[paulg]

IMPs

---

A problem from the club last night, perhaps one for the LOTT experts. If there are any 4♠ bidders then I am interested in whether it is an easy or difficult decision.

[billw55]

I voted 4♠ wtp. While I do have some reservations, I think "close to passing" would be a greater distortion. I have so little defense here and partner has already shown a takeout oriented hand. IMO if partner can't stand 4♠ from a hand like this, he shouldn't double 4♥.

[mikeh]

4♠

I do use the LOTT as one of a number of metrics that apply to greater or lesser degree in various situations, but it isn't, at least consciously, a big factor here. If we were to use it, I'd estimate the likely number of trumps at about 18, with more chance of 17 than 19.

We can also look at it by way of imp odds, with a nod to LOTT as a guide to estimating the trick swings.

If we make 620, they rate to be -300 most of the time, for a substantial loss to us should we defend. If we are -100, they rate to go down 100, for a more modest pickup.

Of course, these are estimates, and there are a lot of variables, but we're not usually trying to calculate these things with precision during the auction. What this sort of thing tells us is that if it is close, then bidding will, in the long run, probably pay better than passing. What this sort of thing doesn't tell us is whether this sort of hand DOES make the decision close. For that we have to resort to judgment, and if we haven't played enough to have confidence in our judgment, we post here and hope that players with demonstrated decent judgment will help us out (and that we can find a consensus amongst them or at least a reasoned discussion that informs us as to the issues).

Another way I look at these things is that I will mentally assume that partner has about a 16 count, or better, with 4=1=4=4 shape.

The 16 count is reasonable, tho I might be acting as partner has with a great 15. He might have significantly more: he is essentially unlimited. The 4=1=4=4 shape is not as clear: he may well be 4432.

Let's give him a blah hand: Axxx x KQxx AQxx. This is only 15. We basically need to pick up spades for one loser, which probably requires a 3-2 split with the K onside. Given the auction, that is a reasonable chance, since we are red v white.

I want to stress, I don't try to picture his actual hand. I might run through 2 or 3 examples in my head, striving always to avoid being too negative or too optimistic. This process is simply to make sure that my gut instinct, which is to bid, isn't likely to lead to disaster.

Here, they have a fit, possibly a big fit. We probably have a double fit. These factors suggest bidding. Heck, opposite a hand like AKx xx AQxx AJxx, we still have decent play even with a 4-3 fit and 2 quick heart losers.

[JLOGIC]

super duper duper duper easy 4S

[chasetb]

4♠ wtp

[EricK]

If you don't bid 4♠ here at this vulnerability, you will get talked out of any number of good contracts with relatively meagre returns in exchange.

[jallerton]

There are a lot of awkward decision when partner doubles 4♥ but this looks like one of the easier ones. Yes, we are likely to have only an 8-card fit, but it could easily be a double fit. The 5-card club suit might enable us to make 4♠ on some hands where patner has only 3 spades.

[gszes]

p heard our pass over 4h and the unlimited opp is to their left.
so they are in grave danger of going for a huge set if we are broke.
It makes NO sense (at IMPS) to x 4h for any reason other than to
try and make game our way and p probably realizes our max is
somewhere around 8 hcp and p also realizes we will strain to bid
4s if we do not convert to penalty.


This means p probably has something like (Axxx xx AKQx AKx
Axxx x AKxx Axxx or Axxx void Axxxx Axxx) or stronger.
Having aces under these conditions is important for 2 reasons

1. opps are far less likely to x w/o sure defensive tricks even if we
are slated to go down 2 or 3.

2. since the vast majority of the opps power is with east we do not have
wasted Q/J that are easily covered by east and converted to losers. If we
lack those aces we will need extra power in order to compete.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2013-August-07, 09:55, said:

IMPs A problem from the club last night, perhaps one for the LOTT experts. If there are any 4♠ bidders then I am interested in whether it is an easy or difficult decision.

---

IMO 4♠ = 10, Pass = 8. IMO it's a hard decision. Our doubletons suggest passing but we seem to have a double-fit. A deciding factor might be that partner has extra strength or shape and, In the latter case, opponents are likely to have a 10-11 ♥ card fit.

[steve2005]

partner has doubled for takeout twice. you have perfect responding hand so do what partner wants 4♠

[the hog]

I see no problem here. 4S.

[bigbenvic]

I think they have a 9 or 10 card fit. We have an 8 on most occasions. We probably have a double fit on clubs which ups the number of trciks for the hand.

So we are either 9+8+1=18 tricks or 10+8+1 or 19 tricks. I think 19 is most likely where pards is likely to be 4144, 4135 or 4153. On 19 tricks if we are making for 620 we may only get 100. I think that we are getting +620 too many times for this hand to pass as we won't get the reward out of the penalty.

I think I'm even bidding game on the reverse vulnerabilities but it would be a little harder than this choice.

[paulg]

I thought this was a pretty easy four spades bid too, but I was actually given partner's hand first, then the result of the board so it was difficult to be too objective about it. As mikeh says, many reasons to post a hand and my own sanity was the real reason this time.

Partner held AKx xx AKQxxx Qx. I'm told that Deep Finesse makes nine tricks in spades, ten in diamonds and they can make eight in hearts.

[PhilKing]

Pards second double is a rookie error.

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2013-August-08, 05:31, said:

Pards second double is a rookie error.

Why the second double?

I think 3♦ followed by DBL of 4♥ would describe this hand much better. A vulnerable 3♦ overcall may be slightly conservative but if that is not enough I would bid 3♥ instead.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

rhm, on 2013-August-08, 05:40, said:

Why the second double?

I think 3♦ followed by DBL of 4♥ would describe this hand much better. A vulnerable 3♦ overcall may be slightly conservative but if that is not enough I would bid 3♥ instead.

Rainer Herrmann

3♦?????

Choice is between 3♥(my choice) and Double.

[billw55]

paulg, on 2013-August-08, 05:01, said:

Partner held AKx xx AKQxxx Qx.

PhilKing, on 2013-August-08, 05:31, said:

Pards second double is a rookie error.

billw55, on 2013-August-07, 10:26, said:

IMO if partner can't stand 4♠ from a hand like this, he shouldn't double 4♥.

Your sanity should be fine paul

[mcphee]

I can not imagine not bidding 4S, this is no brainer imho.

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2013-August-08, 05:31, said:

Pards second double is a rookie error.

http://bridgewinners...g-problem-2142/

Rainer Herrmann

[mycroft]

MikeH says "if we're 620, they're -300; if we're -100, they're -100." Of course, I'd continue: "if we're -200/500, they're +420" - bad club break, bad spade break and they make easily. Partners have been known to jump to game to make.