BBO Discussion Forums: 3S - X - 4S - ? All vul - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

3S - X - 4S - ? All vul

Poll: You hold: Jx - AJx - 8xx - QJ8xx (20 member(s) have cast votes)

All vul, bidding goes: 3S - X - 4S - ? Your call is

  1. 5C (5 votes [25.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  2. 5H (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. X (6 votes [30.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.00%

  4. Pass (9 votes [45.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 45.00%

  5. Other (what?) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 User is offline   diana_eva 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,875
  • Joined: 2009-July-26
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:bucharest / romania

Posted 2014-December-31, 05:48

 whereagles, on 2014-December-31, 05:43, said:

4441s are not boring :)

If dbl is sort of "optional", I might have pulled with pard's hand (without even seeing it).Posted Image


Double was undiscussed, but this partner had a brain of his own, and was allowed to use it. Dunno if he shd pull with a regular T/O, why would he? I suppose he'd pull with something unexpected, not with what I knew he has.

#22 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2014-December-31, 05:52

Right. But is a 4441 the most likely shape for his double? I'm not so sure..

I mean.. if you have some extras you will dbl with, say, 2434/2443. Isn't that more frequent than a 1444 and 14-15 H? I didn't run a sim, but I suspect it's close.
0

#23 User is offline   suokko 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: 2005-October-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helsinki (Finland)
  • Interests:*dreaming*

Posted 2014-December-31, 06:12

I felt like I at least have to double. But biding over passing is also clear winner based on my quick simulation. Too bad scoring function doesn't support doubled contracts yet so I only simulated undoubled both. But undoubled both 5♣ and 4♠ makes biding winning choice by 5.3 IMPs on average.

Doubled contracts would require some C coding and more complex rules when 5♣ will be doubled. I won't be doing that at least today but if there is enough interest I might do the doubled simulation some other day.

Rules for preempt and T/O double were my quick toughs how to limit the hand types but if you see flaws on those rules I can repeat the simulation with improved hand limits.

EDIT: I updated the simulation limits based on feedback and added statistics for north holdings. But still 5♣ not doubled because that would take quite a lot more coding.

EDIT2: I added doubled contracts to simulations. I also improved ew hand definitions that slightly increases total tricks and makes biding win a bit more IMPs.

Spoiler

3

#24 User is offline   diana_eva 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,875
  • Joined: 2009-July-26
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:bucharest / romania

Posted 2014-December-31, 06:20

Thanks all BTW, very good stuff, lots of things I've been missing when thinking about this situation.

#25 User is offline   PhilKing 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,240
  • Joined: 2012-June-25

Posted 2014-December-31, 06:40

 suokko, on 2014-December-31, 06:12, said:

I felt like I at least have to double. But biding over passing is also clear winner based on my quick simulation. Too bad scoring function doesn't support doubled contracts yet so I only simulated undoubled both. But undoubled both 5♣ and 4♠ makes biding winning choice by 5.3 IMPs on average.

Doubled contracts would require some C coding and more complex rules when 5♣ will be doubled. I won't be doing that at least today but if there is enough interest I might do the doubled simulation some other day.

Rules for preempt and T/O double were my quick toughs how to limit the hand types but if you see flaws on those rules I can repeat the simulation with improved hand limits.

#Simulation for biding starting from west (3♠)dbl-(4♠)?

predeal south SJ4,HAJ4,D862,CQJ854

westpre = shape(west, 7xxx + 64xx + 6x4x + 6xx4) && hcp(west) < 11 && hcp(west) > 4 && top5(west,spades) > 1

eastraise = (spades(east) > 2 && hcp(east) > 4) ||
		(spades(east) > 1 && hcp(east) > 10)

northto = ((shape(north, any 4432 - 4xxx - 3xxx) && hcp(north) > 14) ||
		(shape(north, 1444 + any 5440 + any 5431 - 5xxx - 4xxx - 3xxx) && hcp(north) > 11) ||
		(shape(north, any 4333 + any 4432 + any 5431 - 4xxx - 5xxx - x1xx) && hcp(north) > 16) && top3(north, spades) == 0)

condition westpre && eastraise && northto

generate 1000000000
produce 500

st = tricks(west, spades)
ct = trick(south, clubs)

action
#	printoneline,
	frequency "Tricks in 4♠" (st, 0,13),
	frequency "Tricks in 5♣" (st, 0,13),
	average "ave TT" st+ct,
	frequency "TT" (st+ct, 0,26),
	average "IMP average for biding 5♣ when undoubled both" imps(score(vul, x5C, ct) + score(vul, x4S, st)),
	frequency "IMP undoubled both" (imps(score(vul, x5C, ct) + score(vul, x4S, st)),-24,24),

#Example deals for the biding
#
#n A.Q9653.AT53.AT3 e 732.K8.KQJ9.K976 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w KQT9865.T72.74.2
#n 6.KQT.JT93.AK762 e K32.9632.KQ75.T9 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w AQT9875.875.A4.3
#n K.QT9.KJT3.AKT97 e T32.8753.AQ975.3 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w AQ98765.K62.4.62
#n 8.KQ963.974.AK76 e A53.T8752.KQJT3. s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w KQT9762..A5.T932
#n A.T62.K753.AKT73 e T653.Q83.AQ94.96 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w KQ9872.K975.JT.2
#n Q.KQT3.AT753.KT6 e T732.86.KJ4.A732 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w AK9865.9752.Q9.9
#n 8.QT985.AKT4.K62 e Q73.K7.QJ7.AT973 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w AKT9652.632.953.
#n A7.KQ5.K974.AT32 e 865.982.AQT3.K97 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w KQT932.T763.J5.6
#n K3.KQ96.KJ4.AK73 e 965.T7.AQT975.96 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w AQT872.8532.3.T2
#n A.Q932.AJ9.A9732 e Q86.K76.T7543.K6 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w KT97532.T85.KQ.T
#n A.KT65.QT3.AT976 e T972.72.AKJ54.32 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w KQ8653.Q983.97.K
#n K.Q875.AJT7.K632 e A932.KT63.Q3.A97 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w QT8765.92.K954.T
#n 7.KQT8.KQ3.AKT63 e Q865.76.AJT95.92 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w AKT932.9532.74.7
#n T.Q63.AKQ94.AKT9 e A65.T98752.JT3.7 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w KQ98732.K.75.632
#n K2.QT52.KQT5.AK3 e Q85.K98763.73.T2 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w AT9763..AJ94.976
#n 8.KT97.AT7.AKT72 e Q763.Q6.KQJ93.93 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w AKT952.8532.54.6
#n K.KT82.KQT9.KT73 e T972.95.AJ53.A92 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w AQ8653.Q763.74.6
#n K.K965.AKT7.KT73 e Q952.QT872.93.A2 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w AT8763.3.QJ54.96
#n A.863.AJ97.AK762 e 9832.K92.KQ543.3 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w KQT765.QT75.T.T9
#n T.9653.AK94.AK62 e K52.KQ872.753.T3 s J4.AJ4.862.QJ854 w AQ98763.T.QJT.97
#Generated 16642 hands
#Produced 20 hands
#Initial random seed 1420027278
#Time needed    0.013 sec

# Simulation for imps undoubled and trick frequencies for 4♠ and 5♣
#
#Frequency Tricks in 4♠:
#    7	      21
#    8	      95
#    9	     166
#   10	     135
#   11	      60
#   12	      21
#   13	       2
#Frequency Tricks in 5♣:
#    7	      21
#    8	      95
#    9	     166
#   10	     135
#   11	      60
#   12	      21
#   13	       2
#ave TT: 19.436
#Frequency TT:
#   17	      21
#   18	      90
#   19	     162
#   20	     142
#   21	      57
#   22	      19
#   23	       8
#   24	       1
#IMP average for biding 5♣ when undoubled both: 5.342
#Frequency IMP undoubled both:
#   -9	      21
#   -7	      72
#   -5	      64
#    6	       1
#    7	       8
#    8	      36
#    9	      40
#   10	      80
#   11	     134
#   12	       1
#   16	      43
#Generated 536757 hands
#Produced 500 hands
#Initial random seed 1420027360
#Time needed  120.493 sec



You need to treat the hands where partner would double again somewhat differently. On a couple of them, a direct bid of 5♣ would get raised to six in my world.

If you just had hands where partner would not double again the sim would at least have some validity. As it stands I think it is somewhat meaningless.

Also, looking through the example hands, I was surprised there were no 0(5)44 shapes. Also there were no 2452s, and partner seemed to have 5 clubs extraordinarily often.
3

#26 User is offline   MrAce 

  • VIP Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,971
  • Joined: 2009-November-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 2014-December-31, 07:02

I agree with P.K. Expected imp win for bidding 5♣ being 5.3 is way too much imho. Also as he said there will be hands where we can't convince pd to stop at 5 if we bid direct. Though that might be a wash with the hands that we pushed them to non making 5♠.
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity has no such boundaries!"
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"

"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
0

#27 User is offline   gszes 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,658
  • Joined: 2011-February-12

Posted 2014-December-31, 08:22

5c

These problems are not always thought about the right way. There is
far too much concern for "making" something and insufficient worry
about the opps making their contract. At MP getting a positive result
will usually be good for some reasonable amount of mp. At IMPS one can
quickly go broke using that same philosophy.

What do we think our chances are of setting 4s? I think they are
probably over 60%. Does that mean we should pass since we also estimate
making game our way (opposite most min tox by p) would appear to be
less than 30%? If the opps make 30% of the time we are going to go broke
VERY fast letting them play there as they score up 1860 for every 800+ we
score on defense (over the course of say 10 hands). Even if we x 4s and get
1600 vs 800 we are still losing in the long run (and the opps will get
even more from making when we x). How about the reverse?

If we bid 5c and make 30% and go down 70% over the course of ten hands
we are -700 and plus 1800 even if the opps x and get 1400 we are still ahead
of the game. These assumptions assume p is close to min when they can be far
stronger.

I would opt for x playing MP but at IMPS I think 5c has much better long term
potential. By no means do I consider this hand a WTP pass since it is difficult
to imagine many minimum tox by p where we don't have a sound 60+% chance of setting 4s.

Bidding 5c now gives us opportunity to not only get the opps to bid 5s
(a contract I am much happier defending) but if p is a bit above average
we might easily make or go down only 1 (maybe 2 at worst). If p has a good
hand we might even be laying the groundwork for us getting to slam (probably
impossible to do if we pass 4s).
0

#28 User is offline   suokko 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: 2005-October-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helsinki (Finland)
  • Interests:*dreaming*

Posted 2014-December-31, 08:24

 PhilKing, on 2014-December-31, 06:40, said:

You need to treat the hands where partner would double again somewhat differently. On a couple of them, a direct bid of 5♣ would get raised to six in my world.

If you just had hands where partner would not double again the sim would at least have some validity. As it stands I think it is somewhat meaningless.

Also, looking through the example hands, I was surprised there were no 0(5)44 shapes. Also there were no 2452s, and partner seemed to have 5 clubs extraordinarily often.


Those hand types are so rare that they don't dominate scores. But far more important error is that 5♣ won't be doubled ever. But I updated the original simulation with requested parameter changes and increased production limit to thousand deals. I also added statistics for north holdings with these limits.
0

#29 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-December-31, 09:13

There are also loads of hands with 6 diamonds that would double, hoping for 4H or 3NT. 1363, 1462, many (6322). I am also of the view that 2542 would double frequently.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
1

#30 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-December-31, 09:23

I passed but I thought x was a close second going down one or two vul often and I was a bit too chicken.
0

#31 User is online   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,904
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2014-December-31, 11:03

I did my own simulation, using Dealmaster Pro. My constraints were that opener held 5-10 hcp, 7 spades, fewer than 4 hearts, fewer than 5 in either minor. Doubler held 0-1 spade, and no 6 card suit, and at least 3 cards in the non-spades, along with at least 13 hcp..

I generated 300 hands and then visually inspected them. I rejected hands on which it seemed clear that N would reopen (maybe I should have constrained N to fewer than 18 hcp, as one example). I also rejected some hands on which I didn't think No would double initially....typically minimum hands with stiff H in spades and poor hearts.

There is a considerable subjective element in this, but I tried to be middle-of-the-road, and since I am innately conservative, I included for N some hands on which personally I might well have passed. I also included a few hands on which as N I would have reopened, but suspect that some here might not, since I may be slightly aggressive on the reopening. In other words, I tried to expand the field of hands beyond my personally preferred parameters, but not by much.

The result was 258 acceptable deals. I don't have the time to waste on this, so I only looked at making/failing stats.

4♠ passed out failed 72% of the time, making 28%. This was dd, since the programme uses deep finesse. I didn't take the time to analyze how much the dd aspect factored in, but while I am not a big fan of using dd analysis in most situations, I think it is a reasonable approximation on sims like this, where declarer, on both sides, is likely to have a fair amount of accurate information.

5♣ failed 77% of the time.

I didn't analyze how often it might get doubled, since that really would be far too subjective a process, and I didn't analyze the effect of multiple undertricks.

At imps, one needs to know the size of the swing as well as frequency, but when the failure rates are this high, it seems that passing is clearly correct.

I recognize that my constraints may not be to everyone's liking. However, I did do a run with N having as many as 2 spades and my quick impression was that East really never seemed to have a raise to 4♠, and often N didn't have much of a double. Obviously giving West as few as 6 spades would change the dynamic, but he is red in 1st chair, and trying to cater to what a 6 card 3-level red 1st seat pre-empt looked like was far too difficult.

Btw, I think that the fact that responder raised is a reason to suspect that partner lacks 2 spades. Had East passed, the simulation ought absolutely to include that possibility.

Thus I do not claim that this simulation provides a definitive answer, but I suggest that making N have 0-1 spades tilts the results in favour of bidding, and when even then bidding is a big loser, that is useful information.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#32 User is offline   MrAce 

  • VIP Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,971
  • Joined: 2009-November-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 2014-December-31, 12:31

 mikeh, on 2014-December-31, 11:03, said:

I did my own simulation, using Dealmaster Pro. My constraints were that opener held 5-10 hcp, 7 spades, fewer than 4 hearts, fewer than 5 in either minor. Doubler held 0-1 spade, and no 6 card suit, and at least 3 cards in the non-spades, along with at least 13 hcp..

I generated 300 hands and then visually inspected them. I rejected hands on which it seemed clear that N would reopen (maybe I should have constrained N to fewer than 18 hcp, as one example). I also rejected some hands on which I didn't think No would double initially....typically minimum hands with stiff H in spades and poor hearts.

There is a considerable subjective element in this, but I tried to be middle-of-the-road, and since I am innately conservative, I included for N some hands on which personally I might well have passed. I also included a few hands on which as N I would have reopened, but suspect that some here might not, since I may be slightly aggressive on the reopening. In other words, I tried to expand the field of hands beyond my personally preferred parameters, but not by much.

The result was 258 acceptable deals. I don't have the time to waste on this, so I only looked at making/failing stats.

4♠ passed out failed 72% of the time, making 28%. This was dd, since the programme uses deep finesse. I didn't take the time to analyze how much the dd aspect factored in, but while I am not a big fan of using dd analysis in most situations, I think it is a reasonable approximation on sims like this, where declarer, on both sides, is likely to have a fair amount of accurate information.

5♣ failed 77% of the time.

I didn't analyze how often it might get doubled, since that really would be far too subjective a process, and I didn't analyze the effect of multiple undertricks.

At imps, one needs to know the size of the swing as well as frequency, but when the failure rates are this high, it seems that passing is clearly correct.

I recognize that my constraints may not be to everyone's liking. However, I did do a run with N having as many as 2 spades and my quick impression was that East really never seemed to have a raise to 4♠, and often N didn't have much of a double. Obviously giving West as few as 6 spades would change the dynamic, but he is red in 1st chair, and trying to cater to what a 6 card 3-level red 1st seat pre-empt looked like was far too difficult.

Btw, I think that the fact that responder raised is a reason to suspect that partner lacks 2 spades. Had East passed, the simulation ought absolutely to include that possibility.

Thus I do not claim that this simulation provides a definitive answer, but I suggest that making N have 0-1 spades tilts the results in favour of bidding, and when even then bidding is a big loser, that is useful information.


Mike, as you said without knowing the imp exchange, the failure/success rate does not really mean much. And did you really visually inspect 300 hands? You need a life!!Posted Image
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity has no such boundaries!"
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"

"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
0

#33 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,328
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2014-December-31, 13:21

I think this is actually pretty close, and my decision would depend somewhat on what I think of my opponents.

Even using Mike's stats, it must be close to 50% that "either 5♣ or 4♠ is making" (23% + 28% minus a bit for the chance both games make). It will be very hard for opponents to double us in 5♣ on this auction, where they have a big spade fit and we have more than half the values -- they cannot know that I have a very flat hand if I bid in tempo. This means I'm probably losing 5 when both contracts fail and winning 11 when one of the two contracts makes (which is half the time). Even if we occasionally get doubled or occasionally one of the contracts goes down two, there is enough of a cushion here to compensate.

Of course it's also possible that partner pushes me to 6♣ (which will normally be a hand where he would have made a second double). But some of the time 6♣ is making too. And it's also possible that opponents take a push to 5♠ or even 6♠ (which will often be wrong on their part).
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

#34 User is online   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,904
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2014-December-31, 13:54

 awm, on 2014-December-31, 13:21, said:

I think this is actually pretty close, and my decision would depend somewhat on what I think of my opponents.



And it's also possible that opponents take a push to 5♠ or even 6♠ (which will often be wrong on their part).

Where do you find these opps? Red v red, they make us guess what to do at the 5-level, and then they assume not only that we guessed right, but that they have a good 5-level save?

Put it another way, if a good opp bids 5♠, I would expect them to make it quite often...they aren't saving on this auction if they are any good, at least imo.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#35 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-January-01, 11:24

fwiw I emailed this hand around to some good top players including WC.

All of them thought that this was a wtp double.

They expected pard to pull with a void or very offshape hand but sit very often with 1=4=4=4

However if the 3s bidder is 7-4 they concede this may make.
0

#36 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2015-January-02, 04:51

WC standards are so low these days...

(joking lol)
0

#37 User is offline   PhilKing 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,240
  • Joined: 2012-June-25

Posted 2015-January-02, 05:21

 mike777, on 2015-January-01, 11:24, said:

However if the 3s bidder is 7-4 they concede this may make.


This seems like a horrible assessment of the chances of 4♠ making.
0

#38 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-January-02, 10:04

 PhilKing, on 2015-January-02, 05:21, said:

This seems like a horrible assessment of the chances of 4♠ making.


I take the blame for a poor choice of words or paraphrase.

here was the quote


"...Of course if 3S bidder is 7-1-4-1 or 7-2-4-0 4S makes..."

I was a bit surprised that is was a 100% unanimous response of double.
0

#39 User is offline   PhilKing 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,240
  • Joined: 2012-June-25

Posted 2015-January-02, 10:10

 mike777, on 2015-January-02, 10:04, said:

I take the blame for a poor choice of words or paraphrase.

here was the quote


"...Of course if 3S bidder is 7-1-4-1 or 7-2-4-0 4S makes..."

I was a bit surprised that is was a 100% unanimous response of double.


Yeah I guess they realise it makes plenty of other times as well. B-)
0

#40 User is offline   MrAce 

  • VIP Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,971
  • Joined: 2009-November-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 2015-January-02, 12:00

 diana_eva, on 2014-December-31, 03:29, said:

OK, thanks all. So it wasn't clear what to do, at least I wasn't on another planet when I found it hard to decide without huddling for 5 minutes.

I first thought "Goodie, I've got stuff!", then I tried to picture what I need for game/slam to make. I then realized partner needs to have quite a perfect hand for us to make something 5th or 6th level, and then, instead of passing, I figured I have to tell pd I've got something, so I doubled.

I didn't expect double to be 100% penalty, and pd was a very good player, he wouldn't play me for a trump stack with opps bidding and raising spades against us. But he had the most boring 1-4-4-4 T/O double so he left it in, and opps made 4SX.

Other table bid 5C which went down 2 undoubled.

What went wrong with my judgement though was that I kinda took it for granted that we own the board, and didn't consider the possibility of them making as a strong alternative, in which case maybe I should have thought of bidding just because we don't know who makes what and we've got a good fit.



Can you please provide full hand?
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity has no such boundaries!"
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"

"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
0
  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users