[bluecalm]

Quote

If you are gaining 6 imps 35% of the time and losing 5 45% (80-35) of the time, that is -EV.

Oh damn, sorry. I made the culcations vulnerable and posted the hand with love all (because I thought it's more interesting that way). Good point.

Quote

Also, double-dummy defence is probably a bit easier than double dummy declarer play when the contract is 3NT and the auction has revealed declarer's hand quite precisely.

I am pretty sure 1st lead after this auction will be very costly in 3NT and not costly in 4H.
I can't prove that I can just say I analyzed a lot of auctions like that along with real hands and declarer has big advantage over defenders comparing to dd play (that advantage comes from 1st lead).

Anyway, it looks like I managed evenly split poll for once

[the hog]

Pass. I have invited and partner has declined. Why should I overrule him. This makes for bad partnership feeling as well. To bid game now is a clear error in my opinion.

[whereagles]

the hog, on 2012-January-29, 18:55, said:

Pass. I have invited and partner has declined. Why should I overrule him. This makes for bad partnership feeling as well. To bid game now is a clear error in my opinion.

It's also bad partnership feeling to miss games. And it's not that you're overrulling pard: when pard shows a fit, new data has come to light. You're allowed to recalculate. Passing will certainly win the post-mortem but may very well not win at table.

[Cascade]

gordontd, on 2012-January-28, 06:51, said:

Because we have two aces.

Didn't we have them before?

[gwnn]

Generally 2NT then 4♥ is made on hands with singletons. This hand is tricky. I think I will pass.

[Zelandakh]

That sure looks like a 4 card heart suit to me. I am with MrAce on this one.

[the hog]

whereagles, on 2012-January-30, 04:25, said:

It's also bad partnership feeling to miss games. And it's not that you're overrulling pard: when pard shows a fit, new data has come to light. You're allowed to recalculate. Passing will certainly win the post-mortem but may very well not win at table.

Ah, but pd most likely only has a 3 card fit - no superaccepts. So the fit is not that great. is it?

[Statto]

the hog, on 2012-January-30, 18:00, said:

Ah, but pd most likely only has a 3 card fit - no superaccepts. So the fit is not that great. is it?

And the trumps are not that great either. I think if I was going to bid on I'd choose 3NT.

[johnu]

bluecalm, on 2012-January-29, 16:35, said:

I am in 3NT camp. This hand was played by the friend of mine (quite a good player) and his choice was a pass which imo is a mistake.
If we are to believe dd simulations 3NT makes about 35% of the time (similar to 4H) and 3H makes 80% of the time. This alone makes 3NT +EV call at imps but imo it will make more than 35% of the time as defending is difficult, especially 1st lead.

I also ran some simulations on Dealmaster Pro. For 200 hands opposite a balanced (including 5332, 6332) with 15 HCP. My numbers seem to match within the margin of error for the sample size. I also ran some additional simulations:

____________________3NT______________4H
3 or 4 hearts________41%______________46%
3 hearts____________37%______________32%
4 hearts____________50%______________63%

If partner can have 4 hearts, then it looks close to a tossup whether to bid 4H. If opener will super accept the transfer with 4 hearts and 15 HCP, or after 2NT, jump to 4H with 4 hearts and 15CHP, you're only left with opener having 3 hearts, then passing seems best.

Maybe a more interesting question is whether opener should super accept the transfer with 15HCP and 4 card trump support. It risks getting too high when responder is really weak, but can lead to a good game if responder is just below an invitational range hand. If you don't superaccept, opener jumping to game over 2NT with 4 trump and 15HCP looks like a clear winner from the simulations.

[whereagles]

the hog, on 2012-January-30, 18:00, said:

Ah, but pd most likely only has a 3 card fit - no superaccepts. So the fit is not that great. is it?

True. But you know how it's like in teams games: "when in doubt..." I don't know about you, but I sure have doubts

[gwnn]

whereagles, on 2012-January-31, 06:18, said:

True. But you know how it's like in teams games: "when in doubt..." I don't know about you, but I sure have doubts

The problem with this is that there's often an unsaid and logically unsound corollary that people use:

"When in doubt about being in doubt, consider you're in doubt. Hence bid game"

[whereagles]

I'm not meta-doubting (i.e. doubting whether I am in doubt lol). I consider I have a real reason to be in doubt.

[gnasher]

Partner's judgement was that opposite a balanced nine-count with five hearts we belong in a partscore. I have a balanced nine-count with five hearts. To justify overruling him, I must have something that he won't expect.

It's no good saying "We now have a fit" - partner knew that when he bid 3♥. If we have a nine-card fit, partner knew that too. Partner also knows that we're playing IMPs, he knows the vulnerability, he knows who the opponents are, and he knows how good his cardplay is.

The only thing that might cause me to do something different is that my nine-count contains two aces. If you believe that aces increase siginficantly in value once an eight-card fit it found, that's a possible reason to bid game. Personally, I don't.

[Codo]

I thought that the values of aces increase in a major fit while the value of Quacks decrease. So, yes my hand got better.
Good enough for 4 ♥?

[whereagles]

Quacks decrease, yes. They do maintain value if bundled together or with intermediates (the case here with JTx of clubs). Aces go up to 4,5 or 5 points. The hand is a bit flattish, though. I would still bid it.

If we do an FTL evaluation we get

- Pard has a doubleton: short suit total of 4. We need 22-24 working points to take 10 tricks. We have 24 HCP. It will depend on whether they're all working.
- Pard has no doubleton: SST of 5 and 25-27 WP to take 10 tricks. Very unlikely.

Ultimately the simulations will give us the statistical solution, which seems to be pass, albeit by a very small margin.

[billw55]

Codo, on 2012-January-31, 07:31, said:

I thought that the values of aces increase in a major fit while the value of Quacks decrease. So, yes my hand got better.
Good enough for 4 ♥?

Perhaps. But values in short suits is a negative value adjustment isn't it? At least a little?

Anyway, I pass for partnership harmony. Partner has an easy postmortem if we go down in game (and egads, if we are doubled). "You invited, I declined, and then ... ?"

[Codo]

Yes short aces are worse then long aces.

But: Pass because of hand evaluation is fine. Pass because of harmony is bad. If partner cannot live with my descissions, he should choose another partner. Or I will.
Same is true for post mortem winners... After the hand is over, I know too, what had been right.

[billw55]

Codo, on 2012-January-31, 08:16, said:

If partner cannot live with my descissions, he should choose another partner.

I understand. Realize that partner might agree .. about his decision to play a partscore.

Perhaps I will never be an elite level player because I give too much weight to partnership harmony? I have always thought that a happy partner contributes much more to good results than an annoyed or angry partner. Or does that only apply to nonexperts like myself and my partners?

[Codo]

Bad manners are no sign for a particular playing level.

To accept partners descission does not forbid to overrule him if you have unexpected news. On the example hand, he bids under the assumtion that you have 5 hearts, invitational strength and a balanced hand.
Whether you have a singelton, a very suit orientated hand or not is beyond his knowledge. So we are surely in a position where it is possible to overrule him. Whether or not the upgrade on this particular hand is justified is part of this discussion. So far 15 people voted yes, 10 no.
I voted yes, but I must admit that Andys thoughts are very convincing that pass will be a long time winner.

[billw55]

Of course I agree that it is important to choose the option that is a long term winner.

When considering the partnership aspect, I guess you could say that I am anticipating additional loss, over and above the IMPs on this board, when I bid game and go down. This loss comes on future boards, from partner's reduced confidence in me, and reduces the expected value of the bid.

In a perfect world, partner would never carry thoughts from one board to the next, he would always start each deal with a 100% clean slate, and so this extra loss would never happen. Maybe you are so lucky to have such partners! My own partners, and myself, are humans with feelings, and the extra consideration helps us.

All that said, in my own bridge judgement based solely on the hand, I would still not bid game, even if I had such a perfect partner. But that is a separate discussion, and one where I stand far below most posters on these boards.