Re: Is this a limit raise?
- From: Nick France <gandalfnf@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:13:27 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 30, 6:53 pm, rhm <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 30, 10:12 pm, Nick France <gandal...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 30, 5:58 am, rhm <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:49 pm, Andrew <agump...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 29, 3:26 am, rhm <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 29, 5:47 am, "ma...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <ma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Imps, none vulnerable. Partner dealt and opened 1S. RHO passed.
I held: J876, JT6, 9, KQJ83
I made a limit raise, partner asked for keycards and settled in 5S,
Afterwards, partner suggested that I didn't have values for a limit
What do you think?
I happen to agree with your partner. He shows fine judgment, but,
like most, probably only after he went down.
It would never occur to me to do more but a single raise with your
hand, but I am never afraid of looking foolish.
It does not happen too often. I like to write done more positive
scores than minuses.
Most people believe going down in a no play game is no big deal, but
missing game is a calamity. .
I am not one of them.
I believe people with Macho tendencies in this game are losers, pairs
like Meckwell notwithstanding, who exhibit excellent judgment and a
technique few can match at the table.
I do not disagree with the statement--I agree that average players who
apply a macho style usually do it poorly--but I do have comments.
Macho bidding tendencies are prevalent at the highest levels of the
game and it is not simply the ego of the top players that drives
machismo. Experts play bridge to win in the long run, not the post
mortem. Players as sharp as Hamman and Zia believe that a macho style
is winning bridge against more passive players or they would not do
it. For those who do not know, Bob owns an insurance company that
insures companies against unlikely but costly events. For example, if
you go to a basketball game and they offer someone $1 million to make
a backwards blindfolded shot from half court, it is Bob Hamman who
will pay out when that person hits the shot. Bob does as much research
as possible to estimate the chances of such unlikely events happening
so he can determine a premium which makes him money in the long run..
And you can be sure that if his style is aggressive, it is because he
has very carefully considered the long term pay out of the style.
My own feeling is styles are like poker. Some skilled poker players
can succeed playing a betting style so aggressive that it looks almost
irrational to lesser minds like mine. These guys are not just lucky
and they are probably not winning less often then if they moderated
their aggression. They have intentionally adopted a style that
incorporates more frequent losing of pots because it also allows more
frequent winning pots. Same is true to a lesser degree for game
bidding in bridge.
IMO many of the criticisms of aggressive game bidding styles are way
off base. Suppose you bid a game which has no play. Does that mean you
or partner bid too much? Not necessarily. Give partner 100 possible
hands consistent with his auction. If opposite 50 of those hands game
would make in practice, then game is an excellent gamble assuming the
opponents won't double you often when breaks are bad. This is true
even if opposite the other 50 hands game has no play at all. I add the
phrase "in practice" because you have to factor in ineffective leads
and bad defense.
Players conditioned by a conservative approach perceive going down in
game as a bad thing. Within the context of their style, they are
right. If you bid relatively few games, you can't afford to go down
often. Aggressive game bidders are often criticized using this
yardstick. But the critics do not recognize that aggressive game
bidding effectively shifts the unit of measure on the yardstick. An
aggressive style (when used against conservative opponents) increases
the number of IMPs exchanged. If 200 IMPs are going to change hands
rather than 100, then the relative cost of a failed game is lower.
If you believe I am a conservative player I personally are not so
sure, whether I fall into this category.
However, what I believe is dubious, is to play a light opening bid
style and at the same time lower your requirements for invitational
Raising lighter and opening lighter will not provide good results in
the long term when the goal is reaching the right games or slams.
Since most people now prefer a light opening style some
conservationism is in order when raising in my opinion.
Let us take this example.
Under the conditions specified we probably agree that you only want to
be in game if you will make it on average in about 50% of all cases,
no more no less.
The only way you can find that out is by simulation and of course the
trouble is making assumptions about opener's hand. I assume double
dummy analysis is reasonable as has been shown in general.
I did this and used the criterias, which in the constraints of the
software (dealmaster pro) came closest to my judgment.
I simulated 1000 deals and specified the following criteria for
I gave opener at least 5 spades and assumed he would have 13-16 points
including distribution and would reevaluate his hand after being
raised. If opener had an ace more than minimum he would make a try
over a single raise, which you would accept anyway. So I assumed a
maximum of 16 total points
For distribution I assumed the 5-3-1 scale for void, singleton and
In addition I also assumed opener would add points for additional
trumps. 1 point for each extra spade over five, e.g a 6322
distribution would give him 3 distributional points in total, 6331 an
additional 4 points.
Since most people will open a 5332 hand with 12 HCP, I assumed a
minimum opening would contain 13 points.
Result with 1000 deals:
Average number of tricks: 9 (9.005 to be precise)
4S would be down 69.1% of the time and
3S would still be down 31% of the time.
Now I am well aware that opponents might push you to the 3 level
anyway (though that is not so easy at IMPs against spades), the major
issue being avoiding hopeless games but reaching good ones.
Is it worth it to "feign" a limit raise?
Rainer Herrmann- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Turns out to do the simulation the way I wanted took up more than 20
definitions so I had to simplify it. A balanced 5332 accepted with
14HCP For the rest, all hands had to meet the rule of 20 to open.
Distributions points for long suits where 1 for 5 cards, 2 for 6 cards
etc. Short suit distribution points where 1-2-3. Opener went with
15-16 total points (Assume with 17 would have invited a simple
raise). Opener always goes with 6 trump.
My results have 4S making 351 out of 1000
3S making 746 out of 1,000
While these are significantly better than your results and still
includes counting a doubleton Qx as 3 and a singleton Q has 4 which if
corrected would raise the number of times 4S makes, it doesn't seem
like it would be enough to justify the given hand giving a limit
raise. Oh well, it looked like a limit raise to me but the numbers
just didn't pan out.
You used different assumptions and got different result but even your
result seem to confirm what I always said that the hand is not worth a
limit raise, while others claimed this hand would be an obvious limit
I was not interested in the question, with which hands opener would
accept a limit raise.
But in my experience a limit raise is accepted on the slightest
excuse, at least 80% of the time, and usually rejected only on a dead
I analysed the following issue.
Assume you give only a single raise (what I consider the hand worth)
and assume opener would not make a move towards game how many tricks
would you likely make and how often would game make.
My results were:
Average number of tricks would be 9
game would not make 69% of the time
and 9 tricks would not be available 31% of the time.
The conclusion seems obvious to me: This hand is not worth a limit
By the way you may believe in 1-2-3 dummy points. I happen to believe
1-3-5 dummy points to be more precise after a fit has been confirmed.
To claim you are right and I am wrong is a bit presumptuous
Rainer Herrmann- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
1-2-3 are not dummy points but declarer points. 1-3-5 are dummy
points. So since opener is going to declare he will use declarer
points to update his hand. Partner who will be dummy uses dummy
points. Are you suggesting that both declarer and dummy use the 1-3-5
scale once a fit is found. If so that would be a very small minority.
- Re: Is this a limit raise?
- From: rhm
- Re: Is this a limit raise?
- Prev by Date: Re: Conservative bidding
- Next by Date: Re: Is this a limit raise?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is this a limit raise?
- Next by thread: Re: Is this a limit raise?