[rhm]

 PhilKing, on 2013-March-12, 12:04, said:

I might be being a bit thick but if Josh voted for doubling 4♠, why would he not like the result of the sim?

So tell me which constraint should be changed given that N/S are white on red?
South actual 4♠ bid was dubious but certainly influenced by the colors. I know a lot of experienced players who will always bid 4♠ when holding 5 card support at these colors.
I bet any reasonable constraint will not change the result substantially.
Please tell me what you would like me to change and I will see whether I can accommodate.
But do not tell me South (a passed hand) needs to have 6 card spade support and a side void at these colors for his 4♠ bid.
That is possible and was not excluded by my constraints, but is certainly not the minimum requirement for South to bid 4♠ here.

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

 rhm, on 2013-March-12, 05:04, said:

I am standing firm: East takeout DBL is aggressive but not crazy. The critic is overblown. Many would open this hand.
The distribution is fine for a takeout double, the honor dispersion is bad, but the hand has still 3 quick tricks and 5 controls.



Rainer Herrmann

This statement that the double is justified because 'many would open this hand' has to be the weakest argument I have ever seen you make. I am usually an admirer of your posts, but this thread has not been one where I think much of your position.

We'd all open AKx x Axxxx xxxx as well but I don't know many who would venture a takeout double of 1♠ with this hand.

Now, I know that you wouldn't either and that your other point is that the shape is right for a double. However, shape and number of hcp aren't a sufficient set of criteria and I know you are far too good a player to argue that they are. When one's hcp are minimum, and one's shape is not perfect (as in 1=4=4=4 for example) a good player looks at how the high cards mesh with and support the shape. Here, as I know you know, the AK of spades are to be devalued for offence. So we have a sub-minimum for offence, imperfect shape, and a passed hand partner. It's not that we expect a 4♠ bounce but that we can reasonably expect partner to compete at the 2 or 3 level in a situation where we are at real risk of going 200 or 300 against 110 or less. Partner will never expect, nor should partner ever expect, xxxx xxxx in the reds, with opener on his left probably holding most of the defensive values.

Arguing that the double is reasonable merely makes you look silly, which is a shame because you are usually anything but.

As for your constraints, I would personally rather stipulate 4+ spades for opener....3rd seat at favourable, a 4 card suit isn't unheard of, even missing AK. While I think 5 is more common, it is wrong to rule out 4...indeed I would place N with 4 far more often than S, especially since S will be worried about a 4 card opener.

Otherwise, I'd be ok with your constraints provided that you then did some weeding out of hands that are inconsistent with the auction. I refuse to believe that we should ever play for S to be 4=3=3=3 6-8 count for example.

I don't know what programme you use for simulations, but I often find that for non-simple auctions, I run into the sensitivity v specificity dilemma.

If one programmes constraints that generate hands that always fit the auction, one will have high (100%) specificity, but one will almost certainly fail to generate some hands that would fit the auction but not one's constraints. Otoh, if one loosens the constraints, such that one captures far more of the hands that fit (high sensitivity), one will start generating hands that meet the criteria but not match the auction. It's always a tradeoff. Personally, if I have the time, I prefer high sensitivity combined with a hand by hand inspection to discard inappropriate hands. However, this adds to the subjectivity of the exercise. That doesn't matter to me if I am working on a partnership issue where I know that my partner and I tend to think alike, but can be a problem when trying to argue on this forum or elsewhere.

[gnasher]

 rhm, on 2013-March-12, 12:23, said:

So tell me which constraint should be changed given that N/S are white on red?

I might be being a bit thick too, but what makes you think Phil wants you to change any of the (new) constraints?

[lalldonn]

I'll join the thick crowd. Might they not, just occasionally, bid 5♠ over 5♣? Might this particular south, just possibly, have bid 4♠ even if east had passed over 1♠ thus allowing east to double for penalty? Please don't flame me, remember I did say west should double instead of bidding 5♣!

I will admit I'm in no position to criticize the new sim, because I got as far as "North at least 5 spades, at least 10 HCP" then laughed so hard I had to stop reading.

[PhilKing]

 gnasher, on 2013-March-12, 12:33, said:

I might be being a bit thick too, but what makes you think Phil wants you to change any of the (new) constraints?

Rainer is psychic?

 rhm, on 2013-March-12, 12:23, said:

So tell me which constraint should be changed given that N/S are white on red?
Rainer Herrmann

Apart from the relaxing the 10 point requirement for a Ferdinand Spade, I have one that would change the result a lot - I would not double 1♠ with 12-13 HCP and 2443 or 2434 distribution opposite a passed hand, but that's just me. And my experience is that most do not jump to 4♠ with 5332 shape.

Since my initial guess was that both sides had about a 30% chance of game, I want to tweak things until I can justify myself.

[Trinidad]

 rhm, on 2013-March-12, 11:47, said:

For you I modified the constraints:

Thank you.

So now, with more reasonable constraints, you have proven what everybody (including the OP) already wrote: 5♣ was not a good bid.

Now please try to explain to us how you can conclude from your sim -that used other East hands- proves that it was correct to double with the actual East hand.

Rik

[rhm]

 Trinidad, on 2013-March-12, 14:14, said:

Thank you.

So now, with more reasonable constraints, you have proven what everybody (including the OP) already wrote: 5♣ was not a good bid.

I am not sure what we are arguing. To me many comments seem to concentrate on the takeout double as the major culprit.
I can not see that. In my opinion it had little to do with the actual result. With a sane West it would have produced a great result on the actual board, which I admit does not prove the bid is right.
But I repeat: I do consider the critic on the takeout double overblown.

Quote

Now please try to explain to us how you can conclude from your sim -that used other East hands- proves that it was correct to double with the actual East hand.

I can not. Not because I would not like to. But not all bidding questions are suitable for simulations. Some are and some are not.
For example I can not prove what the lower limit of an opening bid should be by way of simulation nor for a takeout double red versus white.

 mikeh, on 2013-March-12, 12:28, said:

This statement that the double is justified because 'many would open this hand' has to be the weakest argument I have ever seen you make. I am usually an admirer of your posts, but this thread has not been one where I think much of your position.

We'd all open AKx x Axxxx xxxx as well but I don't know many who would venture a takeout double of 1♠ with this hand.

I said the takeout dbl is borderline, aggressive and I also said that if East wants to get into bidding it is probably safer (not risk free) now than later with this hand.
l said many people would open this hand. I did not claim that all hands which are openings bids are also suitable for a takeout double. HCP Strength is one requirement for a takeout double, proper distribution another.
Before bringing forward your counter-arguments it would be good if you would first try to understand what was actually said and claimed.

Quote

As for your constraints, I would personally rather stipulate 4+ spades for opener....3rd seat at favourable, a 4 card suit isn't unheard of, even missing AK. While I think 5 is more common, it is wrong to rule out 4...indeed I would place N with 4 far more often than S, especially since S will be worried about a 4 card opener.

North/South have very likely a ten card fit. If North has opened a 4 card suit, South has passed with a six card spade suit white versus red. Not impossible but rather unlikely.
Whatever I can assure you from my simulation experience this will not change the actual result substantially, allowing North to have opened with a 4 card spade suit.
If you are interested I can do the simulation easily.

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

 rhm, on 2013-March-12, 16:19, said:

l said many people would open this hand. I did not claim that all hands which are openings bids are also suitable for a takeout double. HCP Strength is one requirement for a takeout double, proper distribution another.
Before bringing forward your counter-arguments it would be good if you would first try to understand what was actually said and claimed.



Rainer Herrmann

I really don't want to get into a flame war, but it is unfair to take a limited part of what I wrote and then criticize it, by claiming that I didn't 'try to understand what was actually said'.


I was very careful, in my quote of you, to add your statement about distribution and honour dispersion. I went on to stress that I was sure (that I 'knew') that much of what I was saying about hand evaluation was already understood by you.

Had I wanted to use the tactics you just used, I would have left the quote at the first statement that, in isolation, suggests that holding an opening hand is itself enough to warrant a takeout double. So let me suggest to you, if we are to have any semblance of a real debate, that you take your own advice, ok?

[bsm20]

Sorry, but I have to say that I find some of rhm's comments offensive - 'If a sane West...' etc.

I understand that rhm feels very strongly about this. However, there is no need to be rude. I have never been aggressive or defensive about my bid. All players make misjudgments at times.

Incidentally, I gave the problem to several very strong players at my bridge club. The most popular bid on my hand was 4NT. Presumably, this would lead to a similar doubled result, albeit in 5D. Is rhn saying that these strong players, with proven experience in Gold Cup events and so on, are 'insane' too?

[the hog]

 rhm, on 2013-March-12, 05:04, said:

I ran a simulation with the West hand

North at least 5 spades, at least 10 HCP
South at least 4 spades
East at most 2 spades (so N-S have a ten card spade fit or better), exactly 4 cards in hearts, at least 3 cards in each minor, 12-14 HCP.

Result:

5♣ made double dummy 18% of the time, average number of tricks in ♣ for West was 9.5
At the same time
4♠ made 29% of the time, average number of tricks in ♠ for North was 8.8

I am standing firm: East takeout DBL is aggressive but not crazy. The critic is overblown. Many would open this hand.
The distribution is fine for a takeout double, the honor dispersion is bad, but the hand has still 3 quick tricks and 5 controls.
Note, East takeout DBL allows a sane West to double 4♠ for a top score.

The 5♣ bid is insane. This is simply a matter of hand evaluation and judgment!
If you are not sure that DBL shows cards in this sequence your option is still between Pass and DBL.
(Even without agreement any experienced tournament player should know that West, sitting below the opening bidder to boot, is unlikely to have spade tricks in this sequence)
5♣ is crazy, particularly at these colors!


Rainer Herrmann

I think this post is insane and not the post of a Bridge player. The double is very poor. You have the majority of your points in the opened suit. The 5C bid, or a 4NT bid for that matter, is merely dubious; it certainly is not insane.

[Zelandakh]

This thread has degenerated into silliness. Is there anyone here who would open 1♠ as North with ♠65432, ♥QJ2, ♦QJ2, ♣KJ?

As for blame, I am not sure I would have reproduced any of the non-passes. West is certainly responsible for the bad score since they had the last chance to rescue it; but 100% responsible? Surely not.

[Trinidad]

 bsm20, on 2013-March-13, 03:35, said:

Sorry, but I have to say that I find some of rhm's comments offensive - 'If a sane West...' etc.

I understand that rhm feels very strongly about this. However, there is no need to be rude. I have never been aggressive or defensive about my bid. All players make misjudgments at times.

Incidentally, I gave the problem to several very strong players at my bridge club. The most popular bid on my hand was 4NT. Presumably, this would lead to a similar doubled result, albeit in 5D. Is rhn saying that these strong players, with proven experience in Gold Cup events and so on, are 'insane' too?

Well, according to rhm, yes.

I would not have bid 5♣ with your hand. But I understood why you bid it. If you would have had one more club and one less heart, it would have been a no-brainer for me to bid 5♣.

The key point to the blame on this hand is that both players made an error, but they are different kind of errors. West made a judgement error: The decision that West has to make is not defined by 'rules' ("5♣ promises x HCP" or something similar). It is defined by probabilities and risk/reward.

• What is the probability that they will make 4♠?
  
• What is the probability that we will make 5♣?
  
• What is the probability that we will make 5♣ AND they will make 4♠?
  
• How many IMPs do I stand to gain/lose if I bid 5♣ and both games make/neither game makes/one of the games makes?

There is a large variation in the possible layouts and they all lead to different results. Judging these situations correctly is difficult and it takes a lot of experience to get these decisions somewhat consistently correct. It is already hard to make this judgement when you know your partner and opponents well, but if you don't know the style of your opponents or your partner it gets even more difficult.

In other words, it is not a surprise that you get such a decision wrong. Learn from it and your judgement will improve, slowly but steadily.

Contrast this to the decision East had to make. He had a subminimum hand in HCP, not a perfect distribution for a takeout double and just about the worst possible honor structure for a takeout double. The form of scoring (teams), the vulnerability (red vs white) and the position (a passed partner: game is unlikely) were all screaming that there is little to gain and a lot to lose by acting.

That is not a decision based on guestimating the layout of the hands or probabilities. It is basic bridge to be aware of the form of scoring and the vulnerability. It is basic bridge to know that a takeout double shows that you want your side to play in one of the three remaining suits and that, therefore, you should have some values in those suits. The East decision was easy and he got it wrong.

So, west made a "difficult mistake" and East made a "simple mistake". It takes a lot more bridge talent to recognize when one has made a difficult mistake than to recognize when one has made a simple mistake.

Rik

[Codo]

 bsm20, on 2013-March-13, 03:35, said:

Sorry, but I have to say that I find some of rhm's comments offensive - 'If a sane West...' etc.

I understand that rhm feels very strongly about this. However, there is no need to be rude. I have never been aggressive or defensive about my bid. All players make misjudgments at times.

Incidentally, I gave the problem to several very strong players at my bridge club. The most popular bid on my hand was 4NT. Presumably, this would lead to a similar doubled result, albeit in 5D. Is rhn saying that these strong players, with proven experience in Gold Cup events and so on, are 'insane' too?

Please do yourself a big favour and don't take the wording on a fora or mailing list too serious.
Many people here have very strong opinions and sometimes we use strong words to describe how we feel about a choosen bid, play or convention. Usually this is not meant to insult the "defenders" of this bid but more to show how far of this bid is in "our" opinion. Do never take this personal. If I had said that 5 club was the bid of a newbie or beyond insanity, (f.e.) this is not meant to insult you but to show how much I dislike this bid.
I bet that Rainers intentions had been the same...

I usually think carefully about the message beyond the wording of most players here, but would not care much about their choosen language.

[rhm]

 Codo, on 2013-March-13, 04:41, said:

Please do yourself a big favour and don't take the wording on a fora or mailing list too serious.
Many people here have very strong opinions and sometimes we use strong words to describe how we feel about a choosen bid, play or convention. Usually this is not meant to insult the "defenders" of this bid but more to show how far of this bid is in "our" opinion. Do never take this personal. If I had said that 5 club was the bid of a newbie or beyond insanity, (f.e.) this is not meant to insult you but to show how much I dislike this bid.
I bet that Rainers intentions had been the same...

I usually think carefully about the message beyond the wording of most players here, but would not care much about their choosen language.

Thanks, and yes I did not want to personally insult bsm20.
And yes, I still consider 5♣ a big error in judgement red versus white.
The takeout double is not in the same category and should not be made responsible for the actual result.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

 Trinidad, on 2013-March-13, 04:41, said:

Well, according to rhm, yes.

I would not have bid 5♣ with your hand. But I understood why you bid it. If you would have had one more club and one less heart, it would have been a no-brainer for me to bid 5♣.

The key point to the blame on this hand is that both players made an error, but they are different kind of errors. West made a judgement error: The decision that West has to make is not defined by 'rules' ("5♣ promises x HCP" or something similar). It is defined by probabilities and risk/reward.

• What is the probability that they will make 4♠?
  
• What is the probability that we will make 5♣?
  
• What is the probability that we will make 5♣ AND they will make 4♠?
  
• How many IMPs do I stand to gain/lose if I bid 5♣ and both games make/neither game makes/one of the games makes?

There is a large variation in the possible layouts and they all lead to different results. Judging these situations correctly is difficult and it takes a lot of experience to get these decisions somewhat consistently correct. It is already hard to make this judgement when you know your partner and opponents well, but if you don't know the style of your opponents or your partner it gets even more difficult.

In other words, it is not a surprise that you get such a decision wrong. Learn from it and your judgement will improve, slowly but steadily.

Contrast this to the decision East had to make. He had a subminimum hand in HCP, not a perfect distribution for a takeout double and just about the worst possible honor structure for a takeout double. The form of scoring (teams), the vulnerability (red vs white) and the position (a passed partner: game is unlikely) were all screaming that there is little to gain and a lot to lose by acting.

That is not a decision based on guestimating the layout of the hands or probabilities. It is basic bridge to be aware of the form of scoring and the vulnerability. It is basic bridge to know that a takeout double shows that you want your side to play in one of the three remaining suits and that, therefore, you should have some values in those suits. The East decision was easy and he got it wrong.

So, west made a "difficult mistake" and East made a "simple mistake". It takes a lot more bridge talent to recognize when one has made a difficult mistake than to recognize when one has made a simple mistake.

Rik

Your theoretical assumptions are well and good.
What seems to me plays little role in your assessment and that of many others here are the colors, except of course for East initial takeout double. A sort of one sided blindness.
Your considerations work reasonably well at all white and when either contract will make or goes down one.
However, we are red and they are white and there is no such insurance.
We might well go for a telephone number, in which case you will not be saved by the consideration "they will make 4♠"
In fact if 4♠ makes this is a likely outcome from my simulation and as the actual deal shows you can go for a telephone number and 4♠ is down.
5♣ is particularly dangerous, because you could easily end up in the wrong strain.

It is well known that people make tactical overbids when white against red as South did here.
I do not consider it a "no-brainer" to bid 5♣ with a club more and a heart less and suspect that DBL has still a higher IMP expectation.
If you deem it difficult to look at the vulnerabilities before bidding 5♣, yes then I can understand why you consider bidding 5♣ to be a "difficult mistake".
I can tell you how you can improve your game: play Rubber Bridge for high stakes.
When you have to pay up you learn to take colors seriously. They are not for children.

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

 rhm, on 2013-March-13, 07:34, said:

Your theoretical assumptions are well and good.
What seems to me plays little role in your assessment and that of many others here are the colors, except of course for East initial takeout double. A sort of one sided blindness.
Your considerations work reasonably well at all white and when either contract will make or goes down one.
However, we are red and they are white and there is no such insurance.

Maybe I assume that my partner also sees the vulnerability before he decided to double? Maybe I assume that he has seen that I passed originally?

If my partner makes a takeout double of 1♠ at this form of scoring, vulnerability and position (SVP) it means that he sees it possible that we have a game, presumably in hearts, diamonds or clubs. If at this SVP, you think game is impossible, the double is futile, risking lots of IMPs with no significant way to gain. My partner doesn't make futile doubles.

 rhm, on 2013-March-13, 07:34, said:

I do not consider it a "no-brainer" to bid 5♣ with a club more and a heart less and suspect that DBL has still a higher IMP expectation.

The corollary of the above is that if advancer has a maximum passed hand and a nice distribution with a good fit for one of the doubler's three suits, he should have play for game, otherwise partner wouldn't have doubled. I consider the West hand -with a heart changed for a club-, i.e. ♠J ♥JT ♦AQ43 ♣QT9642, such a hand. (Not entirely surprisingly, with this hand, 5♣ is a good contract opposite normal minimum doubles like ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦Kxxx ♣AJx and you are unlikely to get rich defending 4♠-which is what will happen if you double.)

The vulnerability tells the advancer that he should be aggressive.

Hey, where did I hear that before? Something like: "At IMPs, when vul, be conservative on marginal initial actions and aggressive when bidding game." I don't remember, I must be getting old.

 rhm, on 2013-March-13, 07:34, said:

I can tell you how you can improve your game: play Rubber Bridge for high stakes.
When you have to pay up you learn to take colors seriously. They are not for children.

May I offer you a towel? You seem to be not entirely dry behind the ears.

Rik

[mikeh]

 rhm, on 2013-March-13, 07:34, said:

Your theoretical assumptions are well and good.
What seems to me plays little role in your assessment and that of many others here are the colors, except of course for East initial takeout double. A sort of one sided blindness.
Your considerations work reasonably well at all white and when either contract will make or goes down one.
However, we are red and they are white and there is no such insurance.
We might well go for a telephone number, in which case you will not be saved by the consideration "they will make 4♠"
In fact if 4♠ makes this is a likely outcome from my simulation and as the actual deal shows you can go for a telephone number and 4♠ is down.
5♣ is particularly dangerous, because you could easily end up in the wrong strain.

It is well known that people make tactical overbids when white against red as South did here.
I do not consider it a "no-brainer" to bid 5♣ with a club more and a heart less and suspect that DBL has still a higher IMP expectation.
If you deem it difficult to look at the vulnerabilities before bidding 5♣, yes then I can understand why you consider bidding 5♣ to be a "difficult mistake".
I can tell you how you can improve your game: play Rubber Bridge for high stakes.
When you have to pay up you learn to take colors seriously. They are not for children.

Rainer Herrmann

When the overwhelming consensus of posters, some of whom are pretty good, experienced players, is that the takeout double was a very bad call, and you are the only person still defending it as a reasonable action, you might just want to take a step back and actually think about the merits of the call again rather than stubbornly restating your singularly non-persuasive points, accompanied by criticisms of those who disagree with you.

I (really, from personal experience) know it is hard to admit to error, and even harder to change one's mind about something, and the more one invests in defending the indefensible, the more difficult it is. But the reality is that a reasonable cross-section of bridge players feel that both 5♣ and double were poor choices.

Sometimes being the only one advancing a point of view is the sign of a brave, perceptive thinker. Most of the time it is the sign of a stubborn person who, despite being clearly wrong, won't admit it. Guess which description best fits you

[bsm20]

Thanks everyone.

I have found the discussion very informative, in terms of competitive bidding and bridge analysis.

There is a happy ending. The other night, much to my astonishment, I received an invitation to play in the doubler’s team. I accepted and enjoyed the game, which passed without incident. However, there weren’t any takeout doubles…

[Free]

- North did fine.
- East made a poor takeout Dbl. It's a part score battle at best (which he'll lose because he doesn't hold ♠s) and his values aren't in his own suits.
- South made a giant overbid. Balanced hand, scathered slow values,...
- West should Dbl instead of bidding 5♣ V vs NV. This leaves most options open. In an uncontested auction you wouldn't GF this hand, and opps may be overbidding (3rd seat opening may be light, they have favorable vulnerability,...), so you should leave the option for penalty open.

[Charlie Yu]

Rubber bridge comparison are entirely silly, the scoring is so different that partscore fights are not relevant at all. For my partnership the x is entirely reasonable, how otherwise can we balance after 1S-P-2S?