Help with response to weak two opening

[Jennifer Murphy]

South dealer, all vulnerable, matchpoint scoring.

As N, I hold:

S x
H Axxx
D Jxxx
C xxxx

S W N E
2S Dbl ?

I got yelled at for my bid. Before I fess up, I'd like to know what I
should have done.

We all play SAYC more or less. I took the S bid to mean down 2 at
spades.

[Stu Goodgold]

Who yelled at you? If it was your partner, then get a new one.
That's what you should have done.

Of course, you only showed your bid as "?". If "?" was Pass, that would be the best response. South has shown a hand with a 6 card suit and less than opening values. Since your side is vunerable, she should have a good suit and maybe an honor on the side. You have a known 7 card fit and are at the 2 level. Anything else is may be a worse fit and a level higher.

Yes, you may go down a bundle at 2S doubled. But this is matchpts and if partner has her bid, it will be a common result.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Wed, 2 May 2012 15:43:10 -0700 (PDT), Stu Goodgold
<st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 3:21:01 PM UTC-7, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
>> South dealer, all vulnerable, matchpoint scoring.
>>
>> As N, I hold:
>>
>> S x
>> H Axxx
>> D Jxxx
>> C xxxx
>>
>> S W N E
>> 2S Dbl ?
>>
>> I got yelled at for my bid. Before I fess up, I'd like to know what I
>> should have done.
>>
>> We all play SAYC more or less. I took the S bid to mean down 2 at
>> spades.
>
>Who yelled at you? If it was your partner, then get a new one.
>That's what you should have done.

What if I deserved it? ;-)

I'll disclose my bid after I see what the concensus correct bid is.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <uec3q79qqd75d7poj...@4ax.com>,

Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>South dealer, all vulnerable, matchpoint scoring.
>
>As N, I hold:
>
> S x
> H Axxx
> D Jxxx
> C xxxx
>
> S W N E
> 2S Dbl ?
>
>I got yelled at for my bid. Before I fess up, I'd like to know what I
>should have done.

Pass seems obvious. Even if East leaves in the double, there's no
guarantee that 3 of anything else will be any better; and if East
takes it out, you're happy.

--
David Goldfarb |"It's okay to disagree with me. However, once I
goldf...@gmail.com |explain where you're wrong you're supposed to
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |become enlightened and change your mind.
|Congratulating me on how smart I am is optional."
| -- Karl Johanson

[Eric Leong]

If my opponents were playing SAYC, I would have redoubled confidently
and pass anything the opponents bid. If LHO was going to leave 2Sx in
now RHO might think of pulling.

Eric Leong

[Jennifer Murphy]

What would a redouble mean in this situation? Surely you don't expect 2S
to make, do you?

[jonathan23]

I pass. And I don't yell at partners, either.

--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa Canada

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 00:39:56 +0000 (UTC), jonathan23 <camp...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

Well, maybe "yell" is a little too strong... ;-) How about "strongly
disagreed"?

We ended up with a low board. But if my partner had interpreted my bid
the way I intended it, we would have gotten a high.

[Player]

This is an obvious pass.
No Eric does not think 2S will make; he is xx in the hope of
frightening the opponents into bidding. Ploys like this sometimes work
against very weak players.
Ron

[Eric Leong]

Have you ever seen intermediate players or better play SAYC when you
didn't have to?

Eric Leong

[Eric Leong]

No, but the opponents surely have the strength for game so I am trying
to influence them to underbid by making a psychic redouble..

Eric Leong

[Douglas Newlands]

It's an auto pass.

doug

[Jennifer Murphy]

Then we must be in that category because we rarely play it correctly.
Does that count?

If not SAYC, what do you recommend for intermediate players?

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Jennifer Murphy skrev:

>>Have you ever seen intermediate players or better play SAYC when you
>>didn't have to?

> Then we must be in that category because we rarely play it correctly.
> Does that count?

ROTFL :-)

--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Wed, 2 May 2012 19:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Eric Leong
<ewleo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 2, 5:37 pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 May 2012 17:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Eric Leong

... snip ...

>> >If my opponents were playing SAYC, I would have redoubled confidently
>> >and pass anything the opponents bid. If LHO was going to leave 2Sx in
>> >now RHO might think of pulling.
>>
>> What would a redouble mean in this situation? Surely you don't expect 2S
>> to make, do you?
>
>No, but the opponents surely have the strength for game so I am trying
>to influence them to underbid by making a psychic redouble..

Interesting strategy. I would never have thought of that.

I came to the same conclusion (that EW had a vulnerable game somewhere)
but chose a different tactic, which was misunderstood with an unpleasant
result.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Jennifer Murphy skrev:

> I came to the same conclusion (that EW had a vulnerable game somewhere)
> but chose a different tactic, which was misunderstood with an unpleasant
> result.

Pray tell. I think the suspense is sufficiently high now.

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 08:37:17 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
<kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>Jennifer Murphy skrev:
>
>> I came to the same conclusion (that EW had a vulnerable game somewhere)
>> but chose a different tactic, which was misunderstood with an unpleasant
>> result.
>
>Pray tell. I think the suspense is sufficiently high now.

I don't believe I have your vote yet...

[Dave Flower]

I think that it is far from clear that opponents have a vulnerable game; they may have the balance of the points, but no suit is breaking

Dave Flower

[Co Wiersma]

Op 3-5-2012 0:21, Jennifer Murphy schreef:

Believe it or not
pre-emps some time work
just pass and hope that this time the pre-emp worked
and opponents go to the wrong contract
And if not : good for them!

[Jennifer Murphy]

We play that the 2S opening is less than 11 HCP and it could be a lot
less. I have 5, so the opponents have *at least* 25 HCP. But if their
suit is not hearts, they would need 29 for game.

[Thomas Dehn]

Pass seems clear.

Some such hands offer the possibility
for a psychic bid, such as a 2NT force,
or a 3S preemptive raise (which the way I play
it, opener must always pass).
But with W having doubled 2S already,
and me holding a singleton S only,
and not enough defense to double any
contract they might reach, pass is best.


Thomas

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Jennifer Murphy skrev:

> I don't believe I have your vote yet...

No, because I am not a strong player, so I don't often involve
myself in advising others. But since you ask, pass would be
automatic for me. I will try to remember the different advice
given in this thread about redoubling to make things difficult
for the opposition.

[Chris xxxxx]

Well, they may well make 3NT with only 25 high card points, if they
have a spade stopper. There's some chance they won't diagnose that
they have 25 combined and may play 3 of a suit instead of 3NT.

Also, if they have a fit in clubs or diamonds, they may well have
enough points counting distribution to bid to 5C or 5D. This may be
good for you also, since you and your partner might take the first
three tricks via SA, S ruff, HA. Even 4H may have issues, since they
may lose the major suit aces, a ruff, and a minor-suit finesse. Or
even if you can't score the ruff, the 4-1 trump break may make the
contract too difficult to handle.

They may also end up in a 4-3 heart fit when doubler has only three
hearts, or miss a 5-3 heart fit when doubler has five hearts.

Preempts have two main purposes: (1) To find a fit in the preempt suit
if there is one, so that you can either bid to a making contract or a
sacrifice; and (2) To take up bidding space so that the opponents bid
to the wrong contract when it's their hand. (1) didn't pan out this
time, but there's still a good chance of (2). Now that your side has
deprived the opponents of two levels of bidding, just pass the rest of
the way and hope that they flounder around to the wrong spot.

The point is: Lots of things can go wrong for the opponents here if
you just stay out of their way. Let the opponents make the last guess
in competitive auctions.

Christopher Monsour

[David Stevenson]

Bertel Lund Hansen wrote

>Jennifer Murphy skrev:
>
>> I don't believe I have your vote yet...
>
>No, because I am not a strong player, so I don't often involve
>myself in advising others. But since you ask, pass would be
>automatic for me. I will try to remember the different advice
>given in this thread about redoubling to make things difficult
>for the opposition.

It is important not to be caught by opponents redoubling. So in any
situation where I might pass for penalties, then pass of a redouble is
for penalties.

Two top class players lost an English national k/o match on the
sequence:

1NT X XX P
P 2H P 4H
P P

which went off because of the bad heart break, with 3NT making eleven
tricks in the other room. Those eleven tricks are not only available in
defence to 1NTxx, but with the opening lead you have a shot at twelve
tricks ......

In my area most players play redouble as asking partner to bid 2C and
showing a five card suit, as responder did. However, his partner, who
had not played with him before, did not play this ......

The doubling side asked for a ruling because XX was not alerted but
got nowhere: the opening side convinced the TD [Max Bavin, actually]
that they had no agreement to play anything but natural.

I had no sympathy whatever when I heard the story: to me the pass over
the redouble is definitive: this is where we play.

Incidentally, the doubling side did not send Max Bavin a Xmas card
that year after he eliminated them from another English k/o event the
same month on another ruling!

Some time later, playing with Bill Niccol, the bidding went

1S 2H P P
X XX P P
?

I was minimum with a singleton heart. I passed, because to me Bill's
pass was for penalties. 1600.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[David Stevenson]

Jennifer Murphy wrote

>On Wed, 2 May 2012 19:53:40 -0700 (PDT), Eric Leong

>>Have you ever seen intermediate players or better play SAYC when you
>>didn't have to?

>Then we must be in that category because we rarely play it correctly.
>Does that count?
>
>If not SAYC, what do you recommend for intermediate players?

Acol?

[Eric Leong]

There are a number of 2/1 books out there. There is Max Hardy's 2/1
book which is mainly a west coast system. There is Robinson's
Washington Standard which is an East Coast 2/1 system. Check with
Baron Barclay Bridge Supplies or Amazon.

Eric Leong

[Lorne]

"Jennifer Murphy" wrote in message
news:uec3q79qqd75d7poj...@4ax.com...

South dealer, all vulnerable, matchpoint scoring.

As N, I hold:

S x
H Axxx
D Jxxx
C xxxx

S W N E
2S Dbl ?

I got yelled at for my bid. Before I fess up, I'd like to know what I
should have done.

We all play SAYC more or less. I took the S bid to mean down 2 at
spades.

..................

Pass is the 'down the middle' option for a normal result.

If you want to create some confusion then redouble has merit, particularly
as few partnerships have discussed whether a pass by the next hand shows a
spade stack or just a weak hand with no obvious bid. If it gets passed for
2 down you have a bottom but if they stop in 3H or do not bid 3N because
they think you have a good hand about to double them you get a top. Do not
do this with partners who yell at you however as they also tend to forget it
worked last time.

2N is also a good psyche with a bad hand but not when you only have 1 spade.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 7:18:56 AM UTC-7, Eric Leong wrote:
> >
> > If not SAYC, what do you recommend for intermediate players?
>
> There are a number of 2/1 books out there. There is Max Hardy's 2/1
> book which is mainly a west coast system. There is Robinson's
> Washington Standard which is an East Coast 2/1 system. Check with
> Baron Barclay Bridge Supplies or Amazon.
>
> Eric Leong

To Jennifer: I'd recommend you and your partner read books like these but don't make any changes yet, except perhaps some small ones. It's a common trap among intermediates to think that they can just adopt a whole new bidding system (especially one with lots of gadgets like Hardy's; I'm not as familiar with Robinson's) and it will solve their problems. It doesn't. Been there, done that. And if you make a whole lot of changes, it will add to your burden by forcing you to use your mental energy trying to remember a bunch of unfamiliar stuff, when at this point your brainpower would be better spent trying to visualize the unseen hands and visualize what's going to happen during the play, etc. I'd concentrate on developing bidding judgment; then, when it turns out that SAYC isn't good enough to bid a particular hand correctly, if you've read some of the recommended books, you'll be able to understand why a change might be better.

Just my two cents...

-- Adam

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:21:01 -0700, Jennifer Murphy

<JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:

>South dealer, all vulnerable, matchpoint scoring.
>
>As N, I hold:
>
> S x
> H Axxx
> D Jxxx
> C xxxx
>
> S W N E
> 2S Dbl ?
>
>I got yelled at for my bid. Before I fess up, I'd like to know what I
>should have done.
>
>We all play SAYC more or less. I took the S bid to mean down 2 at
>spades.

Thanks, everyone, for the very informative discussion. It looks like the
group is unanimous that I should have passed, which will bring my
partner no end of satisfaction (and me one or two "I told you so."'s).
;-)

This hand highlighted a partnership misunderstanding. My bid was 3S. It
was my intention to raise the preempt to deny them bidding space. I
reasoned that partner had 6 tricks in spades. Down 2 doubled would be a
good trade against a vulnerable game by EW, which I considered likely. I
had one quick trick, so I figured that we would be in exactly the same
situation at 3S with my AH as in 2S without it.

The complete auction was:

S W N E
2S Dbl 3S 4H
4S P P Dbl
P P P

We went down one for -200. We should have gone down two, but partner
played the hand very well and the defense make a mistake.

At Table 2, 2S was passed out making 2 for +110.

At Table 3, EW played at 3H making 3 for -140

We got a low board. If partner had passed 4H, as I thought was our
agreement, we would have gotten a middle.

But I don't care about this one low board. I want to strengthen the
partnership agreement.

Question #1: It has always been my understanding that a good response to
a preempt with a weak hand is to raise the preempt. The weaker we are,
the more profitable the preempt is likely to be provided that we can
limit the damage if doubled. Is this good reasoning? Is raising the
preempt a useful strategy, even if misapplied in this case?

I have always used the following table to guide sacrifice bidding.

Vul Game Sacrifice
VN 400-420 -1 (200)
NN 400-420 -2 (300)
VV 600-620 -2 (500)
NV 600-620 -3 (500)

Question #2: Was I correct is imputing 6 tricks to partner's 2S open? We
play that preempts at the 3 and 4 level guarantee the number of tricks
indicated in the table above. But we have had some disagreements as to
whether this applies to weak 2 openings.

In light of comments here, I now see that game for EW was less likely
than I thought. So I need to be more careful about attributing to them a
game.

[Jennifer Murphy]

I think that's good advice. I originally learned with 4-card majors. I
was dragged kicking and screaming into 5-card majors, but have never sat
down and really studied it so, I have a lot of half-this-half-that
habits. (sigh)

I need to do some more reading, but I hear you. I tend to avoid gadgets,
especially ones that don't come up that much. As little as we play, I
may never see some of them in my lifetime. ;-)

[Will in New Haven]

On May 3, 12:16 pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:21:01 -0700, Jennifer Murphy
>
>
>
>
>
> <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> >South dealer, all vulnerable, matchpoint scoring.
>
> >As N, I hold:
>
> >  S x
> >  H Axxx
> >  D Jxxx
> >  C xxxx
>
> >    S   W   N   E
> >    2S Dbl  ?
>
> >I got yelled at for my bid. Before I fess up, I'd like to know what I
> >should have done.
>
> >We all play SAYC more or less.  I took the S bid to mean down 2 at
> >spades.
>
> Thanks, everyone, for the very informative discussion. It looks like the
> group is unanimous that I should have passed, which will bring my
> partner no end of satisfaction (and me one or two "I told you so."'s).
> ;-)
>
> This hand highlighted a partnership misunderstanding. My bid was 3S. It
> was my intention to raise the preempt to deny them bidding space.

In my very recent response, I suggested that the only action I would
consider other than pass was 3S. I would not have wanted to _buy_ the
contract in 3SX but it is an interesting concept.

I
> reasoned that partner had 6 tricks in spades.

Here is the flaw in your thinking. Take a really decent weak two in
Spades, say

KQTXXX XX XX KQX. That is an obvious weak two. Opposite an imaginary
normal dummy, it may be worth six tricks, possibly seven. Certainly
anyone on this ng would open 2S. Opposite your hand and with the
takeout double sitting behind it, it is not likely that the Spades can
be played for one loser or that the KQ of Clubs will fetch more than
one trick. So down three is a very likely result. And partner could
have a worse hand.

Down 2 doubled would be a
> good trade against a vulnerable game by EW, which I considered likely. I
> had one quick trick, so I figured that we would be in exactly the same
> situation at 3S with my AH as in 2S without it.

Except that he will be more likely to be doubled.

>
> The complete auction was:
>
>    S   W   N   E
>    2S Dbl  3S  4H
>    4S  P   P   Dbl
>    P   P   P
>
> We went down one for -200. We should have gone down two, but partner
> played the hand very well and the defense make a mistake.

Bidding 4S is completely incorrect. It is, by far, the worst bid in
the auction.

>
> At Table 2, 2S was passed out making 2 for +110.
>
> At Table 3, EW played at 3H making 3 for -140
>
> We got a low board. If partner had passed 4H, as I thought was our
> agreement, we would have gotten a middle.
>
> But I don't care about this one low board. I want to strengthen the
> partnership agreement.

A very good idea.

>
> Question #1: It has always been my understanding that a good response to
> a preempt with a weak hand is to raise the preempt. The weaker we are,
> the more profitable the preempt is likely to be provided that we can
> limit the damage if doubled. Is this good reasoning? Is raising the
> preempt a useful strategy, even if misapplied in this case?

It is a useful strategy _when you have a fit_ It might have worked out
in this case, absent partner taking an awful 4S bid but sacrificing
without a fit is usually a bad idea and raising the preempt is a type
of sacrifice.

>
> I have always used the following table to guide sacrifice bidding.
>
>   Vul    Game     Sacrifice
>   VN   400-420   -1 (200)
>   NN   400-420   -2 (300)
>   VV   600-620   -2 (500)
>   NV   600-620   -3 (500)
>
> Question #2: Was I correct is imputing 6 tricks to partner's 2S open? We
> play that preempts at the 3 and 4 level guarantee the number of tricks
> indicated in the table above. But we have had some disagreements as to
> whether this applies to weak 2 openings.

It doesn't even apply to higher-level preempts. Partner is only
_estimating_ the number of tricks to be taken and one cannot take it
as a guarantee. Think about hands that you would open with the bid.

>
> In light of comments here, I now see that game for EW was less likely
> than I thought. So I need to be more careful about attributing to them a
> game

Oh, I thought it very likely that they had a game. But I didn't want
to buy the contract in 3SX because it would probably be too expensive.
Your partner's two-bid must have been much stronger than my example
earlier in this post.

--
Will in New Haven

[Will in New Haven]

On May 2, 6:21 pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> South dealer, all vulnerable, matchpoint scoring.
>
> As N, I hold:
>
>   S x
>   H Axxx
>   D Jxxx
>   C xxxx
>
>     S   W   N   E
>     2S Dbl  ?
>
> I got yelled at for my bid. Before I fess up, I'd like to know what I
> should have done.
>
> We all play SAYC more or less.  I took the S bid to mean down 2 at
> spades.

You should have passed. Let the opponents guess whether to leave the
double in. Your other options aren't pretty.

Redouble is tempting because now a pass by LHO, except in some
practiced partnerships, does not say "let's defend 2SXX." So even if
LHO passes, RHO is going to figure he (or she) is being told to pick a
contract. However, XX has some very big dangers.

It is supposed to _mean_ something and partner is permitted to act on
it. It is certain that partner is allowed to double whatever the
opponents bid. It is very likely that partner is allowed to compete if
shortish in their suit with good Spades. If partner isn't allowed to
base further action on your redouble, then it is an understanding that
must be alerted.

I doubt that you have an agreement that 2NT here means "bid you best
side suit" but it would be a foolish bid even if it meant that.
Partner might not _have_ a four-card side suit and a 4-3 fit at the
level of there is going to be as bad as playing 2SX and you are only
going to play 2SX if they leave it in.

3S could be tasty. _Each_ of your opponents is going to think that a
double by her (or his) partner is takeout and partner is _not_ allowed
to bid on when raised in most partnerships.

So 3S is the only thing I would consider other than pass. But I would
pass.

[Eric Leong]

On May 3, 9:20 am, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012 07:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan
>

I started out playing four card majors and played them for about ten
years. Four card majors requires much more judgement in the auction
which only comes with experience. Two over One is much more defined in
the first two to three rounds of bidding. Also, there is much
discussion and articles on two over one bidding in the US bridge
magazines such as the ACBL Bulletin and the Bridge World Magazine. The
SAYC booklet doesn't articulate much beyond the first round of bidding
so I think a partnership who uses SAYC is going to have some problems
every so often in the later rounds of the bidding that more
experienced partnerships would not have.

Eric Leong

[Eric Leong]

Partner's 4S bid is a big no no. Your 3S bid has not invited partner
to come into the auction.

Eric Leong

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<b3d7ce5b-da44-4efb...@c18g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>,

Eric Leong <ewleo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Partner's 4S bid is a big no no. Your 3S bid has not invited partner
> to come into the auction.

There's an old joke that the shortest book in the bridge library is
titled "Free Bids By Preempters" -- it should have zero pages.

There are actually some exceptions to this (sometimes people preempt
with 6-5 hands -- they may later balance in with the 5-card suit). But
it's as good a guideline as most bridge bidding rules.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>On May 3, 12:16 pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:21:01 -0700, Jennifer Murphy

... snip ...

> I
>> reasoned that partner had 6 tricks in spades.
>
>Here is the flaw in your thinking. Take a really decent weak two in
>Spades, say
>
>KQTXXX XX XX KQX. That is an obvious weak two. Opposite an imaginary
>normal dummy, it may be worth six tricks, possibly seven. Certainly
>anyone on this ng would open 2S. Opposite your hand and with the
>takeout double sitting behind it, it is not likely that the Spades can
>be played for one loser or that the KQ of Clubs will fetch more than
>one trick. So down three is a very likely result. And partner could
>have a worse hand.

This is very helpful.

This is very helpful. Suppose my hand had been something like this:

S xxx
H A
D xxxx
C xxxxx

Now we have at least a 9-card trump fit and I should be able to ruff at
least one heart, probably two. I figure my hand adds at least 3 tricks.
Should I raise the preempt to 4S (figiuring to go down only 1 and maybe
making it), bid 3S (with a good chance of making it and also depriving
them of bidding space), redouble (not sure why), or something else?

In any case, I have made a strong mental note to consider the trump fit
when considering any sacrifice.

>> I have always used the following table to guide sacrifice bidding.
>>
>>   Vul    Game     Sacrifice
>>   VN   400-420   -1 (200)
>>   NN   400-420   -2 (300)
>>   VV   600-620   -2 (500)
>>   NV   600-620   -3 (500)
>>
>> Question #2: Was I correct is imputing 6 tricks to partner's 2S open? We
>> play that preempts at the 3 and 4 level guarantee the number of tricks
>> indicated in the table above. But we have had some disagreements as to
>> whether this applies to weak 2 openings.
>
>It doesn't even apply to higher-level preempts. Partner is only
>_estimating_ the number of tricks to be taken and one cannot take it
>as a guarantee. Think about hands that you would open with the bid.

Yes, I understand that it isn't a guarantee. Few things are in bridge.
But I thought I read somewhere that adding my quick tricks to the
estimated tricks suggested by the preempt is a good way to assess the
partnership potential and go from there. You have helped me see some
other considerations that need to be included and I have made a note.

>> In light of comments here, I now see that game for EW was less likely
>> than I thought. So I need to be more careful about attributing to them a
>> game
>
>Oh, I thought it very likely that they had a game. But I didn't want
>to buy the contract in 3SX because it would probably be too expensive.
>Your partner's two-bid must have been much stronger than my example
>earlier in this post.

Yes, it generally is. She hates to go down even when it ends up being a
top. I think she considers a "contract" as something to be honored, like
a promise. So, she tends to bid light. She dislikes sacrifices. We have
had many arguments about how the weaker *we* are, the more likely it is
that the opponents will score big.

[Jennifer Murphy]

Yes, well, that's the point I tried to make when the discussion got a
little heated. I was willing to consider that my 3S was not ideal, but I
have always believed that a preempt is usually the last bid by that
player. We'll have the discussion later when things are cooler. ;-)

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:32:11 -0400, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:

Thanks, Barry. Very funny. But I think I will keep this little tidbit to
myself for now. ;-)

[blackshoe]

I played SA with a local expert for a while. I asked him why SA vs. 2/1, he said "I don't ilke 2/1, it restricts my judgement too much".

Jennifer, you might want to read Anderson and Zenkel's "Preempts from A to Z", not for the gadgets, which abound, but for the philosophy behind the basic method.

Given a choice, I'd play Precision, or Romex, neither one with all the bells and whistles the experts use.

[blackshoe]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 11:42:41 PM UTC-4, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> If not SAYC, what do you recommend for intermediate players?

David Stevenson suggested Acol, which is a good system, rarely seen in NA. OTOH...

"No, I don't know Precision, but I know Standard American, and what better reason could I have for playing Precision?" -- The Hideous Hog

:-)

[Adam Lea]

If I were you I would consider finding another partner, one that a) has
a clue about the game and b) is actually pleasant to sit opposite.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Jennifer Murphy skrev:

> The complete auction was:

> S W N E
> 2S Dbl 3S 4H
> 4S P P Dbl
> P P P

A fundamental rule that I never break, is that preempter passes
for the rest of the auction (unless partner BlackwoodMorrows).

> We got a low board. If partner had passed 4H, as I thought was our
> agreement, we would have gotten a middle.

He should have. Every yell that he gives you for your 3S bid, you
can return to him for his 4S bid

> I have always used the following table to guide sacrifice bidding.

I use the same with another way of remembering it. The rule is
called "rule of 1-2-3":

unfavourable vul.: 1 trick
equal vul.: 2 tricks
favourable vul.: 3 trick

> Question #2: Was I correct is imputing 6 tricks to partner's 2S
> open? We play that preempts at the 3 and 4 level guarantee the
> number of tricks indicated in the table above. But we have had
> some disagreements as to whether this applies to weak 2
> openings.

I refer to the table for all defensive bids though other
considerations may apply.

[Eric Leong]

On May 3, 1:56 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:

> Jennifer Murphy skrev:
>
> > The complete auction was:
> >    S   W   N   E
> >    2S Dbl  3S  4H
> >    4S  P   P   Dbl
> >    P   P   P
>
> A fundamental rule that I never break, is that preempter passes
> for the rest of the auction (unless partner BlackwoodMorrows).
>
> > We got a low board. If partner had passed 4H, as I thought was our
> > agreement, we would have gotten a middle.
>
> He should have. Every yell that he gives you for your 3S bid, you
> can return to him for his 4S bid
>
> > I have always used the following table to guide sacrifice bidding.
>
> I use the same with another way of remembering it. The rule is
> called "rule of 1-2-3":
>
>         unfavourable vul.: 1 trick
>         equal vul.: 2 tricks
>         favourable vul.: 3 trick

In practice, it is more like 1.5 unfavorable, 3 equal, and 4 favorable
it not a little more.

Eric Leong

[Travis Crump]

On 05/02/2012 08:28 PM, Eric Leong wrote:

> On May 2, 3:21 pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>> South dealer, all vulnerable, matchpoint scoring.
>>
>> As N, I hold:
>>
>> S x
>> H Axxx
>> D Jxxx
>> C xxxx
>>

>> S W N E

>> 2S Dbl ?
>>
>> I got yelled at for my bid. Before I fess up, I'd like to know what I
>> should have done.
>>
>> We all play SAYC more or less. I took the S bid to mean down 2 at
>> spades.
>

> If my opponents were playing SAYC, I would have redoubled confidently
> and pass anything the opponents bid. If LHO was going to leave 2Sx in
> now RHO might think of pulling.
>

> Eric Leong

Personally I am not a fan of answers like this. If you would always
redouble with this hand then it isn't a psyche and would need to be
disclosed. At best the answer should be something like 'I would
normally pass, but if the spirit moved me I might consider a tactical
psychic redouble'. Consequently I am always skeptical when people
recommend a psyche as an answer to a bidding problem.

Another consideration is that XX encourages opener to take another
non-pass call, usually X. Unless of course partner is familiar with
your psychic tendencies...

[Co Wiersma]

Op 3-5-2012 19:47, Jennifer Murphy schreef:

> This is very helpful. Suppose my hand had been something like this:
>
> S xxx
> H A
> D xxxx
> C xxxxx
>
> Now we have at least a 9-card trump fit and I should be able to ruff at
> least one heart, probably two. I figure my hand adds at least 3 tricks.
> Should I raise the preempt to 4S (figiuring to go down only 1 and maybe
> making it), bid 3S (with a good chance of making it and also depriving
> them of bidding space), redouble (not sure why), or something else?
>
> In any case, I have made a strong mental note to consider the trump fit
> when considering any sacrifice.

I would bid 4S with this hand
As it seems very likely that 4S is a good save against their game and if
not , they could still guess wrong because you stole away their bidding
space

Co Wiersma

[Co Wiersma]

Op 3-5-2012 23:04, Eric Leong schreef:

> In practice, it is more like 1.5 unfavorable, 3 equal, and 4 favorable
> it not a little more.

Beginnersbooks in The Netherlands tell you to use the Rule of 2 and 3
for overcalls and pre-emps
(meaning: try not to go down a lot, specially when vuln)

Advanced players here use the Rule of 2 and 3 and 4 and 5
(meaning at favorable in the third hand, anything goes)

Co Wiersma

[Chris xxxxx]

On May 2, 10:52 pm, Eric Leong <ewleong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 5:37 pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 2 May 2012 17:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Eric Leong

>
> > <ewleong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >On May 2, 3:21 pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> > >> South dealer, all vulnerable, matchpoint scoring.
>
> > >> As N, I hold:
>
> > >> S x
> > >> H Axxx
> > >> D Jxxx
> > >> C xxxx
>
> > >> S W N E
> > >> 2S Dbl ?
>
> > >> I got yelled at for my bid. Before I fess up, I'd like to know what I
> > >> should have done.
>
> > >> We all play SAYC more or less. I took the S bid to mean down 2 at
> > >> spades.
>
> > >If my opponents were playing SAYC, I would have redoubled confidently
> > >and pass anything the opponents bid. If LHO was going to leave 2Sx in
> > >now RHO might think of pulling.
>

> > What would a redouble mean in this situation? Surely you don't expect 2S
> > to make, do you?
>
> No, but the opponents surely have the strength for game so I am trying
> to influence them to underbid by making a psychic redouble..

I dunno. You're trusting the opponents to be naive. I recall a
lovely auction from the Blue Ribbon Semis a few years ago. I had Axx
Axxxx xx J10x (to my best recollection), dealer, and it went P-P-1D-2C-
X-XX-P-P-, back to me. XX was explained as "He doesn't think you can
make anything". As I passed 2CXX, it was difficult not to say "Lucky
for me, I don't have to". +600 against air.

Christopher Monsour

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 22:56:50 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
<kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>Jennifer Murphy skrev:
>
>> The complete auction was:
>
>> S W N E
>> 2S Dbl 3S 4H
>> 4S P P Dbl
>> P P P
>
>A fundamental rule that I never break, is that preempter passes
>for the rest of the auction (unless partner BlackwoodMorrows).
>
>> We got a low board. If partner had passed 4H, as I thought was our
>> agreement, we would have gotten a middle.
>
>He should have. Every yell that he gives you for your 3S bid, you
>can return to him for his 4S bid
>
>> I have always used the following table to guide sacrifice bidding.
>
>I use the same with another way of remembering it. The rule is
>called "rule of 1-2-3":
>
> unfavourable vul.: 1 trick
> equal vul.: 2 tricks
> favourable vul.: 3 trick

Yes, that is easier to remember. I'll try to remember that. Thanks.

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 14:04:29 -0700 (PDT), Eric Leong
<ewleo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 3, 1:56 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
>wrote:
>> Jennifer Murphy skrev:
>>
>> > The complete auction was:
>> >    S   W   N   E
>> >    2S Dbl  3S  4H
>> >    4S  P   P   Dbl
>> >    P   P   P
>>
>> A fundamental rule that I never break, is that preempter passes
>> for the rest of the auction (unless partner BlackwoodMorrows).
>>
>> > We got a low board. If partner had passed 4H, as I thought was our
>> > agreement, we would have gotten a middle.
>>
>> He should have. Every yell that he gives you for your 3S bid, you
>> can return to him for his 4S bid
>>
>> > I have always used the following table to guide sacrifice bidding.
>>
>> I use the same with another way of remembering it. The rule is
>> called "rule of 1-2-3":
>>
>>         unfavourable vul.: 1 trick
>>         equal vul.: 2 tricks
>>         favourable vul.: 3 trick
>
>In practice, it is more like 1.5 unfavorable, 3 equal, and 4 favorable
>it not a little more.

With both vulnerable, you would risk going down 3 (800) to prevent a
game worth 600-620?

[Chris xxxxx]

A few things worth noting:

(1) As others have said, though your 3S bid was perhaps a poorly
calculated risk, at least it *was* a calculated risk. In other words,
it doesn't work often enough to be profitable in the long run, to
raise to 3S with this hand, but it certainly *can* work well. On the
other hand, an uninvited reraise by the preempter is a complete no-no
because it just gives the opponents extra space. If opener wanted to
be in 4S opposite a single raise, she should have opened 3S. It's
pointless to change horses in mid-stream *after* you've given the
opponents a whole extra level of bidding. That's what I call "Heads
we lose; tails we tie" bridge.

(2) The traditional rules about how aggressively to preempt are a bit
outdated. The new way of thinking depends on position at the table
and form of scoring. At any form of scoring, and at any
vulnerability, preempts in second seat (RHO dealt and passed) should
be pure and descriptive...a good suit with not much outside; that's
because this is the case when the deal most likely belongs to your
side, so you want to describe your hand in case it does. Conversely,
in third seat (partner dealt and passed), one tends to preempt on a
much wider range of hands since partner is weak so you don't much care
to be descriptive, but you do need to worry about vulnerability, since
you are very likely to be set. When you are dealer, it's in between
those extremes (vulnerability still matters). In terms of
vulnerability, at IMPs, where potential to sacrifice matters more, you
worry about favorable, equal, or unfavorable. At matchpoints, where
jamming the bidding takes priority over sacrificing (i.e. partner
should elect to defend at matchpoints in many situations where he
would sacrifice at IMPs) and where -200 is usually a terrible score,
you basically worry about whether *you* are vulnerable, and not so
much about the opponents. In situations where your preempts are very
descriptive, down 2 opposite a yarborough is the usual rule. In
situations where preempts can be wide-ranging, especially not
vulnerable in an odd-numbered seat at matchpoints, you basically don't
worry much about counting tricks too precisely--being descriptive
isn't the point; you hope you will be on defense with the opponents in
the wrong contract.

(3) Since you are looking for something other than SAYC but not very
gadgety, I'd recommend whatever Mike Lawrence's latest book(s) on 2/1
is/are. (He also has a website http://www.michaelslawrence.com/ and
lots of tutorial software.) I read earlier editions of his books when
I was learning, and they really focused on understanding the
fundamentals of 2/1, with well-written explanations, whereas other
books I have read on 2/1 (Hardy, Robinson, Goldman) focus much more on
gadgets, and in some cases on gadgets that are no longer (or never
were) popular (or, in a few cases, are completely insensible).
Lawrence's stuff is all mainstream, and if he makes a suggestion that
isn't mainstream, then, unlike other authors, he will point out that
that's what he's doing. Reading Lawrence would also make it much
easier to follow discussions in, say, the ACBL Bulletin. The other
book I'd recommend, if you are interested in learning more about
preempts, is Robson and Segal's _Partnership Bidding at Bridge_. It
does have some gadgets, but you can skip them; the underlying
philosophy of what your goals should be in various kinds of auctions
is the point. After reading the first chapter, you can probably skip
to the chapter on preempts if that's what interests you at the moment.

Christopher Monsour

[Player]

Jennifer, I sometimes played with a very fine player who used this
ploy - to raise 2S to 3S with a singleton. The object was not to
increase the level of the pre empt, but rather to cause each of the
opponents to believe that their partner is short in the suit. Of
course this ploy carries risks....
HOWEVER, your partner had ABSOLUTELY no right to raise 3S to 4. You
know more about the hand than she does. Your partner made a typical
beginner's bid with 4S. If anyone deserves to be yelled at, she does.
Ron

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT), blackshoe <blac...@mac.com>
wrote:

I have it on order, thanks.

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

Bill Root explained very eloquently that the purpose of a preempt was to "give opponents a chance to bid too much, bid too little, or play in the wrong strain".

Jacking the preempt here might have been a good psychic bid, but Opener's 4S rebid is nonsensical. I certainly would pass (and would probably have shined up the PASS card well in advance of my turn) with your hand (but I play with partners who occasionally have an honor in their 5-card suit for a weak 2 opener).

Expecting a 2-level preempter to be able to take 6 tricks means that Opener must have roughly
1) a solid 6-card suit or
2) a broken 6-card suit with an outside ace or
3) a solid 5-card suit with an outside ace.
Almost everyone would open all of these hands constructively (at the 1-level). I may be the Crown-Prince of Malcinqatutia and a Professor at Priempjoasov University and engaged to Princess Mebisihavananer, but I don't think that I will get a lot of disagreement about the belief that attributing 6 expected playing tricks to a weak 2 bid is attributing quite a lot.

[Jennifer Murphy]

Does your royal lineage lead you to attribute 7 tricks to a 3-level
preempter (equal vulnerability) or 8 to a 4-level preempter (also equal
vulnerability)?

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

My point is that most of my partners won't have anything even roughly resembling 6 expected playing tricks for a weak 2 opener. They likely won't quite even have that, if they open at the 1-level.

I know that she would be classified as a light preempter, but my betrothed's weak 2s generally get me immediately to start calculating whether we should sacrifice, double, or just try to defend well against opponents' LIKELY SLAM. Every once in a while, I actually have a decent hand (about half of the high card strength in the deck will usually do it) opposite one of her preempts and need to make sure we aren't missing anything, but that doesn't happen very often!

I believe that, one time, she had a small diamond mixed in with her four bad hearts and opponents missed an easy 6H after (2H[freq bad 5])-2NT....

As I said earlier, raising a weak 2 with a singleton may work out for you, but people who open weak 2s should only bid again when forced (or to remove what looks like a disasterous double of opponents). I don't LIKE your 3S bid, but it might work as a tactic. I'd never dare to do it with any of my partners because I don't relish watching my partner play in 5-1 fits at the 3-level. Partner's 4S rebid deserves to go for -1700. -300 is extremely lucky.

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 02:21:38 -0700 (PDT), Michael Angelo Ravera
<mara...@prodigy.net> wrote:

... snip ...

>> >> Question #2: Was I correct is imputing 6 tricks to partner's 2S open? We
>> >> play that preempts at the 3 and 4 level guarantee the number of tricks
>> >> indicated in the table above. But we have had some disagreements as to
>> >> whether this applies to weak 2 openings.
>> >>
>> >> In light of comments here, I now see that game for EW was less likely
>> >> than I thought. So I need to be more careful about attributing to them a
>> >> game.
>> >
>> >Bill Root explained very eloquently that the purpose of a preempt was to "give opponents a chance to bid too much, bid too little, or play in the wrong strain".
>> >
>> >Jacking the preempt here might have been a good psychic bid, but Opener's 4S rebid is nonsensical. I certainly would pass (and would probably have shined up the PASS card well in advance of my turn) with your hand (but I play with partners who occasionally have an honor in their 5-card suit for a weak 2 opener).
>> >
>> >Expecting a 2-level preempter to be able to take 6 tricks means that Opener must have roughly
>> >1) a solid 6-card suit or
>> >2) a broken 6-card suit with an outside ace or
>> >3) a solid 5-card suit with an outside ace.
>> >Almost everyone would open all of these hands constructively (at the 1-level). I may be the Crown-Prince of Malcinqatutia and a Professor at Priempjoasov University and engaged to Princess Mebisihavananer, but I don't think that I will get a lot of disagreement about the belief that attributing 6 expected playing tricks to a weak 2 bid is attributing quite a lot.
>>
>> Does your royal lineage lead you to attribute 7 tricks to a 3-level
>> preempter (equal vulnerability) or 8 to a 4-level preempter (also equal
>> vulnerability)?
>
>My point is that most of my partners won't have anything even roughly resembling 6 expected playing tricks for a weak 2 opener. They likely won't quite even have that, if they open at the 1-level.
>
>I know that she would be classified as a light preempter, but my betrothed's weak 2s generally get me immediately to start calculating whether we should sacrifice, double, or just try to defend well against opponents' LIKELY SLAM. Every once in a while, I actually have a decent hand (about half of the high card strength in the deck will usually do it) opposite one of her preempts and need to make sure we aren't missing anything, but that doesn't happen very often!
>
>I believe that, one time, she had a small diamond mixed in with her four bad hearts and opponents missed an easy 6H after (2H[freq bad 5])-2NT....
>
>As I said earlier, raising a weak 2 with a singleton may work out for you, but people who open weak 2s should only bid again when forced (or to remove what looks like a disasterous double of opponents). I don't LIKE your 3S bid, but it might work as a tactic. I'd never dare to do it with any of my partners because I don't relish watching my partner play in 5-1 fits at the 3-level. Partner's 4S rebid deserves to go for -1700. -300 is extremely lucky.

I understood your point that a 2S opener does not guarantee or even
suggest 6 tricks (equal vulnerability). I was applying the 1-2-3 rule
for assessing likely penalties for 3- and 4-level preempts. My question
was do you agree with that table for those bids?

I also understand your point, now that I have been enlightened by the
group here, and will not be raising any weak two bids without at least
an 8-card fit. However, I will insist that my partner have a 6-card suit
for all weak two openers.

[Adam Beneschan]

I tend to use the Rule of 13 at favorable. Three guesses as to what that means. :)

-- Adam
>
> Co Wiersma

[derek]

On May 3, 12:42 am, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012 19:53:40 -0700 (PDT), Eric Leong
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <ewleong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 2, 7:14 pm, Player <ron...@msn.com> wrote:

> >> On May 3, 5:21 am, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> > South dealer, all vulnerable, matchpoint scoring.
>
> >> > As N, I hold:
>
> >> >   S x
> >> >   H Axxx
> >> >   D Jxxx
> >> >   C xxxx
>
> >> >     S   W   N   E
> >> >     2S Dbl  ?
>
> >> > I got yelled at for my bid. Before I fess up, I'd like to know what I
> >> > should have done.
>
> >> > We all play SAYC more or less.  I took the S bid to mean down 2 at
> >> > spades.
>

> >> This is an obvious pass.
> >>  No Eric does not think 2S will make; he is xx in the hope of
> >> frightening the opponents into bidding. Ploys like this sometimes work
> >> against very weak players.
>
> >Have you ever seen intermediate players or better play SAYC when you
> >didn't have to?
>
> Then we must be in that category because we rarely play it correctly.
> Does that count?

>
> If not SAYC, what do you recommend for intermediate players?

I don't know _anybody_ who plays SAYC except online, and even then
they usually really mean "Standard American" (which isn't very
standard) and not SAYC (which is _highly_ standardized).

[derek]

On May 3, 2:34 am, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:

> I came to the same conclusion (that EW had a vulnerable game somewhere)
> but chose a different tactic, which was misunderstood with an unpleasant
> result.

Your choices are:
Pass
XX
Raise
New suit

A raise promises more trumps - and your LHO will know when you're
lying, because he's sitting with too many trumps.
XX & a new suit promise more strength - you can't afford to risk 2SXX,
as it stands a great chance of going off more than the value of the
slam they might conceivably have - and you really want to be forcing
your partner to bid 3S when he has nothing in the suit you choose.

So Pass is the only thing with a chance of working.

[derek]

On May 3, 11:02 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> Jennifer Murphy wrote

>
> >On Wed, 2 May 2012 19:53:40 -0700 (PDT), Eric Leong

> >>Have you ever seen intermediate players or better play SAYC when you
> >>didn't have to?
> >Then we must be in that category because we rarely play it correctly.
> >Does that count?
>
> >If not SAYC, what do you recommend for intermediate players?
>

>    Acol?

LOL. It's quite effective when played in the ACBL

[derek]

On May 2, 11:53 pm, Eric Leong <ewleong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 7:14 pm, Player <ron...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 5:21 am, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > South dealer, all vulnerable, matchpoint scoring.
>
> > > As N, I hold:
>
> > >   S x
> > >   H Axxx
> > >   D Jxxx
> > >   C xxxx
>
> > >     S   W   N   E
> > >     2S Dbl  ?
>
> > > I got yelled at for my bid. Before I fess up, I'd like to know what I
> > > should have done.
>
> > > We all play SAYC more or less.  I took the S bid to mean down 2 at
> > > spades.
>
> > This is an obvious pass.
> >  No Eric does not think 2S will make; he is xx in the hope of
> > frightening the opponents into bidding. Ploys like this sometimes work
> > against very weak players.
>

> Have you ever seen intermediate players or better play SAYC when you
> didn't have to?

Fine. But I haven't seen better-than-intermediate players fail to
takeout when expected to takeout, either - except when they know
they're setting 2SX for more than they're likely to make. If you
redouble, LHO passes, and then your only remote chance of success is
to end up playing 3m and going down for less than 2SX, because RHO
will pass for sure. So 3m comes back to LHO and he gets to choose once
again whether to bid game - with better knowledge of your exact
distribution - or penalize 3m.

[derek]

Yeah, you'll probably be a long time waiting for this hand to come up
- but I like 4S better than 3S, and no other choices at all.

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:12:08 -0700 (PDT), derek <de...@pointerstop.ca>
wrote:

... snip ...

>> If not SAYC, what do you recommend for intermediate players?
>
>I don't know _anybody_ who plays SAYC except online, and even then
>they usually really mean "Standard American" (which isn't very
>standard) and not SAYC (which is _highly_ standardized).

Yes, I said SAYC when I really meant Standard American. I thought they
were more or less the same, but a quick check shows that they are only
similar. And, yes, our SA is anything but standard or even consistent.
;-) Thanks for clarifying.

[Paul Hightower]

"Jennifer Murphy" <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote in message
news:uec3q79qqd75d7poj...@4ax.com...

> South dealer, all vulnerable, matchpoint scoring.
>
> As N, I hold:
>
> S x
> H Axxx
> D Jxxx
> C xxxx
>
> S W N E
> 2S Dbl ?
>
> I got yelled at for my bid. Before I fess up, I'd like to know what I
> should have done.
>
> We all play SAYC more or less. I took the S bid to mean down 2 at
> spades.

Looks like there was a good discussion here and you found some useful
information. My 2 cents is that when partner opens a weak two, I picture 6
cards headed by 2 of the top 3 honors, plus possibly a side card (or the
third top honor.) Vulnerable, I more or less assume the ten of trumps as
well. So at matchpoints I'm going to figure four trump tricks most of the
time opposit my singleton; at a team game I'd be more pessimistic. That plus
my Ace is five tricks; down 4 doubled is -1100, and that singleton also
suggests we'll get at least one trick on defense from partner's suit, so
they aren't likely to make slam. If partner has that side card and/or they
don't have a fit, they may not have game!

One more principle I believe in is: don't count a defensive trick when
contemplating an overbid (sacrifice or the equivalent.) As mentioned, your
Ace may be enough to stop their game if partner can cash spade winners
and/or give you a ruff. Overbid based on pure offensive tricks. length in
partner's suit has the efect of adding offensive tricks AND reducing the
defensive value of partner's high cards in that suit.

[Will in New Haven]

One thing no one has mentioned is the law of total tricks. You can
look it up but one of the benefits of the concept, and it is far from
an iron-clad law, is that non-fit preempting and sactificing become
less attractive.

Many people criticize the law and often correctly but one of the
themes of that criticism is that the law sometimes gets a pair into
trouble when the have a fit. To the contrary, an understanding of the
factors that make up the law leads to bidding _less_ aggressively in
many competitive situations. Yours was an extreme example.

--
Will in New Haven

[Lorne]

"Jennifer Murphy" wrote in message
news:cn65q796iguhjvpoo...@4ax.com...

The complete auction was:

S W N E

2S Dbl 3S 4H
4S P P Dbl
P P P

We went down one for -200. We should have gone down two, but partner
played the hand very well and the defense make a mistake.

..................

Well even though we all think you should have passed your partner had no
right to bid 4S. He has no idea why you bid 3S - maybe you were hoping they
would bid 4H so you could double. Maybe you hoped you would get doubled in
3S knowing that 4S was too expensive.

Some play double by somebody who has had his pre-empt raised as 'I have an
unusual pre-empt and now I know you have some support I can guarantee it is
a good sacrifice - if you can beat the contract then pass but otherwise bid
on'. This agreement avoids the problem as whenever you want to bid again
after pre-empting you can double and let the hand that knows how good the
oppo contract is make the decision.

[Derek Turner]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 09:16:58 -0700, Jennifer Murphy wrote:

> Thanks, everyone, for the very informative discussion. It looks like the
> group is unanimous that I should have passed, which will bring my
> partner no end of satisfaction (and me one or two "I told you so."'s).
> ;-)
>
> This hand highlighted a partnership misunderstanding. My bid was 3S. It
> was my intention to raise the preempt to deny them bidding space. I
> reasoned that partner had 6 tricks in spades. Down 2 doubled would be a
> good trade against a vulnerable game by EW, which I considered likely. I
> had one quick trick, so I figured that we would be in exactly the same
> situation at 3S with my AH as in 2S without it.
>

> The complete auction was:
>
> S W N E 2S Dbl 3S 4H 4S P P Dbl P P P

I have to say that I like your reasoning and that I think that the
'fault', if fault there be, lies with your partner. In all my
partnerships we play 'I've told my story' after a pre-empt. Unless I have
an agreement to use 2NT conventionally (Precision) as a game/slam-going
'how good is the trump suit?' enquiry the PRE-EMPTER MUST ALWAYS PASS.
Having 'told his/her story with a single bid' it behoves pre-empter to
shut up.

Derek
(Playing Acol and Precision in EBU-land)

[Derek Turner]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 09:41:39 -0700, Will in New Haven wrote:

> KQTXXX XX XX KQX. That is an obvious weak two. Opposite an imaginary
> normal dummy, it may be worth six tricks, possibly seven. Certainly
> anyone on this ng would open 2S.

Not I - too much strength outside the spades. I open a (shaded) 1S
promising 11 HCP and a five card suit. OK I've only got ten-and-a-half HCP
but I have six spades. Any fellow-heretics on this one?

[Chris xxxxx]

I'd definitely open this 2S in 3rd or 4th. (OK, in 3rd favorable, 3S
would be tempting, but only if playing against expert opponents.)

In 1st or 2nd, it would depend: If playing a light opening system I'd
open 1S since I'd probably have "3-9" marked on my card as my weak two
range. If playing 2NT response as a LTC ask, I'd have to open 1S,
since "7 losers" would be the best response to the ask. If playing
2NT as Ogust, I'd be tempted to open 1S, since I can show a good hand
but not the club feature. If playing 2NT as a feature ask, I'd open
2S. Note that I'd be likelier to open 2S in positions where partner
could count on me for a sound weak two (second seat any vul, dealer
vul at matchpoints, dealer unfavorable at IMPs). I'd also be likelier
to be playing feature ask in those positions.

The one thing I would NOT do is pass. The idea that there can be a
hand with a good six-card major that is too weak for a one-bid and too
strong for a weak-two is, well, a poor idea.

Christopher Monsour

[Paul Hightower]

"Derek Turner" <frd...@cesmail.net> wrote in message
news:a0kck1...@mid.individual.net...

Not me -- I deduct one for no Ace and I don't open nine counts outside of
AJ10xxx Axxxxx or the like. And how do you get 10.5? Adding half a point for
your one-per-average-hand ten? This looks like a decent 9.0 with good shape
to me -- well within the range for 2S, under any vulnerability or scoring
conditions.

I somtimes play with partners who bid like you -- and get terrible results
when I double or overbid or fail to sacrifice (thinking partner's opening
bid or takeout double suggested some defense.)

[Lorne]

"Jennifer Murphy" wrote in message
news:cn65q796iguhjvpoo...@4ax.com...

Question #2: Was I correct is imputing 6 tricks to partner's 2S open? We
play that preempts at the 3 and 4 level guarantee the number of tricks
indicated in the table above. But we have had some disagreements as to
whether this applies to weak 2 openings.

...............

No - there is a much better way of evaluating how high to bid know as the
law of total tricks. Basically it says that if you are raising for
pre-emptive reasons the correct level to bid to is the level of your trump
fit. Hence with 8 trumps bid to the 2 level, 9 trumps to the 3 level, 10
trumps to the 4 level. This is based on statistical evidence and described
in some detail in a book called 'to bid or not to bid' which is widely
regarded as a major step forward in bidding theory.

The statistical evidence is that the total number of tricks that can be made
by both sides in their best fit is often equal to the sum of their trump
fits. So if both sides have 8 card trumps fits there are 16 trumps and
either side can make 8 tricks or one 7 and the other 9 or 6 + 10 etc.
Partly this is because if there is (for example) a finesse that works for
you it fails for the oppo but if you move the King it then fails for you and
works for them. It is not perfect (one side may not care if they have a
singleton in the suit) but it works often enough to be worth using.

And you can see how it works in my example of 8 trumps and you bid 2S over
2H. If you go 1 off they can often make +140, if you go 2 off they can
often make game, if they were going off you will often make. If they bid 3H
however they risk going 2 off when you had no game on and when they make you
were about to fail so the upside is much smaller and the risk greater.

If you apply this to your decision you expect 7 trumps and the oppo are
unlikely to have more than 8 hearts so you should pass since whenever they
make 4H the penalty from 3S is likely be too high.

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 12:34:05 +0100, "Lorne" <lorne_a...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Why does N total trumps = N tricks? Is there some logic or did someone
just do a statistical calculation?

I can construct hands where 8 trumps will be worth anywhere from 0-8
tricks. The 0-trick case is a 4-4 fit for us but with one opponent
having AKQJT. The 8-trick case is one of us having AKQJT987. Both are
extreme cases that will never occur, but they illustrate the range.

And what about outside strength?

[Co Wiersma]

Op 6-5-2012 17:12, Jennifer Murphy schreef:

> hy does N total trumps = N tricks? Is there some logic or did someone
> just do a statistical calculation?

I dont think there is logic in it
But it works good enough if you adjust carefully

For instance, if you and your partner both have the same shape : for
example a 5-3-3-2 shape
there is surprising no ruffing value and it could be wise to bid lower
then The Law would advice

>
> I can construct hands where 8 trumps will be worth anywhere from 0-8
> tricks. The 0-trick case is a 4-4 fit for us but with one opponent
> having AKQJT. The 8-trick case is one of us having AKQJT987. Both are
> extreme cases that will never occur, but they illustrate the range.
>

yes its nowhere close to an absolute truth

> And what about outside strength?

Outside strength is included in the equation


Co Wiersma

[Jennifer Murphy]

Is the "equation" more than just "#tricks = #trumps"?

[blackshoe]

On Sunday, May 6, 2012 11:12:50 AM UTC-4, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> Why does N total trumps = N tricks? Is there some logic or did someone
> just do a statistical calculation?
>
> I can construct hands where 8 trumps will be worth anywhere from 0-8
> tricks. The 0-trick case is a 4-4 fit for us but with one opponent
> having AKQJT. The 8-trick case is one of us having AKQJT987. Both are
> extreme cases that will never occur, but they illustrate the range.
>
> And what about outside strength?

The LoTT is "the number of total tricks in a hand is approximately equal to the total number of trumps held by both sides, each in its respective suit". It applies in competitive auctions where the points are roughly equally divided between the two sides. It does not apply when there are freakish hands, like your eight trick case. Outside strength is already built in to it. Much has been written about the LoTT, and most of it, particularly Larry Cohen's two books, and Mike Lawrence and Anders Wirgen's "I Fought the Law", are worth reading. Jean-Rene Vernes' original Bridge World article is at http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=article_sampler&f=samltt.html

[Stu Goodgold]

The 'law' states that # tricks for N/S + # tricks for E/W = # cards in N/S's largest fit + # cards in E/W's largest fit.

Note that this doesn't predict how many tricks either side alone will take, just the total avaiable if either sides declares. For that reason the high card pts held by either side don't figure in the calculation.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[Will in New Haven]

On May 5, 6:10 am, Derek Turner <frde...@cesmail.net> wrote:

I might open it a one-bid but, for purposes of this discussion, it is
a very sound weak two that she might expect from her partner. Make the
hand any weaker and you simply make her expectation of six tricks less
reasonable.

[derek]

Hardly heresy. It pretty much depends on the day I'm having whether
I'd open that 1S or 2S, though I think I'd more often open 2S.

[Will in New Haven]

On May 6, 1:52 pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:

The equation includes how many tricks _each_ side is likely to make
and is only important in competitive situations. With your 1444 hand,
the total number of trumps is either probably fifteen or fourteen. You
have a seven-card fit and they have either a seven-card fit or an
eight-card fit. Assuming fifteen trumps, you figure to make five
tricks if they can make ten and vice-versa.

Even though the equation is far from 100% accurate, it is a pretty
good guideline in this situation. You do not want to buy the hand in a
doubled Spade contract. If you figure they will go on and bid over 3S,
it is an interesting choice and I have done similar. However, you
don't figure to do well there.

[Jennifer Murphy]

I did a little reading on the "law". It does say that it is an
"average", so it ought to be called the "AoTT". ;-)

One problem I have with pure statistical constructs is that they can be
sterile. The the average (mean) is interesting, but can be misleading. I
would also want to know the variance. I once interviewed for a job in
North Dakota. When I asked about the climate, the recruiter said, "We
average a perfect 72 degrees year round. It's 120 in the summer and -20
in the winter. On average we are very comfortable.".

[Co Wiersma]

Op 6-5-2012 20:27, Stu Goodgold schreef:

>>>> > >> And what about outside strength?
>>> > >
>>> > >Outside strength is included in the equation
>> >
>> > Is the "equation" more than just "#tricks = #trumps"?
> The 'law' states that # tricks for N/S + # tricks for E/W = # cards in N/S's largest fit + # cards in E/W's largest fit.
>
> Note that this doesn't predict how many tricks either side alone will take, just the total avaiable if either sides declares. For that reason the high card pts held by either side don't figure in the calculation.

There are some extra notes like : if you have a double fit , there are
often more tricks

And I may add
the outcome of The Law is no more then:
with a 8card fit; push them to the 3 level
and with a huge fit; push them to the 5 level

So in fact there is no real reason to bother with The Law itself

Co Wiersma

[Adam Lea]

There are ways of predicting when you will take more or less tricks than
the law suggests. Double fit hands tend to generate more tricks, and
hands with soft tricks (QJx or similar) in the opponents suit tend to
take fewer tricks. Thus the deviation from the law is a function of how
well the two hands fit. In your climate analogy that would be like
noting the weather is cooler than the annual climatology when it is
winter and vice versa.

[blackshoe]

On Sunday, May 6, 2012 3:04:46 PM UTC-4, Jennifer Murphy wrote:

> One problem I have with pure statistical constructs is that they can be
> sterile. The the average (mean) is interesting, but can be misleading. I
> would also want to know the variance.

I don't know if Vernes did a mathematical analysis. He was apparently a game designer, and at 95 has just published a new book (in French) on bridge. His book on the LoTT (Bridge Moderne de la defense) was published in French in the 1960s. AFAIK it was never translated into English.

"I Fought the Law" talks a lot about when the LoTT doesn't work, but again, I don't think it includes a mathematical analysis of the concept.

[Andrew B]

On 06/05/2012 20:04, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> I once interviewed for a job in
> North Dakota. When I asked about the climate, the recruiter said, "We
> average a perfect 72 degrees year round. It's 120 in the summer and -20
> in the winter. On average we are very comfortable.".

I guess that more or less works if they have 8 months of summer and 4 of
winter...