Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 33 34 35 36
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I said the last person to insta bid in a high level auction against me had the hand or the equivalent that you say is ruled out - a balancedish minimum.

Thinking back I can think of several other situations where the insta bidder had nothing like the perfect cards you are imaging we know from the insta bid.

I don't bid 6 because I know partner has heart shortage from the insta bid. That is what I expect from a properly considered 5 bid. I bid 6 because partner contracted for 11 tricks opposite what could have been a worthless hand. Of course partner probably wasn't hoping for a worthless hand. I have two bullets and the queen of trumps. These are gold on this bidding whatever the tempo.

Seriously I am more worried about missing 7 than not bidding 6. Kx - KQx AKJxxxxx could easily be a hand that partner could hold and we have good play for six opposite some hands with less than that.

The heart of the problem though is that saying that a fast 5 suggests heart shortage is not a demonstration of that contention.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are reasons to not take the finesse. Those reasons might depend on the rest of the hand. For example, there might not be convenient entries or their might be a danger of an adverse ruff.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Running the queen is also the best play for the maximum number of tricks.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You might get there on the Q lead but on a neutral trump lead, as described, I can't see any reason to play north rather than south for the A and once you play north for the A you still need all of the other significant spades with south. That seems like pipe dream stuff to me.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the trump lead variation, in practice you wouldn't play the K (without some significant other information). The transferring of the menace requires one hand to hold the QJT9 and north to hold the A but without that manoeuvre the squeeze might be operating with the correct hand holding just the A. So you have reduced a 50% chance in spades (with the other probabilities for the other requirements) to something less than 1/32.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you are partially mistaken.

The law is that the UI must demonstrably suggests one call over another.

Now we have to know the method and style of the player concerned. Your example is not a 5 bid for me. I have four plus losers and no real reason to expect partner to cover more than two of them and 3NT could easily be correct. It might depend on methods but I would bid 4 and expect partner to raise with two bullets (or the equivalent).

Yes I have seen crazy bids. I have seen insta crazy bids. The last one in my memory was an opponent who vulnerable versus not made an insta 4 raise with a balanced seven count. She was basically offering me 500 or more on a partscore hand. But I was conned and bid one more and went off.

We seriously have deficient data to know what these insta bids mean:

1. In general

2. For any particular partnership.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike Ma: What hand do you imagine that partner could have with two quick heart losers that would bid 5?
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. Your work is very interesting. I think there is at least one other hand with one player missing.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there a reason Garozzo's partner is not named on page nine?
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I expect my partner to double 3NT in search of 3NT almost always with two or more hearts and no stopper.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or more or less right to double.

So far I can't think of a reason.
April 15
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He was lucky there was not a couple more rounds of bidding he might have found another way to show the same hand later.
April 14
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin because there are hands where you would bid 5 over 4 but not 4 over 3 does not mean that it is not your fault when you 5 and it is wrong.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice. Impressive sample sizes.

What software does this run with? Deal?

I forgot to mention that my IMPs were based on vulnerable. I should rewrite my scripts so it does vul and not vul at the same time. Actually since I use it for competitive bidding I might need four conditions but not for this problem.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its possible you agree on 100% but disagree on simple and easy.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff Miller has done extensive single dummy simulations using GIB that showed that 3NT was best at MPs with a wide range of hands.

Personally I think the question being asked is the wrong one. I think we should be asking when do you prefer 3NT or 4M with these shapes?
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is my code:


hcp(north)==hcpS and hcp(south)==hcpN and
shape(north, any 5332) and spades(north)==5 and
shape(south, any 4333) and spades(south)==3

with hcpS and hcpN defined, for example, as follows:


hcpS = 15
hcpN = 12

Of course the results are double dummy with whatever disclaimers that implies.

Here is a summary of the numbers:

(Edit: IMPs are based on being vulnerable)

11 hcp 5332 v 13 hcp 4333

4M made 296/1000
3NT made 451/1000

On average 3NT won 1.894 IMPs per board at IMPs.

On average 3NT scored 55.65% at MPs

12 hcp 5332 v 13 hcp 4333

4M made 476/1000
3NT made 635/1000

On average 3NT won 2.056 IMPs per board at IMPs.

On average 3NT scored 57.95% at MPs

13 hcp 5332 v 13 hcp 4333

4M made 670/1000
3NT made 799/1000

On average 3NT won 1.531 IMPs per board at IMPs.

On average 3NT scored 59.6% at MPs

14 hcp 5332 v 13 hcp 4333

4M made 844/1000
3NT made 888/1000

On average 3NT won 0.545 IMPs per board at IMPs.

On average 3NT scored 62.35% at MPs

11 hcp 5332 v 14 hcp 4333

4M made 476/1000
3NT made 660/1000

On average 3NT won 2.311 IMPs per board at IMPs.

On average 3NT scored 59.35% at MPs

12 hcp 5332 v 14 hcp 4333

4M made 651/1000
3NT made 803/1000

On average 3NT won 1.918 IMPs per board at IMPs.

On average 3NT scored 61.05% at MPs

13 hcp 5332 v 14 hcp 4333

4M made 847/1000
3NT made 926/1000

On average 3NT won 0.971 IMPs per board at IMPs.

On average 3NT scored 65.05% at MPs

14 hcp 5332 v 14 hcp 4333

4M made 925/1000
3NT made 958/1000

On average 3NT won 0.401 IMPs per board at IMPs.

On average 3NT scored 68.45% at MPs

11 hcp 5332 v 15 hcp 4333

4M made 656/1000
3NT made 775/1000

On average 3NT won 1.407 IMPs per board at IMPs.

On average 3NT scored 57.25% at MPs

12 hcp 5332 v 15 hcp 4333

4M made 847/1000
3NT made 901/1000

On average 3NT won 0.646 IMPs per board at IMPs.

On average 3NT scored 60.15% at MPs

13 hcp 5332 v 15 hcp 4333

4M made 925/1000
3NT made 947/1000

On average 3NT won 0.361 IMPs per board at IMPs.

On average 3NT scored 71.05% at MPs

14 hcp 5332 v 15 hcp 4333

4M made 975/1000
3NT made 973/1000

On average 3NT won 0.061 IMPs per board at IMPs.

On average 3NT scored 76.75% at MPs
April 13
Wayne Burrows edited this comment April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Haughie and Turner or Crombie and Reid - both pairs used HUMs but one of them was hummier than the other. Blackstock and Newell”

Thanks David.

Haughie lives and plays in Australia these days. Turner and Crombie don't play. Newell plays with Reid. Blackstock only plays occasionally but he will be our NPC for the Mixed Team in the APBF in Singapore.

Blackstock certainly did play ferts but I am not sure if he did so with Newell in International events. They would have been playing symmetric relay and possibly some sort of submarine (transfer openings.)
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my early days playing relay we had no cap on when the relays finished and any bid was to play. In practice, (unfortunately not at the table) the ultimate hand came up where the bidding was at 7 and 7 was a relay and 7 would deny a specific side jack and that would be the best contract as the suit could be ruffed out but when the key jack was held we had 13 top tricks in 7NT.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The best method after 7NT XX is to try and make thirteen tricks.
April 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 33 34 35 36
.

Bottom Home Top