6 in ♠/♦'s,4441 min hand 4342 min...i would expect partner to sit with a min balanced hand and pull with unbalanced hand even though double would tend to be negative in nature.

[pigpenz]

hrothgar, on Oct 7 2005, 10:55 AM, said:

COMPLETELY pointless question...  Standard American 1D openings are poorly defined.  P

how about preciscion 1♦ opening?

thats the point of master solvers polls is to sometime exploit or point out the weaknesses in a system....so we can build a better mousetrap. In this case we are dealing with BBO ADVANCED!

[cherdano]

When watching some of the really high level vuegraphs, I am often amazed how often par is reached on freak deals like this one. I find it entirely believable that getting these hands right more often is one of the things that distinguishes players like Hamman, Versace etc. from other excellent players.

Arend

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, I ran a simulation to study opener's expected length in Diamonds and Clubs given

1. A BBO Advanced 1D opening in the North hand
2. A 7+ card heart suit with 2 of the top three honors in the East
3. South holding the hand in question

Expected Club length

0: 4%
1: 23%
2: 39%
3: 25%
4: 10%
5: 0.0%

Expected Diamond length

3: 7%
4: 16%
5: 49%
6: 23%
7: 04%
8: 0.0%

[42]

I voted for 5♣

[mike777]

6D

[Al_U_Card]

Blofeld, on Oct 7 2005, 11:48 AM, said:

Yes, everything is a guess. But each guess will have an associated success rate, and the idea is to pick the guess with highest chance of success. If they all had almost equal chances of success, then his point would be valid. But I see no reason to believe that this is the case.

Or better, the % success X reward because bidding 5NT iso 5C (which might be passed) should have a higher success percentage than 6C but brings home less (Canadian) bacon.... .

[HeartA]

I voted for 4NT, 6N is an (very close) alternative.