Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Cyberchat > Diversions > Bridge
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Search Actuarial Jobs by State @ DWSimpson.com:
AL AK AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA
ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NH NJ NM NY NV NC ND
OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY

Bridge Sub-Forums: Frequency and Severity

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #211  
Old 04-25-2018, 11:21 AM
Sweet Tooth Sweet Tooth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,500
Default Discussion?

A- doubling them into game might not be bad at matchpoints, but its not certain that 3S is going down, espec. if partner is void. Give him some pure minimum for a second double: x AJxx AQxx Axxx and it may be tough to beat 3S one trick if D are 3-1 as expected. Conversely, 4D has excellent play.

C-I feel guilty for bidding 2H on C, goes against my grain and I would NEVER do this at IMPs. But I'm trying to get in tune with the matchpoint gods, as I've accepted a date for the 0-6000 pairs in Atlanta. We'll see how greedy the MSQ matchpoint experts are.

H- I guess the question is how many hearts do you expect declarer to hold?
He can't hold 3 spades and many hands with 2 spades might preference to 2S, so he is more likely than not to hold at least 2H. If he does hold 2H do we really wish to attack hearts with 4 oppos. 3? As much as I hate leading from Ace-fourth at 3NT, (see Bird and Anthias) it is the unbid suit and could hit partner with a good holding. I don't think much about "giving them the setting tricK, or an extra trick" when there is a chance to set the contract. The clubs are likely breaking well unless partner is stacked (or unless we lead them), so an attack seems merited. I do have sneaking admiration for the spade 10 though.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 04-25-2018, 03:47 PM
Been There Done That Been There Done That is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 933
Default

A) Pass
B) Pass
C) 2H
D) 4D
E) 2NT
F) 5S
G) 3S
H) Diamond 3
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 04-25-2018, 10:27 PM
Steve White Steve White is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,707
Default

Code:
                   A     B     C     D     E     F     G     H
EB                                                            
oirg              4D    3N     P   Dbl    3D    5S    3H    H2
SW                 P     P     P    4D    2N    4S    3S    C8
Klaymen           4D     P    2H    3S    2N    4N    3S    H2
ST                4D     P    2H    4D    2N    4S    3S    D3
BTDT               P     P    2H    4D    2N    5S    3S    D3
NN                                                            
Veni Vidi Vici     P    2N    2H    3N    2N    4N    3S    H2
kmbrunskill       4D    3N    2H    3S    2N    4S    3S    D3
mathmajor                                                     
4 Sigma                                                       
bill18                                                        
Leading           4D     P    2H    4D    2N  4S?     3S
BTDT gives us a leader on D, but drops our leader on H by creating a tie.

The leader situation on F has become murkier. 4S has the plurality and 3 votes, which normally would qualify it as the leader. In this particular case, I would argue that there are 3 votes for signing off in 4S, but 4 votes for going beyond 4S to investigate a slam. Further, I would be tempted to argue that an invitational 5S is more in line with the 4S votes than Blackwood is, since Blackwood will put us in slam (I presume) unless we're missing 2 key cards, while 5S asks partner's opinion.

The rub with that argument is that some might argue that 4N is closer to 4S, since 5S risks partner bidding 6 when we're off 2 key cards (I agree it does) while 4N stays out of slam then. Also (and while I don't agree but it could be the case) some might argue that 5S is not consulting partner, it is asking a specific question of partner, and it puts us in 6 every time partner's hand satisfies that question.

Hopefully with more votes we'll get a stronger consensus on F, which may well turn out to be 4S. There is a good chance that at the table I would bid only 4S.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 04-25-2018, 10:45 PM
Been There Done That Been There Done That is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve White View Post
Further, I would be tempted to argue that an invitational 5S is more in line with the 4S votes than Blackwood is, since Blackwood will put us in slam (I presume) unless we're missing 2 key cards, while 5S asks partner's opinion.

The rub with that argument is that some might argue that 4N is closer to 4S, since 5S risks partner bidding 6 when we're off 2 key cards (I agree it does) while 4N stays out of slam then.
Maybe our 4N agreement is more nuanced than I am aware of, but it seems to me that partner will show 2 aces by bidding 5H. After that, 5S is a relay to 5N. I don't see how it is possible to stop below slam (except at 5N) once you bid 4N.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 04-26-2018, 07:50 AM
Veni Vidi Vici Veni Vidi Vici is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 211
Default

It's less nuanced than you think. Signing off in 5NT is not part of BWS's Blackwood section.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Been There Done That View Post
Maybe our 4N agreement is more nuanced than I am aware of, but it seems to me that partner will show 2 aces by bidding 5H. After that, 5S is a relay to 5N. I don't see how it is possible to stop below slam (except at 5N) once you bid 4N.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 04-26-2018, 09:10 AM
Steve White Steve White is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,707
Default

I just started thinking about 4N vs 5S yesterday, since personally I hate Blackwood unless number of "aces" is the only key factor. So I didn't even notice that 5 votes for bidding spades now would not make 4N from the other 2 key-card for spades.

Thinking about it now, I'm not positive whether 5S over 5H would be. Since not explicitly addressed in BWS, I think we fall back on our perception of standard expert practice rather than assuming it must be to play. My personal guess is that the most common meaning would be "to play".

Those already voting fo 4N may wish to think about what they would do over a 5H response, and may want to change their votes. Future voters should also consider that.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 04-26-2018, 01:36 PM
mathmajor's Avatar
mathmajor mathmajor is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Nowhere in particular
Studying for Japanese
College: B.S. Applied Math
Favorite beer: La Croix Grapefruit
Posts: 12,100
Default

June guesses:
A. 4D
B. P
C. P
D. 4D
E. 2NT
F. 4S
G. 3H
H. D3
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by redprinceton
YOU ARE AN EXCEPTIONAL PERSON MATHMAJOR!
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 04-26-2018, 01:39 PM
mathmajor's Avatar
mathmajor mathmajor is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Nowhere in particular
Studying for Japanese
College: B.S. Applied Math
Favorite beer: La Croix Grapefruit
Posts: 12,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve White View Post
I think we fall back on our perception of standard expert practice
Okay, I'll leave the room
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by redprinceton
YOU ARE AN EXCEPTIONAL PERSON MATHMAJOR!
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 04-26-2018, 03:02 PM
Numbers Nerd's Avatar
Numbers Nerd Numbers Nerd is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Midwest
College: University of Wisconsin
Favorite beer: Ale, Lager, you name it
Posts: 1,741
Default

A) Pass. This is a bit of a law problem. We have 8-9 of our suit, and the opps have 8-9 of their suit. Bidding to the 4-level seems too high, especially when we have a trump trick.
B) Pass. This actually looks easy. With all this defense, I'm not too worried that I'm hanging partner.
C) 2H. This has the advantage of keeping the bidding alive in case partner has extras. Not good enough to raise to 3D, I think, much less to bid 3H!
D) Pass. Stay fixed. I fear that I will be in a clear minority by not doubling, however.
E) 2NT. Showing the spade stop is my top priority.
F) 4S. What? I should be bidding higher?
G) 3S. 4S is our most likely best game, but it could be in H or D. If partner bids 3NT, we'll have a decision.
H) D3. Fourth best from my longest and strongest.

Last edited by Numbers Nerd; 04-26-2018 at 03:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 04-26-2018, 04:49 PM
Len Myers's Avatar
Len Myers Len Myers is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 15,294
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Spoiler - A higher law:
  1. 4 Part of me really, really wants to pass.
  2. Pass. Even more of me wants to pass.
  3. 3 is it a good diamond raise? yes. Is it a fantastic diamond raise? no.
  4. 4 I've done dumb things before. Oh, well.
  5. 3NT. rates to be reasonable.
  6. 6 takes a parlay to be wrong. Unless my current partner doubled. Then it takes a parlay to be right.
  7. 3 I've got to stand up for a six-card suit that partner may think is only a four-bagger.
  8. 3 not thrilled.
__________________
Steve Jobs and I talked about how we wanted to make blind people as equal and capable as sighted people, and you'd have to say we succeeded when you look at all the people walking down the sidewalk looking down at something in their hands and totally oblivious to everything around them! -- Steve Wozniak

"Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good, is boring, real good is always new, marvellous, intoxicating." -- Simone Weil

Last edited by Len Myers; 04-27-2018 at 12:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.23335 seconds with 10 queries