[KurtGodel]

Please answer the poll before looking at the hands!
So you pick up the above hand in a Swiss Pairs competition, this is the first board of seven in the match, you haven't had the chance to assess whether opposition are any good, but given the overall standard of the event you would guess that they are not likely to be good. There are three rounds to go and you are in contention to win the event (just trying to add some atmosphere). If it helps, the opponents are playing a 12-14 NT, and opening 1♣ guarantees four. Partner is always sound. Partner is also used to being raised aggressively, if that factors into your decision. Would you bid any differently at IMPs?

Spoiler

---

Scores:
-100 = 30%
-50 = 39%
+140 = 58%
+170 = 70%
+420 = 78%
+590 = 93%
Nobody sacrificed in 5C, and there were a couple of doubled partscores both ways, people making between 8 and 10 tricks in spades if doubled. Somebody even conceded 1Sx+3...

[billw55]

3♠ for me. And, you should hide the scores too.

[ahydra]

I bid 3S. Partner raises to 4, fair enough. Looks rather tight in the play though - assume club lead, he ruffs, diamond to A, another ruff, diamond K throwing a heart, diamond ruff, club ruff, diamond ruff. Let's say W overruffs and returns a club. Ruff, heart x2 and W is endplayed. Bingo!

The nice thing is that despite the horrible trump split W can't lead trumps to reduce the ruffs without giving away a trick.

ahydra

[KurtGodel]

billw55, on 2014-November-03, 07:22, said:

3♠ for me. And, you should hide the scores too.

Good point, have done this.

[Jinksy]

Without thinking about the hands specifically, it seems like in the context you give, the best strategy might be making marginally anti-% choices to generate swings. It depends on your utility function, but if you attach infinite value to winning, for eg, I'd think it clear to do so.

That said, I'm not sure what such a call would be here. Pass and 4♠ look anti-% and swing-generating, but probably too much of the former so to consider seriously. 2♠ and 3♠ look like the choices most likely to put you with the room, with 3♠ slightly edgier and without so much of an upside. If it's right for them to X (and they're capable of it at all), they'll probably do so whether you bid it now or a round later.

I think I'd just go for a pedestrian 2 against the opps you describe. There's an outside chance of that getting passed out and making on the nose, and everything else seems to be gambling too much - P will still have a chance to get a chuck or try for his own marginal gamble in the play.

At IMPs I'd probably try 3♠, without much conviction that it's right to do so. P will frequently raise me when we're making 4, and the chances of going for a number if I raise to it directly look quite high.

[Jinksy]

Having looked at the scores and all four hands, I'm still not sure what would lead to the best result. We could end up just about anywhere after 2♠. Meanwhile 4 looks like one down on a diamond lead, which doesn't look that unlikely if the opps like passive leads at MPs (though I think I'd lead a ♣).

[KurtGodel]

Jinksy, on 2014-November-03, 07:31, said:

Without thinking about the hands specifically, it seems like in the context you give, the best strategy might be making marginally anti-% choices to generate swings. It depends on your utility function, but if you attach infinite value to winning, for eg, I'd think it clear to do so.

That said, I'm not sure what such a call would be here. Pass and 4♠ look anti-% and swing-generating, but probably too much of the former so to consider seriously. 2♠ and 3♠ look like the choices most likely to put you with the room, with 3♠ slightly edgier and without so much of an upside. If it's right for them to X (and they're capable of it at all), they'll probably do so whether you bid it now or a round later.

I think I'd just go for a pedestrian 2 against the opps you describe. There's an outside chance of that getting passed out and making on the nose, and everything else seems to be gambling too much - P will still have a chance to get a chuck or try for his own marginal gamble in the play.

At IMPs I'd probably try 3♠, without much conviction that it's right to do so. P will frequently raise me when we're making 4, and the chances of going for a number if I raise to it directly look quite high.

I felt like I was worth somewhere between 2 and 3, closer to 3. I don't really know whether you need to shoot to win these things, every time I've won something it's because we've played reasonably well and got reasonably lucky. I would rather do worse overall and bring more back trophies though . That being said it can't be good to play bridge all the time where you make deliberately sub-optimal decisions. Maybe it means when I play in the sort of event where I'd be happy with 50% I wouldn't be able to do the right thing because I'm so used to swinging.

[mcphee]

My RHO may have a S stop and a club fit which is ok with me. I can't bid 2S as that shows something which I don't really have,3S for me and happy if partner bids more.

[whereagles]

obv 4♠.. we's gots'a void.

by the way Kurt, any new corollaries for your incompleteness theorems?

[KurtGodel]

whereagles, on 2014-November-03, 08:30, said:

obv 4♠.. we's gots'a void.

by the way Kurt, any new corollaries for your incompleteness theorems?

Yes 4♠ is clearly winning on the layout because partner would xx .
Corollary: Even with a perfect bidding system you cannot reach the optimal contract on every deal

[Winstonm]

2S for me after a temptation to bid 3S. There are reasons not to get too aggressive. The opps are unlikely to have a heart fit. My hand isn't so good and the 1NT bid is likely to have spades bottled up. I think I might even sell out to 3 clubs - but would likely bid 3S. Bottom line, I don't want to sell my hand to partner as more than it is - if I had Kxxx of spades and nothing else, I would agree with an immediate 3S.

[Jinksy]

KurtGodel, on 2014-November-03, 07:45, said:

I would rather do worse overall and bring more back trophies though . That being said it can't be good to play bridge all the time where you make deliberately sub-optimal decisions.

No, sure. I would think the best strategy for winning would be to play solid bridge through 80-90% of the event, then if you're in the top few, start looking for a few marginal decisions. That said, that's probably more true in a stronger field. If the top contenders aren't that impressive, then just playing sound all the way through and letting them make their own mistakes might work as well or better.

[dicklont]

I would bid 3♠.
South played nicely, but after a small trump lead I don't see how he can avoid losing 2♥, 1♠ en 1♣.

[Cthulhu D]

Jinksy, on 2014-November-03, 09:54, said:

No, sure. I would think the best strategy for winning would be to play solid bridge through 80-90% of the event, then if you're in the top few, start looking for a few marginal decisions. That said, that's probably more true in a stronger field. If the top contenders aren't that impressive, then just playing sound all the way through and letting them make their own mistakes might work as well or better.

I'm not totally sure about the weaker fields thing, for what it's worth. My experience (which is 100% at imps) suggests that pre-empting aggressively is important, because weaker pairs are even less likely to make the right decision. I would agree that getting your bidding, defence and declarer play 'right' is worth a lot too.

[KurtGodel]

dicklont, on 2014-November-03, 10:33, said:

I would bid 3♠.
South played nicely, but after a small trump lead I don't see how he can avoid losing 2♥, 1♠ en 1♣.

At first I thought that this was true, and that the only way to beat it was a trump lead. But in fact you can win in hand, ruff a club, diamond to the ace, ruff a club, king of diamonds pitching a club, diamond ruff, club ruff and a heart to the jack. Now LHO must allow you to score your small trump. They can mark time by cashing a heart but now must play a club or a trump.

[Lord Molyb]

KurtGodel, on 2014-November-04, 05:24, said:

At first I thought that this was true, and that the only way to beat it was a trump lead. But in fact you can win in hand, ruff a club, diamond to the ace, ruff a club, king of diamonds pitching a club, diamond ruff, club ruff and a heart to the jack. Now LHO must allow you to score your small trump. They can mark time by cashing a heart but now must play a club or a trump.

The only lead to beat it is a diamond because it removes an entry to ruff a club without giving up a trick.

[gszes]

4s

It is vastly netter to get this bid out of the way immediately rather
than give the opps all kinds of choices. Surely we would not allow them
to play 3n and we also leave them more space to investigate 5c for ex.

P has a rock and the opps are very close to making 5c. I would be a ton
happier with the opps guessing to bid 5c than letting them explore and bid
5c. This hand contains a mere wisp of defense so it would seem better to try
to shut the opps out of the bidding.

The 4s bid is not expected to make but it will generally yield far less than
the opps are normally destined to get. especially if it is not x. That void
is a very nice offensive surprise.

[boosterbbh]

dicklont, on 2014-November-03, 10:33, said:

I would bid 3♠.
South played nicely, but after a small trump lead I don't see how he can avoid losing 2♥, 1♠ en 1♣.

With an end play.
After seeing west has all the spades I take the lead with my 9.
Trick 2: leading a club and ruff.
Trick 3: low diamond to ace.
Trick 4: another club.
Trick 5: low diamond and ruff.
Trick 6: another club.
Trick 7: k of diamond dropping the last club.
Round 8 (losing the trick): playing diamond. If west ruffs then I make all 3 last trumps. Therefore he gives the trick to his partner. If he throws the q of heart he drops a winner, and also has to come back with either a trump or a club, both selling a trick. Therefore he discards the club. Of course I drop a low heart.
9: if east leads a heart west wins 2 hearts and sells the trump trick. If east plays a club it is more difficult. South must then ruff high. West can either discard the q heart or a low trump. If he discards the q of heart west may only take another heart and another spade (because of the end play). If he drops a trump then he takes 2 heart tricks and must sell the last 2 trump tricks. Note that if south doesn't ruff high on the club lead of this round the contract is doomed

[boosterbbh]

Lord Molyb, on 2014-November-04, 10:36, said:

The only lead to beat it is a diamond because it removes an entry to ruff a club without giving up a trick.

Also then the contract can be made.
1: diamond lead to the ace.
2: ruffling club in dummy.
3: ruffing diamond in hand.
4: ruffing club in dummy.
5: ruffing diamond in hand.
6: ruffing club in dummy.
7: leading king of diamond and dropping the last club, losing to west.
8: if west leads his club I ruff in dummy and discard a heart, returning a heart, losing both but taking the rest of the rest of the trumps, making it up to 10 tricks. Either a lead of hearts or a lead of a trump sells the last trick needed

[boosterbbh]

Forgot about west's last club. Contract may be defeated then