Another Counter-Intuitive Bidding Analysis

[P***@yahoo.com]

I posted the following hand on a Bridge Winners poll after a discussion with my partner at the club, who didn't like my bidding at all:

Matchpoint Pairs, Favorable Vulnerability

S: -
H: 872
D: Q9652
C: QJ654

My partner opened 1H, and RHO doubled. My comments, with the poll on Bridge Winners were:

Assume you play:

XX = Ten HCPs, and followed by a heart rebid can be interpreted as a limit raise with three hearts.
2H = Simple raise showing at least three hearts and weaker than a limit raise.
2N = Jordan, a limit raise showing four hearts.
3H = Weak support, protected by the Law of Total Tricks, it usually promises four hearts.

I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.

-----------------

I asked several pros at the club and most were adamant that I could not and should not bid 3H without a four card heart suit. However, there was one very good pro who, when showed the hand, said immediately that he would bid 3H preemptive.

The Bridge Winners response to the poll was that 37 people would not support 3H and 3 people would. One Grand Life Master (Jim Munday) responded to the poll, and he indicated that he would indeed bid 3H.

I thought this would be an interesting problem on which to do a computer assisted study, and I wasn't at all sure that 3H would be favored in the results.

So, this weekend, I did the study on 100 randomly generated hands, in which a GIB partner would open 1H and a GIB RHO would double. I forced the third bid to be 3H and compared the result to the normal GIB bid of 2H with the above hand. Since I thought that "Favorable Vulnerability" might be one reason to make the 3H bid, I changed the vulnerability to NV-vs-NV for the study.

Anyone can view the results through the following Google spreadsheet link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y-u28y36hVDS5gtktTzPzuL7xgD6hN2qb1d8eGGJc5Q/edit?usp=sharing

Since there is significant GIB bidding of all four hands in this competitive auction, the results are less reliable than studies that have more limited bidding. So, there can not be any compelling conclusion from the limited number (100) of hands.

However, the results of the study were interesting and suggest that the 3H bid is superior to the 2H bid.

A summary of observations:

Only 28 of the 100 boards had the same contract whether you'd bid 2H or 3H...so the bid made a significant difference. Of the remainder, only 3 of the boards had the same result.

The categories of results were:

Outcomes that favored 2H over 3H (26 hands):

(1) 3H pushes opponents into a makable 4S contract that they would otherwise not find = 5 hands out of 100.

(2) 3H pushes partner to sacrifice poorly to a 4H or 5H contract = 10 hands out of 100.

(3) 3H pushes partner to bid slam in hearts that doesn't make = 1 hand out of 100.

(4) 3H causes opponents not to double a makable heart game by us = 2 hands out of 100.

(5) 3H causes partner to double their makable spade contract = 3 hands out of 100.

(6) 3H causes us not to reach a makable 4H contract = 1 hand.

(7) 3H causes opponents to find a good 3S contract = 4 hand.

Outcomes that favored 3H over 2H (43 hands):

(A) 3H keeps opponents from bidding a makable 4S = 11 hands.

(B) 3H pushes partner to sacrifice well to a 4H or 5H contract = 12 hands.

(C) 3H pushes partner to a makable heart game or slam = 7 hands.

(D) 3H cause opponents to bid too high = 8 hands.

(E) 3H causes partner to double an unmakable spade contract = 2 hands.

(F) 3H causes opponents not to double an unmakable heart contract = 3 hands.

[p***@infi.net]

Post by P***@yahoo.com
Matchpoint Pairs, Favorable Vulnerability
S: -
H: 872
D: Q9652
C: QJ654
XX = Ten HCPs, and followed by a heart rebid can be interpreted as a limit raise with three hearts.
2H = Simple raise showing at least three hearts and weaker than a limit raise.
2N = Jordan, a limit raise showing four hearts.
3H = Weak support, protected by the Law of Total Tricks, it usually promises four hearts.
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.
-----------------
I asked several pros at the club and most were adamant that I could not and should not bid 3H without a four card heart suit. However, there was one very good pro who, when showed the hand, said immediately that he would bid 3H preemptive.
The Bridge Winners response to the poll was that 37 people would not support 3H and 3 people would. One Grand Life Master (Jim Munday) responded to the poll, and he indicated that he would indeed bid 3H.
I thought this would be an interesting problem on which to do a computer assisted study, and I wasn't at all sure that 3H would be favored in the results.
So, this weekend, I did the study on 100 randomly generated hands, in which a GIB partner would open 1H and a GIB RHO would double. I forced the third bid to be 3H and compared the result to the normal GIB bid of 2H with the above hand. Since I thought that "Favorable Vulnerability" might be one reason to make the 3H bid, I changed the vulnerability to NV-vs-NV for the study.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y-u28y36hVDS5gtktTzPzuL7xgD6hN2qb1d8eGGJc5Q/edit?usp=sharing
Since there is significant GIB bidding of all four hands in this competitive auction, the results are less reliable than studies that have more limited bidding. So, there can not be any compelling conclusion from the limited number (100) of hands.
However, the results of the study were interesting and suggest that the 3H bid is superior to the 2H bid.
Only 28 of the 100 boards had the same contract whether you'd bid 2H or 3H...so the bid made a significant difference. Of the remainder, only 3 of the boards had the same result.
(1) 3H pushes opponents into a makable 4S contract that they would otherwise not find = 5 hands out of 100.
(2) 3H pushes partner to sacrifice poorly to a 4H or 5H contract = 10 hands out of 100.
(3) 3H pushes partner to bid slam in hearts that doesn't make = 1 hand out of 100.
(4) 3H causes opponents not to double a makable heart game by us = 2 hands out of 100.
(5) 3H causes partner to double their makable spade contract = 3 hands out of 100.
(6) 3H causes us not to reach a makable 4H contract = 1 hand.
(7) 3H causes opponents to find a good 3S contract = 4 hand.
(A) 3H keeps opponents from bidding a makable 4S = 11 hands.
(B) 3H pushes partner to sacrifice well to a 4H or 5H contract = 12 hands.
(C) 3H pushes partner to a makable heart game or slam = 7 hands.
(D) 3H cause opponents to bid too high = 8 hands.
(E) 3H causes partner to double an unmakable spade contract = 2 hands.
(F) 3H causes opponents not to double an unmakable heart contract = 3 hands.

I can't recall seeing this sort of hand before; perhaps if it has come up, I routinely bid 2H and nothing memorable happened. A crucial consideration here and anywhere you deviate from expectations is what effect will this have on partner in the future? You can't evaluate such hands in isolation. But 3 trumps and a void on a weak hand defensively is rare enough that there may be little impact -- with some partners. Others may simply object in principle, If you said "I thought this was the best bid based on the Law of Total Tricks" and partner still objected, it would probably be wise to avoid similar deviations in the future with that partner.

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by P***@yahoo.com
Matchpoint Pairs, Favorable Vulnerability
S: -
H: 872
D: Q9652
C: QJ654
XX = Ten HCPs, and followed by a heart rebid can be interpreted as a limit raise with three hearts.
2H = Simple raise showing at least three hearts and weaker than a limit raise.
2N = Jordan, a limit raise showing four hearts.
3H = Weak support, protected by the Law of Total Tricks, it usually promises four hearts.
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.

I do not like 3H because it has too many flaws IMO to make it worthwhile
breaking the normal rule of pre-empting to the level of the fit.

Firstly the oppo maybe frozen out of spades when the suit is breaking
badly and you would like them to bid to the limit of their strength/fit
since it will often fail.

Secondly partner may misjudge how high to bid and get caught by the
missing heart and poor quality of the hearts you have.

Thirdly the minor suits also suggest it will be difficult for the oppo
to make many tricks so again I want them bidding.

[f***@googlemail.com]

Post by P***@yahoo.com
Matchpoint Pairs, Favorable Vulnerability
S: -
H: 872
D: Q9652
C: QJ654
XX = Ten HCPs, and followed by a heart rebid can be interpreted as a limit raise with three hearts.
2H = Simple raise showing at least three hearts and weaker than a limit raise.
2N = Jordan, a limit raise showing four hearts.
3H = Weak support, protected by the Law of Total Tricks, it usually promises four hearts.
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.
-----------------
I asked several pros at the club and most were adamant that I could not and should not bid 3H without a four card heart suit. However, there was one very good pro who, when showed the hand, said immediately that he would bid 3H preemptive.
The Bridge Winners response to the poll was that 37 people would not support 3H and 3 people would. One Grand Life Master (Jim Munday) responded to the poll, and he indicated that he would indeed bid 3H.
I thought this would be an interesting problem on which to do a computer assisted study, and I wasn't at all sure that 3H would be favored in the results.
So, this weekend, I did the study on 100 randomly generated hands, in which a GIB partner would open 1H and a GIB RHO would double. I forced the third bid to be 3H and compared the result to the normal GIB bid of 2H with the above hand. Since I thought that "Favorable Vulnerability" might be one reason to make the 3H bid, I changed the vulnerability to NV-vs-NV for the study.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y-u28y36hVDS5gtktTzPzuL7xgD6hN2qb1d8eGGJc5Q/edit?usp=sharing
Since there is significant GIB bidding of all four hands in this competitive auction, the results are less reliable than studies that have more limited bidding. So, there can not be any compelling conclusion from the limited number (100) of hands.
However, the results of the study were interesting and suggest that the 3H bid is superior to the 2H bid.

I had a quick look at a few of the hands and the main thing I learnt is that GIB has no idea how to bid in a competitive auction (OK, I knew that already).

A few examples before I got too far down the list.

1H x 2H ? and GIB with a 7312 including the SA bids 2S only.

1H x 3H P 4H and GIB with a 7411 hand too strong to overcall in spades passes out 4H

1H x 3H p 4H and GIB with a 6223 21-count doubles while the other GIB passes the double with a very weak hand and 4 spades

1H x 3H and a GIB with AQxxxx in spades passes.

Conclusion: if my opponents count their points rather than look at their hands than 3H may work better than 2H.

[P***@yahoo.com]

Post by f***@googlemail.com

Post by P***@yahoo.com
Matchpoint Pairs, Favorable Vulnerability
S: -
H: 872
D: Q9652
C: QJ654
XX = Ten HCPs, and followed by a heart rebid can be interpreted as a limit raise with three hearts.
2H = Simple raise showing at least three hearts and weaker than a limit raise.
2N = Jordan, a limit raise showing four hearts.
3H = Weak support, protected by the Law of Total Tricks, it usually promises four hearts.
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.
-----------------
I asked several pros at the club and most were adamant that I could not and should not bid 3H without a four card heart suit. However, there was one very good pro who, when showed the hand, said immediately that he would bid 3H preemptive.
The Bridge Winners response to the poll was that 37 people would not support 3H and 3 people would. One Grand Life Master (Jim Munday) responded to the poll, and he indicated that he would indeed bid 3H.
I thought this would be an interesting problem on which to do a computer assisted study, and I wasn't at all sure that 3H would be favored in the results.
So, this weekend, I did the study on 100 randomly generated hands, in which a GIB partner would open 1H and a GIB RHO would double. I forced the third bid to be 3H and compared the result to the normal GIB bid of 2H with the above hand. Since I thought that "Favorable Vulnerability" might be one reason to make the 3H bid, I changed the vulnerability to NV-vs-NV for the study.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y-u28y36hVDS5gtktTzPzuL7xgD6hN2qb1d8eGGJc5Q/edit?usp=sharing
Since there is significant GIB bidding of all four hands in this competitive auction, the results are less reliable than studies that have more limited bidding. So, there can not be any compelling conclusion from the limited number (100) of hands.
However, the results of the study were interesting and suggest that the 3H bid is superior to the 2H bid.

I had a quick look at a few of the hands and the main thing I learnt is that GIB has no idea how to bid in a competitive auction (OK, I knew that already).
A few examples before I got too far down the list.
1H x 2H ? and GIB with a 7312 including the SA bids 2S only.
1H x 3H P 4H and GIB with a 7411 hand too strong to overcall in spades passes out 4H
1H x 3H p 4H and GIB with a 6223 21-count doubles while the other GIB passes the double with a very weak hand and 4 spades
1H x 3H and a GIB with AQxxxx in spades passes.
Conclusion: if my opponents count their points rather than look at their hands than 3H may work better than 2H.

Yes, GIB bidding stinks, but it stinks in both directions and doesn't necessarily favor 2H or 3H. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better bidding program? Bidding should not be that hard to program...so why are computer programs so bad at it?!

[jogs]

Post by P***@yahoo.com
Yes, GIB bidding stinks, but it stinks in both directions and doesn't necessarily favor 2H or 3H. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better bidding program? Bidding should not be that hard to program...so why are computer programs so bad at it?!

I disagree. Bidding is harder to program than play. It is easy to define the meaning for each bid. Only it seems like over 50% of the hands don't fit the description of any of the bids. Then the program must choose among flawed options.

[[e-mail]]

Post by jogs

Post by P***@yahoo.com
Yes, GIB bidding stinks, but it stinks in both directions and doesn't necessarily favor 2H or 3H. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better bidding program? Bidding should not be that hard to program...so why are computer programs so bad at it?!

I disagree. Bidding is harder to program than play. It is easy to define the meaning for each bid. Only it seems like over 50% of the hands don't fit the description of any of the bids. Then the program must choose among flawed options.

Humans face the same problem frequently. Maybe not 50%. But only because the definitions of many human bids are very broad. Maybe too broad for a program to use.

Carl

[f***@googlemail.com]

Post by P***@yahoo.com
Yes, GIB bidding stinks, but it stinks in both directions and doesn't necessarily favor 2H or 3H. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better bidding program? Bidding should not be that hard to program...so why are computer programs so bad at it?!

It may not necessarily favour 2H or 3H but it means that the results are totally random and you cannot draw any conclusions from using GIB for your simulation on this (or I suspect other) competitive auction.

I just saw hand 100. 4th seat has AQJxxxx xx x xxx. If the auction starts 1H x 2H GIB bids 2S on this hand which ends the auction, while if it starts 1H x 3H GIB bids 4S and opener, with approximately zero defence, double. This is down as a 'gain' for raising 1H to 2H

[Dave Flower]

What you haven't allowed for in your analysis is the effect on partner next time a similar sequence occurs; they will have less confidence that you hold 4+ hearts, with probable detrimental results.

David Flower

Post by P***@yahoo.com
Matchpoint Pairs, Favorable Vulnerability
S: -
H: 872
D: Q9652
C: QJ654
XX = Ten HCPs, and followed by a heart rebid can be interpreted as a limit raise with three hearts.
2H = Simple raise showing at least three hearts and weaker than a limit raise.
2N = Jordan, a limit raise showing four hearts.
3H = Weak support, protected by the Law of Total Tricks, it usually promises four hearts.
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.
-----------------
I asked several pros at the club and most were adamant that I could not and should not bid 3H without a four card heart suit. However, there was one very good pro who, when showed the hand, said immediately that he would bid 3H preemptive.
The Bridge Winners response to the poll was that 37 people would not support 3H and 3 people would. One Grand Life Master (Jim Munday) responded to the poll, and he indicated that he would indeed bid 3H.
I thought this would be an interesting problem on which to do a computer assisted study, and I wasn't at all sure that 3H would be favored in the results.
So, this weekend, I did the study on 100 randomly generated hands, in which a GIB partner would open 1H and a GIB RHO would double. I forced the third bid to be 3H and compared the result to the normal GIB bid of 2H with the above hand. Since I thought that "Favorable Vulnerability" might be one reason to make the 3H bid, I changed the vulnerability to NV-vs-NV for the study.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y-u28y36hVDS5gtktTzPzuL7xgD6hN2qb1d8eGGJc5Q/edit?usp=sharing
Since there is significant GIB bidding of all four hands in this competitive auction, the results are less reliable than studies that have more limited bidding. So, there can not be any compelling conclusion from the limited number (100) of hands.
However, the results of the study were interesting and suggest that the 3H bid is superior to the 2H bid.
Only 28 of the 100 boards had the same contract whether you'd bid 2H or 3H...so the bid made a significant difference. Of the remainder, only 3 of the boards had the same result.
(1) 3H pushes opponents into a makable 4S contract that they would otherwise not find = 5 hands out of 100.
(2) 3H pushes partner to sacrifice poorly to a 4H or 5H contract = 10 hands out of 100.
(3) 3H pushes partner to bid slam in hearts that doesn't make = 1 hand out of 100.
(4) 3H causes opponents not to double a makable heart game by us = 2 hands out of 100.
(5) 3H causes partner to double their makable spade contract = 3 hands out of 100.
(6) 3H causes us not to reach a makable 4H contract = 1 hand.
(7) 3H causes opponents to find a good 3S contract = 4 hand.
(A) 3H keeps opponents from bidding a makable 4S = 11 hands.
(B) 3H pushes partner to sacrifice well to a 4H or 5H contract = 12 hands.
(C) 3H pushes partner to a makable heart game or slam = 7 hands.
(D) 3H cause opponents to bid too high = 8 hands.
(E) 3H causes partner to double an unmakable spade contract = 2 hands.
(F) 3H causes opponents not to double an unmakable heart contract = 3 hands.

[Player]

Post by P***@yahoo.com
Matchpoint Pairs, Favorable Vulnerability
S: -
H: 872
D: Q9652
C: QJ654
XX = Ten HCPs, and followed by a heart rebid can be interpreted as a limit raise with three hearts.
2H = Simple raise showing at least three hearts and weaker than a limit raise.
2N = Jordan, a limit raise showing four hearts.
3H = Weak support, protected by the Law of Total Tricks, it usually promises four hearts.
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.
-----------------
I asked several pros at the club and most were adamant that I could not and should not bid 3H without a four card heart suit. However, there was one very good pro who, when showed the hand, said immediately that he would bid 3H preemptive.
The Bridge Winners response to the poll was that 37 people would not support 3H and 3 people would. One Grand Life Master (Jim Munday) responded to the poll, and he indicated that he would indeed bid 3H.
I thought this would be an interesting problem on which to do a computer assisted study, and I wasn't at all sure that 3H would be favored in the results.
So, this weekend, I did the study on 100 randomly generated hands, in which a GIB partner would open 1H and a GIB RHO would double. I forced the third bid to be 3H and compared the result to the normal GIB bid of 2H with the above hand. Since I thought that "Favorable Vulnerability" might be one reason to make the 3H bid, I changed the vulnerability to NV-vs-NV for the study.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y-u28y36hVDS5gtktTzPzuL7xgD6hN2qb1d8eGGJc5Q/edit?usp=sharing
Since there is significant GIB bidding of all four hands in this competitive auction, the results are less reliable than studies that have more limited bidding. So, there can not be any compelling conclusion from the limited number (100) of hands.
However, the results of the study were interesting and suggest that the 3H bid is superior to the 2H bid.
Only 28 of the 100 boards had the same contract whether you'd bid 2H or 3H...so the bid made a significant difference. Of the remainder, only 3 of the boards had the same result.
(1) 3H pushes opponents into a makable 4S contract that they would otherwise not find = 5 hands out of 100.
(2) 3H pushes partner to sacrifice poorly to a 4H or 5H contract = 10 hands out of 100.
(3) 3H pushes partner to bid slam in hearts that doesn't make = 1 hand out of 100.
(4) 3H causes opponents not to double a makable heart game by us = 2 hands out of 100.
(5) 3H causes partner to double their makable spade contract = 3 hands out of 100.
(6) 3H causes us not to reach a makable 4H contract = 1 hand.
(7) 3H causes opponents to find a good 3S contract = 4 hand.
(A) 3H keeps opponents from bidding a makable 4S = 11 hands.
(B) 3H pushes partner to sacrifice well to a 4H or 5H contract = 12 hands.
(C) 3H pushes partner to a makable heart game or slam = 7 hands.
(D) 3H cause opponents to bid too high = 8 hands.
(E) 3H causes partner to double an unmakable spade contract = 2 hands.
(F) 3H causes opponents not to double an unmakable heart contract = 3 hands.

3H is a poor bid for a number of reasons. Pd expects 4; you have a pile of rubbish. Bid 2H and stop relying on tiresome stupid simulations like a bean counter.

[Co Wiersma]

Post by P***@yahoo.com
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.

I am not so sure as others that 3H is wrong.
3H can well work out ok

But my problem is that you count things that partner cannot know that
you know
So your partner will have no choice then to bid in the assumption that
you have 4 hearts
And also its possible that your 3H bid will reduce partners trust in
your bidding

Co Wiersma

[P***@yahoo.com]

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by P***@yahoo.com
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.

I am not so sure as others that 3H is wrong.
3H can well work out ok
But my problem is that you count things that partner cannot know that
you know
So your partner will have no choice then to bid in the assumption that
you have 4 hearts
And also its possible that your 3H bid will reduce partners trust in
your bidding
Co Wiersma

Yes, I agree with you -- While 3H was my intuition, it was really close and I'm not at all sure that it is better than the 2H bid. That's why I want to build a demonstration one way or another. If 3H is wrong, then I've learned something and my intuition improves. If not, that's of interest as well. If it's close...then that's probably the best answer of them all.

I'd point out that 3H can't be as terrible a bid as some might instinctively say, since grand life master Jim Munday (ranked 19th in the USA on the Power Rating list) agrees with 3H in the Bridge Winners poll.

More to come -- scrapping GIB bidding and introducing "better bidding" on all 100 hands will take some time.

[f***@googlemail.com]

Post by P***@yahoo.com

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by P***@yahoo.com
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.

I am not so sure as others that 3H is wrong.
3H can well work out ok
But my problem is that you count things that partner cannot know that
you know
So your partner will have no choice then to bid in the assumption that
you have 4 hearts
And also its possible that your 3H bid will reduce partners trust in
your bidding
Co Wiersma

Yes, I agree with you -- While 3H was my intuition, it was really close and I'm not at all sure that it is better than the 2H bid. That's why I want to build a demonstration one way or another. If 3H is wrong, then I've learned something and my intuition improves. If not, that's of interest as well. If it's close...then that's probably the best answer of them all.
I'd point out that 3H can't be as terrible a bid as some might instinctively say, since grand life master Jim Munday (ranked 19th in the USA on the Power Rating list) agrees with 3H in the Bridge Winners poll.
More to come -- scrapping GIB bidding and introducing "better bidding" on all 100 hands will take some time.

I think you are going about this in (slightly) the wrong way.

For the uncontested auction (your 1S-2C-2D-? problem) you are changing the results based on comments from people on rgb about the bidding. 'crowd-sourcing' the answer may be better than using GIB bidding, but the contributors to rgb are a wide range of standards who play different methods and have different styles.

If you are going to go through the 100 hands and look at the auctions, then do so based on your and your partner's methods and make an honest assessment of how your auction would go. It is quite possible that you will get better results by bidding 3NT over 2D but I will get better results in my regular partnership by bidding 2S (to be pedantic, in my regular partnership 2C and 2D are artificial but the principle is still correct). That doesn't make either of us wrong. (I have learnt that playing with GIB 3NT is a better bid than I originally thought. Luckily for me I never play with GIB.)

It's harder for competitive auctions, because we never know how other people are going to bid with a given hand. But I think the same principle applies: look at all four hands (not just you and partner's) and think about how the auction might go.

On this hand, the merits of 2H vs 3H depend a lot on the bidding judgement of the other 3 players at the table. 3H is a more random bid and will generate a more random result, which might be good or bad. It is a better bid if partner has poor bidding judgement (e.g. is GIB). It is a worse bid if LHO has poor bidding judgement (e.g. is GIB).

[P***@yahoo.com]

Post by f***@googlemail.com

Post by P***@yahoo.com

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by P***@yahoo.com
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.

I am not so sure as others that 3H is wrong.
3H can well work out ok
But my problem is that you count things that partner cannot know that
you know
So your partner will have no choice then to bid in the assumption that
you have 4 hearts
And also its possible that your 3H bid will reduce partners trust in
your bidding
Co Wiersma

Yes, I agree with you -- While 3H was my intuition, it was really close and I'm not at all sure that it is better than the 2H bid. That's why I want to build a demonstration one way or another. If 3H is wrong, then I've learned something and my intuition improves. If not, that's of interest as well. If it's close...then that's probably the best answer of them all.
I'd point out that 3H can't be as terrible a bid as some might instinctively say, since grand life master Jim Munday (ranked 19th in the USA on the Power Rating list) agrees with 3H in the Bridge Winners poll.
More to come -- scrapping GIB bidding and introducing "better bidding" on all 100 hands will take some time.

I think you are going about this in (slightly) the wrong way.
For the uncontested auction (your 1S-2C-2D-? problem) you are changing the results based on comments from people on rgb about the bidding. 'crowd-sourcing' the answer may be better than using GIB bidding, but the contributors to rgb are a wide range of standards who play different methods and have different styles.
If you are going to go through the 100 hands and look at the auctions, then do so based on your and your partner's methods and make an honest assessment of how your auction would go. It is quite possible that you will get better results by bidding 3NT over 2D but I will get better results in my regular partnership by bidding 2S (to be pedantic, in my regular partnership 2C and 2D are artificial but the principle is still correct). That doesn't make either of us wrong. (I have learnt that playing with GIB 3NT is a better bid than I originally thought. Luckily for me I never play with GIB.)
It's harder for competitive auctions, because we never know how other people are going to bid with a given hand. But I think the same principle applies: look at all four hands (not just you and partner's) and think about how the auction might go.
On this hand, the merits of 2H vs 3H depend a lot on the bidding judgement of the other 3 players at the table. 3H is a more random bid and will generate a more random result, which might be good or bad. It is a better bid if partner has poor bidding judgement (e.g. is GIB). It is a worse bid if LHO has poor bidding judgement (e.g. is GIB).

I totally agree with you, Frances...your advice has lots of merit. And that's what I'll do on the 2H -vs- 3H question. I took a personal look at the bidding of the 1S-2C-2D-? and there I feel that there should be corrections to the 1S-2C-2D-3N bids, where GIB doesn't bid well. But that would only change the result to be more favorable to 3N -vs- 2S, so I think it's just academic on that problem. I've convinced myself that 3N is right beyond a shadow of a doubt (in spite of the overwhelming views of the fallible human experts).

[rhm]

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by P***@yahoo.com
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.

I am not so sure as others that 3H is wrong.
3H can well work out ok
But my problem is that you count things that partner cannot know that
you know
So your partner will have no choice then to bid in the assumption that
you have 4 hearts
And also its possible that your 3H bid will reduce partners trust in
your bidding
Co Wiersma

I have a different view on this.
There are too many players, who know all the rules, but are incapable of any original creative idea.
Trust in Bridge comes from winning decisions not from following rules even when the circumstances are wrong.
Any bid you make can backfire. But I think 3H is more likely to be a winning decision than not.
I admit I can not prove that but neither can the bean counters prove, that the roof will fall in, because you are missing a trump.

Why am I optimistic?
The colors are right and the spade void screams for some action.
If I held white against red a spade void and 4 trumps and otherwise a similar hand I am much more likely to bid 4H than 3H.
If partner decides to increase the preempt and bids say 5H over 4S chances are that will be a good decision too.
Unless partner is himself a bean counter, he will not be disappointed by the dummy.
Let the bean counters raise to 2H

Bridge is not a game where rules get you very far. They are useful for beginners to understand the mechanics of the game.
Experts understand when rules should be broken.

[jogs]

Post by rhm
I have a different view on this.
There are too many players, who know all the rules, but are incapable of any original creative idea.
Trust in Bridge comes from winning decisions not from following rules even when the circumstances are wrong.
Any bid you make can backfire. But I think 3H is more likely to be a winning decision than not.
I admit I can not prove that but neither can the bean counters prove, that the roof will fall in, because you are missing a trump.
Why am I optimistic?
The colors are right and the spade void screams for some action.
If I held white against red a spade void and 4 trumps and otherwise a similar hand I am much more likely to bid 4H than 3H.
If partner decides to increase the preempt and bids say 5H over 4S chances are that will be a good decision too.
Unless partner is himself a bean counter, he will not be disappointed by the dummy.
Let the bean counters raise to 2H
Bridge is not a game where rules get you very far. They are useful for beginners to understand the mechanics of the game.
Experts understand when rules should be broken.

The problem is the term 'rules'. There are no rules. There are only guidelines.

[Player]

Rainer, this site's resident bean counter already bid three M. It appears that he forgets he has a partner and strongly likes playing with himself. You had better hope that opener has the trump ace because on a trump lead and continuation I wonder where you are going to stuff your M suit losers.

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by rhm

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by P***@yahoo.com
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.

I am not so sure as others that 3H is wrong.
3H can well work out ok
But my problem is that you count things that partner cannot know that
you know
So your partner will have no choice then to bid in the assumption that
you have 4 hearts
And also its possible that your 3H bid will reduce partners trust in
your bidding
Co Wiersma

I have a different view on this.
There are too many players, who know all the rules, but are incapable of any original creative idea.
Trust in Bridge comes from winning decisions not from following rules even when the circumstances are wrong.
Any bid you make can backfire. But I think 3H is more likely to be a winning decision than not.
I admit I can not prove that but neither can the bean counters prove, that the roof will fall in, because you are missing a trump.
Why am I optimistic?
The colors are right and the spade void screams for some action.
If I held white against red a spade void and 4 trumps and otherwise a similar hand I am much more likely to bid 4H than 3H.
If partner decides to increase the preempt and bids say 5H over 4S chances are that will be a good decision too.
Unless partner is himself a bean counter, he will not be disappointed by the dummy.
Let the bean counters raise to 2H
Bridge is not a game where rules get you very far. They are useful for beginners to understand the mechanics of the game.
Experts understand when rules should be broken.

All true. Nevertheless I would bid 2H, because my online partners are all bean counters. Keeping their good will is more important than making the percentage play.

[rhm]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by rhm

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by P***@yahoo.com
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.

I am not so sure as others that 3H is wrong.
3H can well work out ok
But my problem is that you count things that partner cannot know that
you know
So your partner will have no choice then to bid in the assumption that
you have 4 hearts
And also its possible that your 3H bid will reduce partners trust in
your bidding
Co Wiersma

I have a different view on this.
There are too many players, who know all the rules, but are incapable of any original creative idea.
Trust in Bridge comes from winning decisions not from following rules even when the circumstances are wrong.
Any bid you make can backfire. But I think 3H is more likely to be a winning decision than not.
I admit I can not prove that but neither can the bean counters prove, that the roof will fall in, because you are missing a trump.
Why am I optimistic?
The colors are right and the spade void screams for some action.
If I held white against red a spade void and 4 trumps and otherwise a similar hand I am much more likely to bid 4H than 3H.
If partner decides to increase the preempt and bids say 5H over 4S chances are that will be a good decision too.
Unless partner is himself a bean counter, he will not be disappointed by the dummy.
Let the bean counters raise to 2H
Bridge is not a game where rules get you very far. They are useful for beginners to understand the mechanics of the game.
Experts understand when rules should be broken.

All true. Nevertheless I would bid 2H, because my online partners are all bean counters. Keeping their good will is more important than making the percentage play.

An interesting point.
Do you refuse to take the action, you think is best, because you think partner will disagree?
I have a different understanding of a good partnership and trust.
I want my partners to choose the bid, which they think is best for success and if we disagree we have to argue the case.
Sometimes such disagreements will lead to breakups
But I do not want my partners to please me against their own conviction.
That is surely not working in the long run.

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by rhm
An interesting point.
Do you refuse to take the action, you think is best, because you think partner will disagree?
I have a different understanding of a good partnership and trust.
I want my partners to choose the bid, which they think is best for success and if we disagree we have to argue the case.
Sometimes such disagreements will lead to breakups
But I do not want my partners to please me against their own conviction.
That is surely not working in the long run.

As told by Grant Baze about matchpoints maven Barry Crane.

"Barry had several superstitious rules that he followed always, and his partners better follow them or all hell would break loose. One of these was that if you had a two way guess for a queen, you did not have to think about it -- the queen was over the jack in the minors, and under the jack in the majors. So if you held Axxx and dummy had the KJ109, you would lay down the ace and lead to the J if the suit was a major, and lead to the King and finesse coming back if the suit was a minor.

"Barry and I wind up in 7NT and that was our club holding, with only 12 top tricks; we each had balanced hands so I did not expect to get a count on the hand. No problem, I'm thinking to myself, I will not be able to get a count on the hand so I will just follow Barry's rule; if it does not work at least he will keep his mouth shut. I cash a few side suit winners; to my annoyance the suits split crazy and I do get an exact count on the hand. LHO has three clubs and RHO two clubs, which makes it a 50% better play to ignore Barry's rule.

"Meanwhile, at the same time, downstairs in another section, Mike Smolen is playing this hand at the same moment; he knows he and I are playing this hand simultaneously. Mike also gets a count on the hand, but decides to follow Barry's rule. Sure enough, the Queen was doubleton and Mike makes the hand. Mike knows I am going to guess the hand the technically correct way, regardless of Barry's superstitions; Mike tells his partner 'Listen closely, you are about to hear an explosion from upstairs.' How right he was. I misguessed the Queen and Barry went ballistic, screaming like a lunatic and then running out of the room....

"Parenthetically, for the rest of the day Barry and I kept track of how often his rule was right; to my shock, in the relevant situations, it was right five of six times. I am telling you, Barry was mystic; there is absolutely no reason it should not be a 50-50 proposition. Nevertheless, to this day, if I have no clues as to which way to finesse in these situations, I just follow Barry's rule." 3

[p***@infi.net]

Post by rhm

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by rhm

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by P***@yahoo.com
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.

I am not so sure as others that 3H is wrong.
3H can well work out ok
But my problem is that you count things that partner cannot know that
you know
So your partner will have no choice then to bid in the assumption that
you have 4 hearts
And also its possible that your 3H bid will reduce partners trust in
your bidding
Co Wiersma

I have a different view on this.
There are too many players, who know all the rules, but are incapable of any original creative idea.
Trust in Bridge comes from winning decisions not from following rules even when the circumstances are wrong.
Any bid you make can backfire. But I think 3H is more likely to be a winning decision than not.
I admit I can not prove that but neither can the bean counters prove, that the roof will fall in, because you are missing a trump.
Why am I optimistic?
The colors are right and the spade void screams for some action.
If I held white against red a spade void and 4 trumps and otherwise a similar hand I am much more likely to bid 4H than 3H.
If partner decides to increase the preempt and bids say 5H over 4S chances are that will be a good decision too.
Unless partner is himself a bean counter, he will not be disappointed by the dummy.
Let the bean counters raise to 2H
Bridge is not a game where rules get you very far. They are useful for beginners to understand the mechanics of the game.
Experts understand when rules should be broken.

All true. Nevertheless I would bid 2H, because my online partners are all bean counters. Keeping their good will is more important than making the percentage play.

An interesting point.
Do you refuse to take the action, you think is best, because you think partner will disagree?
I have a different understanding of a good partnership and trust.
I want my partners to choose the bid, which they think is best for success and if we disagree we have to argue the case.
Sometimes such disagreements will lead to breakups
But I do not want my partners to please me against their own conviction.
That is surely not working in the long run.

I would certainly not want partner making a bid they are convinced is inferior. But bids are not made in isolation. Here, the question is whether a deviation on this hand (pretending to have four trumps) will work out best on this hand AND whether it will adversely affect future hands. I think a good partner would recognize this hand as exceptional and at most state "Well, I wouldn't make that bid and I don't think it's best, but I can see why you tried it" or something to that effect.

[smn]

Post by P***@yahoo.com
Matchpoint Pairs, Favorable Vulnerability
S: -
H: 872
D: Q9652
C: QJ654
XX = Ten HCPs, and followed by a heart rebid can be interpreted as a limit raise with three hearts.
2H = Simple raise showing at least three hearts and weaker than a limit raise.
2N = Jordan, a limit raise showing four hearts.
3H = Weak support, protected by the Law of Total Tricks, it usually promises four hearts.
I'd like you to consider my bidding choice in this situation...which was 3H. My thinking was that if my partner has five hearts, he denies five spades, and so the total tricks must be at least 17 calling for a non-vulnerable three-level bid by us. Comments welcome...thanks.
-----------------
I asked several pros at the club and most were adamant that I could not and should not bid 3H without a four card heart suit. However, there was one very good pro who, when showed the hand, said immediately that he would bid 3H preemptive.
The Bridge Winners response to the poll was that 37 people would not support 3H and 3 people would. One Grand Life Master (Jim Munday) responded to the poll, and he indicated that he would indeed bid 3H.
I thought this would be an interesting problem on which to do a computer assisted study, and I wasn't at all sure that 3H would be favored in the results.
So, this weekend, I did the study on 100 randomly generated hands, in which a GIB partner would open 1H and a GIB RHO would double. I forced the third bid to be 3H and compared the result to the normal GIB bid of 2H with the above hand. Since I thought that "Favorable Vulnerability" might be one reason to make the 3H bid, I changed the vulnerability to NV-vs-NV for the study.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y-u28y36hVDS5gtktTzPzuL7xgD6hN2qb1d8eGGJc5Q/edit?usp=sharing
Since there is significant GIB bidding of all four hands in this competitive auction, the results are less reliable than studies that have more limited bidding. So, there can not be any compelling conclusion from the limited number (100) of hands.
However, the results of the study were interesting and suggest that the 3H bid is superior to the 2H bid.
Only 28 of the 100 boards had the same contract whether you'd bid 2H or 3H...so the bid made a significant difference. Of the remainder, only 3 of the boards had the same result.
(1) 3H pushes opponents into a makable 4S contract that they would otherwise not find = 5 hands out of 100.
(2) 3H pushes partner to sacrifice poorly to a 4H or 5H contract = 10 hands out of 100.
(3) 3H pushes partner to bid slam in hearts that doesn't make = 1 hand out of 100.
(4) 3H causes opponents not to double a makable heart game by us = 2 hands out of 100.
(5) 3H causes partner to double their makable spade contract = 3 hands out of 100.
(6) 3H causes us not to reach a makable 4H contract = 1 hand.
(7) 3H causes opponents to find a good 3S contract = 4 hand.
(A) 3H keeps opponents from bidding a makable 4S = 11 hands.
(B) 3H pushes partner to sacrifice well to a 4H or 5H contract = 12 hands.
(C) 3H pushes partner to a makable heart game or slam = 7 hands.
(D) 3H cause opponents to bid too high = 8 hands.
(E) 3H causes partner to double an unmakable spade contract = 2 hands.
(F) 3H causes opponents not to double an unmakable heart contract = 3 hands.

Well the problem is that you can't be sure what your partners strength is ,and although you have a well thought out argument for 3h ,I think your first obligation when bidding is to tell your partner about your and ,not to rush to make a theoretical strategic bid .3h definitely tells your partner you have at least 4 hearts ;you are unbalanced though which is good but maybe they can't make 4 spades because they have say 2 heart losers ..3h is not so terrible but I wouldn't do it .Suppose they can make 4 spades might not find it . they might think -hey preemptive bid -4 spades . I guess thats why they play these hands out -to see what happens ;the future's not ours to see ,que sera ,sera . I admit though -my sins at the table are those of omission ,not commission .Regards smn

[Steve Willner]

Post by P***@yahoo.com
Matchpoint Pairs, Favorable Vulnerability
S: -
H: 872
D: Q9652
C: QJ654

My first thought, before reading anything else, was "2H is normal, but
3H has a lot of merit." Then I looked at the vulnerability, which makes
3H more attractive.

At the table, you have to know your opponents. Against Frances and her
partner, I'd surely bid 3H. Randomizing results against them has to be
good for us. Against beginners, probably 3H as well; they won't have a
clue what to do. Against average club players, 2H is probably better.
We expect to bid and play better than them later in the deal, and
there's no point taking an anti-field position now.

Some things mentioned that I wouldn't worry about at all:
1. partner's putative "loss of confidence in my bidding." My partners
want to win and want me to make the best bid I can.

2. partner making a losing LoTT decision. The void is almost worth the
fourth trump. (See "short suit total" discussions.)

3. playing in hearts after two rounds of trumps. If we play in hearts
at any level, that is almost certainly good for us. And if opponents
start drawing trumps, I expect at least one of my minor suits to provide
tricks. There are no guarantees, of course.

As Frances wrote, GIB is useless for bidding.

[Bruce Evans]

Post by Steve Willner

Post by P***@yahoo.com
Matchpoint Pairs, Favorable Vulnerability
S: -
H: 872
D: Q9652
C: QJ654

My first thought, before reading anything else, was "2H is normal, but
3H has a lot of merit." Then I looked at the vulnerability, which makes
3H more attractive.

My first thought was that 3H was normal, and "what is non-intuitive
about a normal LoTT 3H?". I would bid 2H with Kxx xxx xxx xxxx and
don't like doing the same with 7 losers instead of 11. Even counting
the Q's as losers gives only 9 losers, which is normal values for a
single raise, but void xxx xxxxx Jxxxx also has negative defense so I
wouldn't raise with that.

Post by Steve Willner
At the table, you have to know your opponents. Against Frances and her
partner, I'd surely bid 3H. Randomizing results against them has to be
good for us. Against beginners, probably 3H as well; they won't have a
clue what to do. Against average club players, 2H is probably better.
We expect to bid and play better than them later in the deal, and
there's no point taking an anti-field position now.

I might reverse most of this. The main risk in 3H is that it is passed out
and down, and that is easiest for the good players to do intentionally
and the beginners to do unintentionally.

Post by Steve Willner
1. partner's putative "loss of confidence in my bidding." My partners
want to win and want me to make the best bid I can.

Yes, partner should not expect more than 3 trumps at this vulnerability.
2H and then the fielder's choice of 3H over 2S is clearly worst except
against misfielders, so partner should expect me to never do it, but
I have too much offense and too little defence to pass out 2S (or 2SX).

Post by Steve Willner
2. partner making a losing LoTT decision. The void is almost worth the
fourth trump. (See "short suit total" discussions.)

Yes, partner can always guess my spade shortness and sometimes be sure
that is is void and then expect me to have counted 1 extra for my trumps.
If I have the 4th trump with the void, then my side suits must be even
weaker than I would have bid 4H with a surer 7-loser hand.

Post by Steve Willner
3. playing in hearts after two rounds of trumps. If we play in hearts
at any level, that is almost certainly good for us. And if opponents
start drawing trumps, I expect at least one of my minor suits to provide
tricks. There are no guarantees, of course.

Not many opponents have the flair to lead trumps when it is right. At
the 3 level, we should have 9 trumps and it takes flair to double this
even when we have only 8 and they break 4-1. Perhaps in the auction
1H-(X)-3H-(P)(1)-P-(X)(2)-P-(P)(3)-P:

(1) in tempo
(2) t/o again with 4=1=4=4 shape and extras
(3) convert to penalties

but this takes an unlikely layout or Weasel to prefer the penalty over
4S with the 9-card or longer spade fit.

Longer auctions to 4H and 5H are easier to double, but partner shouldn't
be bidding those without 6-7 cards in hearts and no spade wastage
(except sometimes a thin 4H with defense to 4S), so heart leads are even
more helpful to us, but less likely than against 3HX.

Bruce

[Steve Willner]

The main risk in 3H is that it is passed out and down,

If 3H is down, how many tricks were the opponents going to make in spades?

[Bruce Evans]

Post by Steve Willner

The main risk in 3H is that it is passed out and down,

If 3H is down, how many tricks were the opponents going to make in spades?

Usually 9 or 10, but sometimes only 8. I should have said that the
main risk is that both 3H and 3S are down and that bidding 3H
accidentally makes it easier for the opponents to guess better
and pass out 3H. I expect that on average it makes it harder for
the opponents to guess better than over a delayed 3H. However, if
the field will bid the delayed 3H, it is anti-field to bid a direct
3H.

Bruce