[Stephen Tu]

---

It caught well, and got a lot of help on defense, but is 5 to the 7 really the type of suit to bid 3h on? Should the default at least be 6+ hearts, probably it should sim between 3h and passing?

[Bbradley62]

Stephen Tu, on 2012-April-11, 17:32, said:

probably it should sim between 3h and passing?

Doesn't it look like GIB did exactly that?

[Stephen Tu]

Bbradley62, on 2012-April-11, 17:40, said:

Doesn't it look like GIB did exactly that?

Maybe it did, but I think it should have sim'd longer
Hard for me to believe that this is +EV. Maybe it should restrict expected heart length in partner from lack of reopening double.

[barmar]

This is actually the book bid -- notice that the hand matches the description. This rule actually requires simulations to confirm that it's OK (a rule can prohibit or require sims, and can also prohibit being used when looking for bids to use in a sim). Sometimes you had decent heart support and bid a making game; sometimes you rebid 4♣ and hit its other suit; sometimes knowing that partner had a few points was enough for you to jump to a making 4♠; and sometimes you passed or rebid 3♠ and the partscore made.

I won't lie and say that it didn't sometimes work out badly, but most of the time it either improved the contract or was neutral.

There seem to be a bunch of threads today about weak hands opposite very strong hands. These all follow the principle of playing in the suit of the weaker hand -- having its suit as trumps will usually add a couple of tricks.

[Stephen Tu]

I think the book bid should be pass here, and the description should be 6+ hearts, if not 7. I know that as opener, given this auction, I would pass 3H almost all the time, even when void, removing solely with solidish 7+ spades, so it should not really cater to miracles of me rescuing back to spades, or trotting out 4c. Perhaps the upper bound of 2sp should be substantially lower so game is unlikely (IMO stronger hands need to double, bid 3 sp, or opened 2c to begin with), assume 3- hearts (I'd reopen with double with hands with aspirations of 4h opposite a passed partner), and the threshold for opener pulling 3h adjusted upward so that it almost never happens (e.g. how is 4c defined?, and make that incompatible with 2s, good hands with clubs doubling or bidding 3c). If it was simulating only on the basis of playing 3h or 2s, I think 2s would likely win. Probably not enough weaker declarer hands are in there where only 8 tricks in spades, or too much assumption that there are 9 tricks in spades and opener pulls it back there on his stiff/doubleton heart. Is the definition of "4+ H" causing north to think south bids 3s way more than he should in real life?

Certainly I know about the principle of letting the weak hand play its long suit, I just don't think 5 cd suit when a change in level is needed qualifies. The extra 1.5 tricks or so you might get improving the trump suit mostly gets wiped out by the level change. Especially when the suit is so weak and shorter and weaker than partner's. Here, despite catching an 8 cd fit, the hand likely makes 10 tricks in spades but should be held to 8 tricks in hearts.

Barry, you're a good player, do you ever bid 3h on a 4 bagger as GIB supposedly wants to do? Do you pull 3h with any appreciable frequency?

[barmar]

I've certainly balanced on hands comparable to that. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not.

But I think I agree with you that we need to put an upper limit on South's hand, and that would probably address this. When it runs the required simulations, there will be fewer opportunities for good results.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2012-April-11, 23:25, said:

Stephen Tu, on 2012-April-11, 22:06, said:

Barry, you're a good player, do you ever bid 3h on a 4 bagger as GIB supposedly wants to do? Do you pull 3h with any appreciable frequency?

I've certainly balanced on hands comparable to that. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not.

You've cleverly side-stepped his question.
(a) North's bid is not balancing.
(b) you were asked about a hand with only 4H, as the description indicates North might have, not the actual North hand.

[barmar]

I know I didn't answer the exact question, but I think the situation is similar to balancing, since the opponents seem to have limited their hands in this auction, and partner has shown extra values, which makes action safer.

No, I wouldn't do it with only a 4-card suit. And while the bidding rules allow a 4-card suit, it's only allowed by low priority, default rules. It looks like these rules will hardly ever match, because they have additional criteria (e.g. extra values, in which case they would have bid something in response to the opening bid, or partner making a forcing bid). This is a problem with default rules that are in the DB to cover many different types of auctions -- we can't easily tell which cases can hardly ever actually come up. Also, even if the rule does match, a simulation will be done, and we expect it to override the rule in stupid cases.

[gwnn]

The situation is completely different from balancing. When you balance (let's stick to 2♠-p-p and 3♥), you hope that either 2♠ or 3♥ will make, in that case you score better. If both 2♠ and 3♥ make, you've hit partscore nirvana. If neither partscore makes, you will look like a fool. In summary:

2S 3H  success
y  y    epic
y  n    fine
n  y    fine
n  n    epic fail

While in this case you have:

2S 3H success
y  y    tiny
y  n    epic fail
n  y    epic
n  n    nothing

Are you really saying the two are similar? In what way?

[barmar]

Your point is taken. But as I said earlier, the real reason it bids is because it thinks partner is almost unlimited. If partner could have 22 points, we might have enough for game, so it thinks it has to do something.

With a hand like yours but with 20-22 TP, GIB would rebid 3♠ rather than 2♠. So if we make 2♠ show 15-19 TP, this should make partner less frisky. The rule that says to give up when game is not possible will take precedence over the one that says to keep looking for the right suit.