[lamford]

You have ♠ x ♥ x ♦ AQxxxxx ♣ AJxx. It is love all, IMPs, in a strong team event in London. Your RHO dealer opens 3♠. 4♦ now would be non-leaping Michaels.

What do you bid?
If you Pass it will go 4♠-Pass-Pass to you. What do you do now?

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-October-19, 04:37, said:

You have ♠ x ♥ x ♦ AQxxxxx ♣ AJxx. It is love all, IMPs, in a strong team event in London. Your RHO dealer opens 3♠. 4♦ now would be non-leaping Michaels.

What do you bid?
If you Pass it will go 4♠-Pass-Pass to you. What do you do now?

5♦ on the first round.

[Free]

If we can't bid 4♦, then we have to either pass or bid 5♦ when we hold ♦. I'll go with 5♦ on this one.

[han]

Agree with 5D.

[paulg]

I'd bid 5♦ too.

Of course playing non-leaping michaels here is a joke, as Steve Weinstein would no doubt say. Unfortunately on vugraph today, at unfavourable, he held ♠x ♥AQ10xx ♦AKQ10x ♣xx and chose to bid 4♥, losing 500 when he played it well considering the 6-1 break. In the other room 3♠ was doubled and also went down two. Five diamonds was a trivial make. A coincidence to see two such conflicting problems on the same day.

[pooltuna]

Pass and lead the ♦A

[lamford]

pooltuna, on 2011-October-19, 08:21, said:

Pass and lead the ♦A

The winning action was to bid 5D either now or on the next round. Both 4S and 5D are cold on any lead. I passed throughout. A simulation has 5D making around 45% of the time but 4S only 15% of the time, on the assumptions that the 3S bidder has 6-7 spades, at least 5 points in spades, and not four hearts; of course much of the time it does not get raised. Even if one assumes no contract gets doubled, and that is a big if, bidding 5D would lose around 2.2 IMPs on average, cross-imping the matrix of both contract's frequencies. My partner, an English international, thought I should have bid - his experience is that bidding wins in other ways in the long term. I agree that is something no simulation can, er ... simulate.

[han]

So in your simulation the 3S bidder can be 6322 as well as 7060? Do you think that is typical? Or were there other specifications that you didn't tell us?

[lamford]

han, on 2011-October-19, 15:19, said:

So in your simulation the 3S bidder can be 6322 as well as 7060? Do you think that is typical? Or were there other specifications that you didn't tell us?

The 7060 hand will of course be very unlikely, as will 7006. Yes, I can, but did not, restrict the shape of the pre-emptor more. 6-7 spades with not more than another 4 card suit is better perhaps; this gives a slight reduction to the chance of making 4S and a slight increase in the chance of making 5D.

[the hog]

I would bid 5D now.

[han]

lamford, on 2011-October-19, 15:35, said:

The 7060 hand will of course be very unlikely, as will 7006. Yes, I can, but did not, restrict the shape of the pre-emptor more. 6-7 spades with not more than another 4 card suit is better perhaps; this gives a slight reduction to the chance of making 4S and a slight increase in the chance of making 5D.

Is 3S on a 6322 normal in strong English team games?

[lamford]

han, on 2011-October-20, 03:19, said:

Is 3S on a 6322 normal in strong English team games?

This was the player's shape - with two aces as well. The chance of 5D making barely moves when one tinkers with the opener's shape. Analysing 4S is not that useful, in retrospect, and giving the responder three spades increases the chances of making to close to 30%. But I would be pretty sure that bidding 5D loses IMPs, on average, except, as my partner points out if they misdefend or go on to 5S. That I have no means of calculating.

[rhm]

lamford, on 2011-October-20, 03:36, said:

This was the player's shape - with two aces as well. The chance of 5D making barely moves when one tinkers with the opener's shape. Analysing 4S is not that useful, in retrospect, and giving the responder three spades increases the chances of making to close to 30%. But I would be pretty sure that bidding 5D loses IMPs, on average, except, as my partner points out if they misdefend or go on to 5S. That I have no means of calculating.

I do not really understand what you are comparing.
You claim 5♦ will make 45% of the time (fair enough).
How come, you also claim you will loose 2.2 Imps on average by bidding 5D? Compared to what?
4♦ making? Partner bidding 3NT or 4♥? After which sequence?
Passing may really be the winning action if the bidding develops perfectly for you thereafter. A big IF I dare say.
If 5♦ makes 45% of the time, how often will 6♦ or 6♣ make and how likely are you to reach that contract if you pass initially?
If 5♦ goes down how often will 3♠ or 4♠ make?
What role does mis-defense play when you have, like here, extreme but undisclosed distribution?
And I mean mis-defense by opponents when you declare and mis-defense by partner when opponents declare.

This really shows the limit what simulation can accomplish.

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

rhm, on 2011-October-20, 04:06, said:

This really shows the limit what simulation can accomplish.
Rainer Herrmann

I agree. This was my partner's point. But until there is a simulation program that does not defend double-dummy but single dummy, we have to use these tools or ignore them. Yes, 11% of the time we have a slam, and end up defending a spade part score! I reasoned that if partner had the ace of hearts we probably beat 4S. I needed partner to have quite a bit to make 5D. The 2.2 IMPs is only comparing bidding 5D - on the second round - with defending 4S.

[mcphee]

To all those 5D bidders, is this hand not less than what your partner should expect? It is supposed to show a strong hand and you really have no clue at this point if you even have some defense against 6S ! If I bid only 4D now and they try 4S at least I can bid 4N (if I choose)bringing C into the photo while stressing D. Do we really need to bid partners hand so soon? Do you actually think you can come up with some hands that partner will not bid over 4D where your side has a chance to make a game?

Although this position can be awkward when they bid 4S I would be willing to take my chances that partner is still in the game.

[Free]

mcphee, on 2011-October-20, 05:08, said:

To all those 5D bidders, is this hand not less than what your partner should expect? It is supposed to show a strong hand and you really have no clue at this point if you even have some defense against 6S ! If I bid only 4D now and they try 4S at least I can bid 4N (if I choose)bringing C into the photo while stressing D. Do we really need to bid partners hand so soon? Do you actually think you can come up with some hands that partner will not bid over 4D where your side has a chance to make a game?

Although this position can be awkward when they bid 4S I would be willing to take my chances that partner is still in the game.

If 4♦ was available I'd bid 4♦. But OP clearly stated the following:

lamford, on 2011-October-19, 04:37, said:

4♦ now would be non-leaping Michaels.

Bidding 4♦ with this hand is a psych and will probably result in a huge disaster.

[Trinidad]

It is pretty clear that I want to bid 5♦. However, the point might be that partner will play me for a better hand. I have some sympathy for the idea that your partner might expect more if you leap to 5♦ and that therefore you should pass 3♠. So while you might want to bid 5♦, it might be good to resist the urge. I hold no strong opinion on whether pass or 5♦ would be correct.

But when the bidding comes back to you in 4♠, I think that bidding 5♦ is obvious. Now, your partner cannot expect more than you have. And you certainly don't want to defend 4♠ when 5♦ rates to be either a good sacrifice or a make.

Rik