[Hanoi5]

All Red, imp's:

♠AKQ96
♥9762
♦97
♣JT

---

[whereagles]

hmm... 3♠ I guess. Even if pard has 4 hearts (he can hardly have more if we have a game), RHO might well have a stack over it.

[Vampyr]

Did I forget to open?

[mikeh]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-28, 16:06, said:

Did I forget to open?

Why? Because you like to open sterile 10 counts?

I understand that some players like to open everything, and so long as they are upfront about it, and their partners know that they need the equivalent of a strong 1N as responder to force safely to game, more power to them, and to you. But it is surely wrong to make a sarcastic post implying that this is a 'normal' opening bid.

As for the OP issue, I think it is extremely close between Pass, 3♠ and double.

3rd chair can hold a lot of different hands for a 3-level pre-empt, since he doesn't have to worry too much about his partner's hand. If we double, partner may pass in the expectation that our values are more scattered. Or he may bid 4♣. Or we may end up in a heart fit that plays worse than our spade fit.

If we bid spades, we may find that partner has a good hand, and that the reason he passed was that he was very short in spades....we make hearts but not spades.

if we pass...well, we may be missing anything from a major suit partscore to a game, or to a number.

it's imps, so I am not passing. I am hoping for values opposite (or why bid) so that persuades me to double. But I am not happy. This is the type of hand on which we can look silly no matter what we do (including opening the bidding).

[kuhchung]

help.

[mikestar13]

Maybe North should have opened 2♠. With 5 spades this good and 4 hearts this poor, it's not much of a lie to bid as if the majors were 6=3. This hand looks more like a one suited hand. This hand is not strong enough to open at the one level playing SAYC or 2/1. In Precision, 1♠ is more reasonable, but I still think I prefer 2♠.

Had I elected to pass, I might choose 3♠ now as the least of evils, but it is for more dangerous than opening in the first place. The style of opening as often as reasonably possible works pretty well.

[aguahombre]

No, this is not a modern 1S opening or a 2nd-seat red 2S opener, IMO. But change it just a little to:

AKQXX JTXX XX XX

and I probably couldn't resist 1♠.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...yeh, will try a double. Pard always is 3-3-3-4 and picks hearts.

[rmnka447]

I think the hand calls for action. Your RHO has already passed, so can't hold a good hand that just isn't quite good to bid game opposite a preempt.

Preemptor isn't likely to be taking too many risks with red pockets. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the preempt be something like ♠ xx ♥xx ♦ KQJxxx ♣ Kxx especially if a weak 2 ♦ is unavailable due to other bidding agreements. This may be a little more risky than normal, but the opportunity to obstruct the opponents from finding a major fit is too great a temptation not to speak.

Double might be right if partner has a ♦ stack or ♥s. 3 ♠ would be better if not.

Pay your money and take your choice.

My gut tells me, I'd probably bid 3 ♠.

[Zelandakh]

The main problem here is that anyone playing in the local club probably does not get to make a free choice. It does not take much of a hesitation, or lack of one, to tip the balance. And I cannot remember the last time opps were in a situation like this one and there was no UI available.

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2014-April-29, 05:55, said:

The main problem here is that anyone playing in the local club probably does not get to make a free choice. It does not take much of a hesitation, or lack of one, to tip the balance. And I cannot remember the last time opps were in a situation like this one and there was no UI available.

Do you mean the person in direct seat over 3D used 7.5 seconds or 11.3 seconds in the "stop" situation? Hope we don't revisit that Bwinners thread on this subject which has necro'd the horse ad nauseum.

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-29, 08:35, said:

Do you mean the person in direct seat over 3D used 7.5 seconds or 11.3 seconds in the "stop" situation? Hope we don't revisit that Bwinners thread on this subject which has necro'd the horse ad nauseum.

More likely they used half a second and then spent 9 seconds waiting for you to put the Stop card away; or they spent15 seconds pulling faces, moved their hand to the back of the bidding box, pulled it back, shook their head and then produced a pass card. Of course there are levels of UI between these extremes. It is generally not difficult to see whether a player at the table has a problem or not without screens unless they are making a genuine effort to hide this. The number of club players that make such an effort is small in my experience.

[BillPatch]

I ran a short simulation using Jack (54 boards) between the three options(pass 3♠ double). As suggested by mikeh the three options are close. The results are not significant at this sample size for any reasonable p level. The order of finish was pass 3♠ double.

The statistical summary of the simulation, based on IMPing 3 two way matches.
pass versus 3♠ pass versus double 3♠ versus double
mean imps/bd = .315 mean= .648 mean= .241
sdev.s=7.05 s= 6.41 s= 6.22
z= .3279 z= .7433 z= .2843

The lack of shortness in their suit suggests inaction at this vulnerability.

[Fluffy]

I would bid 3♠ without a second thought.

[PhilKing]

BillPatch, on 2014-May-08, 10:52, said:

I ran a short simulation using Jack (54 boards) between the three options(pass 3♠ double). As suggested by mikeh the three options are close. The results are not significant at this sample size for any reasonable p level. The order of finish was pass 3♠ double.

The statistical summary of the simulation, based on IMPing 3 two way matches.
pass versus 3♠ pass versus double 3♠ versus double
mean imps/bd = .315 mean= .648 mean= .241
sdev.s=7.05 s= 6.41 s= 6.22
z= .3279 z= .7433 z= .2843

The lack of shortness in their suit suggests inaction at this vulnerability.

On what basis do you suggest that a simulation can possibly answer the question?

Show your workings!

[BillPatch]

PhilKing, on 2014-May-08, 17:35, said:

On what basis do you suggest that a simulation can possibly answer the question?

Show your workings!

A passed hand that suggests a choice of reopening actions occur relatively rarely in an individual's bridge career.
Each vulnerability poses subtle differences. A bridge expert's recommendation of the current question is based on the
selective memory of a handful of cases.

Through simulation we can generate dozens to thousands of sample hands which meet the conditions of the given E hand reopening
after the sample action, and generate results of the bidding and play of each sample hand.

Through statistical analysis we can test the likelihood of our results being due to chance, and how much more confidence we
can acquire by increasing the sample size. Through another statistical test, the Bayesian, we can determine the relative
likelihood of each option being superior to each other.

Of equal importance to chance errors in our mathematical model using simulation are non-random errors due to errors in
bridge judgement at each stage of the simulation, including the extensive use of double dummy analyser to simulate the play of the cards
after opening leads, and also non-bridge errors in modeling, data entry and analysis.