[Trinidad]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-18, 13:52, said:

Really? How do you know you don't want to defend 5d? These hands might not make 5H, and 5d probably goes down easily when your side has the clear balance of HCP and you have the normal quick trick minimum for opening 1 rather than preempting.

Why not just pass and let partner decide what to do with these sort of hands, instead of possibly turning a plus position into a minus?

Because pass does not merely let partner decide. It says: "I don't know whether to defend or declare." I let partner decide because I can't.

If I know of an 10-11 card fit and I have a hand without defense, I am not going to tell partner that I can't decide. I have a strong opinion that I want to declare and I bid 5♥.

Alternatively, you can look at it from partner's side. Is he going to like it if I pass with a defenseless hand, he decides to double and they make it easily (where we would have 10/11 tricks)?

So, if you get dealt ♠xx ♥KQJxxx ♦x ♣KJxx you bid 5♥, making the decision yourself.

Rik

[MrAce]

Cascade, on 2014-March-18, 11:22, said:

This is so obviously fallacious - that partner will not have a top diamond honour. Effectively you are saying that no one ever jumps to 5♦ on a suit headed by KJ or QJ. That is simply not true and one does not have to wait for that long (relatively) to see these suits.

Hold on a second. I never said that.

I said "you may want to wait for that, i won't"

I also know there are times, when my RHO overcalls hearts and i hold Kxx, the A may be on my left. I still upgrade my K each and every single time. And this probably happens much more than someone jumping to 5 level white vs white w/o 2 of top 3.

I do not even know what you are actually arguing. I could When you bid 5♥ you are losing your ability to punish them at 5 level anyway. I think you see bidding 5♥ is a sort of slam try, while Trinidad and some others see it as to play with weak but offensive hands as in his example, where he does not need what pd says. And they see "passing and then pulling" as an invitation to slam, not "forcing to slam" In this context passing and pulling seems very reasonable to me.

[Stephen Tu]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-18, 14:50, said:

So, if you get dealt ♠xx ♥KQJxxx ♦x ♣KJxx you bid 5♥, making the decision yourself.

?? If partner doubles after my pass I think they are going down. You pass suggest bidding on, if he doubles, he's not doubling on the expectation of cashing heart tricks. Why concede -50 if +300 is available? And maybe on your particular example I open 2 not 1.

MrAce said:

And they see "passing and then pulling" as an invitation to slam, not "forcing to slam"

Don't get this. If you are forcing to slam don't you just bid 6? In my view pass then pull is just stronger invitation than 5h, 5h isn't an "afraid 5d is making" bid, it's "I think 5 is a good bet, bid 6 if you like". I don't see why one should fear that 5d is making so often, sure it will make occasionally but you can win plenty of IMPS the times you collect your +100/300 instead of going down to compensate.

[MrAce]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-18, 16:30, said:

Don't get this. If you are forcing to slam don't you just bid 6? In my view pass then pull is just stronger invitation than 5h, 5h isn't an "afraid 5d is making" bid, it's "I think 5 is a good bet, bid 6 if you like". I don't see why one should fear that 5d is making so often, sure it will make occasionally but you can win plenty of IMPS the times you collect your +100/300 instead of going down to compensate.

It is not about fear. It is about the intention of your bid. I completely disagree with light and strong slam invitations at 5 level. In general invitation concept is abused. Particularly at 5 level, after a heavy preempt, i do not want/need to spare my all bids into slam inviting categories. One of them should be intending to play at 5 level,without fearing pd will take it as a slam try of some kind, while other one being invitation to slam (primary massage) And our fear is not that they will make their contract if we leave it. I wish it was that simple, but it ain't.

[Stephen Tu]

I don't get your point. Doesn't bidding 5 show extra offense? So with partner unlimited, surely he is allowed to and is going to bid further on some hands? I wouldn't characterize bidding 5 as "slam invite", but surely it shows some increase in trick taking ability over other options so it must invite going on if he has a better hand than you have the right to expect.

[MrAce]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-18, 17:40, said:

I don't get your point.

Then don't. We are repeating ourselves at this point.

[PhilKing]

JLOGIC, on 2014-March-17, 21:06, said:

Thinking about it some more maybe I am off, but would you guys agree that we almost always have a stiff diamond to make a forcing pass here?

FWIW I do not agree with this premise. Maybe 78%+, since I will pass with some xx and xxx holdings if otherwise amenable to playing the five level.

[steve2005]

ok im sort of convinced pass and pull is correct, you have 5 losers so slam likely opp a forcing raise.

but what do you do if partner doesn't double but bids 5♥? just bid 6?

[JLOGIC]

PhilKing, on 2014-March-18, 19:21, said:

FWIW I do not agree with this premise. Maybe 78%+, since I will pass with some xx and xxx holdings if otherwise amenable to playing the five level.

For example? I mean yeah hands with 7 hearts or something weird but they seem very unlikely.

[Cascade]

MrAce, on 2014-March-17, 19:10, said:

I was trying to make a point. Your pd will not have ♦ K or Q when someone jumps to 5, white vs white and you hold A in that suit. You can of course wait for that to happen and cater for that day, it is totally your own choice. I won't and this is my choice

Cascade, on 2014-March-18, 11:22, said:

This is so obviously fallacious - that partner will not have a top diamond honour. Effectively you are saying that no one ever jumps to 5♦ on a suit headed by KJ or QJ. That is simply not true and one does not have to wait for that long (relatively) to see these suits.

There is another thread at the moment involving the defense to 4♥ and the author later admits that he would never bid 4♥ on the actual hand held by declarer. The point being that there are people out there, including some quite good players, that play styles that are, to others, quite unsound and they will bid on hands that others, including you and perhaps I, would not bid on. Although in this case I wonder what you would bid on with KJ 9th or the like?

Do you really wait around for a solid suit headed by the ace or king to preempt 5minor in their game force auction?

MrAce, on 2014-March-18, 16:03, said:

Hold on a second. I never said that.

I said "you may want to wait for that, i won't"

Actually you said partner will not have those cards. I did not take your qualification to mean that you didn't mean what you said in the previous sentence.

[Cascade]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-18, 16:30, said:

Don't get this. If you are forcing to slam don't you just bid 6? In my view pass then pull is just stronger invitation than 5h, 5h isn't an "afraid 5d is making" bid, it's "I think 5 is a good bet, bid 6 if you like". I don't see why one should fear that 5d is making so often, sure it will make occasionally but you can win plenty of IMPS the times you collect your +100/300 instead of going down to compensate.

Indeed automatically pulling to 5♥ in front of partner with a weak hand lacking defense seems a great way to turn +100 into -100 or worse.

[Trinidad]

Cascade, on 2014-March-18, 22:22, said:

Indeed automatically pulling to 5♥ in front of partner with a weak hand lacking defense seems a great way to turn +100 into -100 or worse.

I think that you don't play enough IMPs.

Automatically passing with a weak, defenseless hand and sitting for the double (what else can you do?) seems a great way to turn +450 into -550 or worse.

And to be clear: If you bid 5♥ with a weak defenseless hand, it will normally make. There was a reason why you opened, and partner made a game forcing raise. That means that partner thinks that we can make 4♥ when I have a weak NT with a five card major (e.g. ♠QTx ♥KJTxx ♦Jx ♣AJx). The weak and defenseless hand that you chose to open because of the nice heart suit and its offensive potential in general plays at least a trick better than the weak NT hand once the fit is known.

Rik

[PhilKing]

JLOGIC, on 2014-March-18, 21:29, said:

For example? I mean yeah hands with 7 hearts or something weird but they seem very unlikely.

♠KQx
♥AQxxxx
♦xxx
♣x

or

♠KQxx
♥AQxxxx
♦xx
♣x

[the hog]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-19, 01:19, said:

I think that you don't play enough IMPs.

Automatically passing with a weak, defenseless hand and sitting for the double (what else can you do?) seems a great way to turn +450 into -550 or worse.

And to be clear: If you bid 5♥ with a weak defenseless hand, it will normally make. There was a reason why you opened, and partner made a game forcing raise. That means that partner thinks that we can make 4♥ when I have a weak NT with a five card major (e.g. ♠QTx ♥KJTxx ♦Jx ♣AJx). The weak and defenseless hand that you chose to open because of the nice heart suit and its offensive potential in general plays at least a trick better than the weak NT hand once the fit is known.

Rik

I think that you don't play enough IMPs.
Rik, I think you don't know to whom you are talking.

[Trinidad]

the hog, on 2014-March-19, 03:58, said:

I think that you don't play enough IMPs.
Rik, I think you don't know to whom you are talking.

Maybe so, but does that matter?

It would matter if you would be able to come up with a good argument why -at IMPs- losing 200 points (5 IMPs) is worse than losing 1000 points (14 IMPs). Who I might or might not know is not a good argument.

Rik

[Stephen Tu]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-19, 14:15, said:

It would matter if you would be able to come up with a good argument why -at IMPs- losing 200 points (5 IMPs) is worse than losing 1000 points (14 IMPs). Who I might or might not know is not a good argument.

Clearly it's not worse comparing one time good vs. one time bad. But the question is frequency. You might lose 12 imps on average when they make it, but if you are gaining 4-8 imps when they don't, if they are making less than 1/3 of the times when partner doubles (he'll bid on plenty), you are gaining IMPs by not bidding in front of partner.

[Trinidad]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-19, 14:27, said:

Clearly it's not worse comparing one time good vs. one time bad. But the question is frequency.

Of course, frequency is also important. And that is an argument, not a "who is who".

But what do you think is a more frequent hand type in an auction where both sides wants to bid game in one round of bidding: A strong, somewhat balanced hand where the decision is between slam or double them, or a weak distributional hand where the decision is whether we should play or defend?

And if (very big if) you now think that the strong, somewhat balanced hand would be more frequent, do you then think it will be three times more frequent?

Rik

[MrAce]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-19, 14:27, said:

Clearly it's not worse comparing one time good vs. one time bad. But the question is frequency. You might lose 12 imps on average when they make it, but if you are gaining 4-8 imps when they don't, if they are making less than 1/3 of the times when partner doubles (he'll bid on plenty), you are gaining IMPs by not bidding in front of partner.

Where is the statistics that will back up your claim ?

Why are you taking into account only the hands where they are making, as if bidding direct 5 only caters for those hands ? Not letting them play has different ways of winning, including a lot of hands when they are going down.

And also, in order to be convincing about "direct 5 bid is soft/light slam try and pass and pull being strong slam invite" method, do us a favour and write down your criteria which hand types makes a soft slam invite and which hand types makes a strong slam invite, as well as writing down the criteria for which hands should accept/reject the soft invites and which hands should accept/reject strong invite. I bet you will create a huge mess right there, and even those people who are in same wavelength with you on the subject, will divide into categories and sub categories among themselves.

At the end what helps you the most will be, no surprise to me, your hand evaluation skills and your logic. Which would do the same job just fine with much more simplified method Rik is suggesting.

In another recent topic a lot of players came up with "Last Train" suggestion. Which is not something i am against. However same people divided into groups and sub groups among themselves about what it actually means and how they continue. One of them honestly confessed he did not even know how the continuation will be, even though he saw both hands on forum, had hard time to construct an auction. Now you can argue that just because people don't know or misuse a convention, does not make the convention/method bad. Absolutely true. But none of those players who contrasted themselves from others were bad players. They all proven to me, at least to a degree, that they know this game. There are some treatments which looks/sounds great in theory but fails irl. You may even prove me that the method you suggest is statistically superior in theory, but i believe it will not make miracles in decision, if not creates disasters. Because due to the complex nature of heavy duty methods, which by the way was already complicated by a heavy preempt and reduced space, i believe we should not have the luxury of contrasting our slam invites into "soft slam try" and "strong slam try" Instead we should keep our ability to give the messages we need

-I want to stay in defense doubling them

-I want to play our game, i believe both sides has too many tricks

-I am leaving it to you for now and make it clear next round, I may live with your decision, or make a slam invite +

On this particular deal, all was white. Now make yourself red vs white and you will need that message #2 much more than anything else. You may counter this by telling me "how about white vs red ?" My reply is simple, anyone who jumps to 5 ♦ red vs white, is not bidding it to make you rich. But you have more ground for your method at white vs red, i admit.

[Stephen Tu]

MrAce, on 2014-March-19, 16:00, said:

Where is the statistics that will back up your claim ?

I wasn't making any claims. I was just pointing out that Trinidad's statement didn't seem to make much sense, he said something like we were supposed to make an argument why losing 5 IMPS is worse than losing 14 IMPS.

Quote

Why are you taking into account only the hands where they are making, as if bidding direct 5 only caters for those hands ?

Because I was focusing on Trinidad's initial argument which seemed to center on fear that 5d is making.

Quote

And also, in order to be convincing about "direct 5 bid is soft/light slam try and pass and pull being strong slam invite" method, do us a favour and write down your criteria which hand types makes a soft slam invite and which hand types makes a strong slam invite, as well as writing down the criteria for which hands should accept/reject the soft invites and which hands should accept/reject strong invite. I bet you will create a huge mess right there, and even those people who are in same wavelength with you on the subject, will divide into categories and sub categories among themselves.

I don't know the criteria, that's why I made this thread to find out. I thought that both 5h and pass/pull show extra offense, with the latter being stronger.
Bid 6h = I think we can make 6h
Bid 5h = I think we can make 5h (so obviously with extra partner can still be allowed to bid 6)
pass then pull = I think we might make 6 but don't feel good enough to just bid 6 myself. I.e. 5.5 hearts.
Is this view just totally wrong?

So is your view that 5h just shows a weak distributional hand?

[MrAce]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-19, 16:46, said:

Is this view just totally wrong?

So is your view that 5h just shows a weak distributional hand?

No, this view actually sounds very logical to me. In fact i believe you and me are playing/thinking (almost) the same thing, but calling them different names. Yes i believe 5♥ shows a dist hand and weak compared to pass and pull. (this is where it seems we contrast a little from other, but i do not think by a lot)


I have 2 options

1- Seperate my slam invitations into 2 and ignore the hands that are weaker but offensive - be able to make a bid that suggests we stay in defense - be able to let pd decide

2- Be able to make a slam invite- make a bid that suggests we stay in defense- make a bid that suggests we are better in offense - be able to let pd decide.

As i said before, i would like to play option 2 especially when i am red and they are white, and maybe option 1 when we are white and they are red. but i suspect we will face this type of positions much more often when we are red and they are white, don't you think ? Who knows, perhaps we should play the combination of both, depending on the colors. I think we all agree that colors change the risk/reward ratio a lot.