Wackojack

[hv=pc=n&s=st7432h2d3ckqjt74&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=ppp1d1sp2hpp]133|200[/hv] MP pairs. You are playing Acol weak no trump.

[hv=pc=n&n=sj84h54dakqt972ck&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=3h]133|200[/hv] MP pairs

Now on to the ATB bit. The fact that West happens to have a 4 card spade suit is irrelavent to the outcome. Thus there is no blame to West for making the 3♦ pre-empt. Easts 3N bid was semi-psychic (described as operating) but understandable since he had good reason to believe that the opps could make a major suit game and so could stand many off undoubled. West's subsequent double of 5♥ was questionable. The double should be telling East that the 3♦ pre-empt had more defensive value than normal for this bid, in order to give East the best information for judging what to do next. In respect that West holds an outside Ace this is true. However, this defensive value could be partially or totally negated because East also hold a 7 card diamond suit and might have had just 6. Easts subsequent pass of the double is way against the odds. East holding 5 card diamond support might just believe that the double indicates a 6 card pre-empt and thus if diamonds split 1-1 then there is a diamond trick available. Add that to the K♣ taking a trick plus an outside defensive trick in partner's hand gives you 3 possible defensive tricks. But would you put your money on that? No way! East should live up to to the "stripey" that he was and retreat to 6♦. Yes he may well go for -500, which could be a small loss. So West gets 25% blame for the double and East gets 75% for not removing the double of 5♥.

I hate being pre-empted by partner when I have a good hand and that always happens when I play in the forum indy. So I was somewhat surprised by the reaction of most of the posters. "Gross", "Weird", "Not enamoured", "Plain bad", "Never", "Not my style" are references to the 3♦ pre-empt. My initial view was that I would not open 3♦because I had a 4 card spade suit. Swap hearts and spades and I would. Nevetheless I recall Andrew Robson in "Partnership Bidding" arguing against restricting pre-empts to "pure". I have not found this reference after looking at his chapter on pre-empts. However I found this example hand recommended as a pre-empt nv in 1st. Quote: ♠ J 6 3 2 ♥ 5 ♦ K 2 ♣ K J 9 8 6 2 (Don’t worry overmuch about having a four-card major on the side when you are making a pressure-bid. You have already placed your bet on the enemy owning the deal.) Unquote Yes the 4 card spade suit he gives is much weaker than the one here. So is the objection by the posters the fact that the hand has 4 spades or is it the strength of those 4 spades?

The book "Competitive Bidding" by jeremy Flint and Richard Sharp published 1980 describes the UCB as a useful modern gadget.

Rainer: In the light of your studies and most of the points you have made, I am tipping towards the view that opening 1♥ on the South hand is the odds on winner. Thank you for that. Now you say this: Quote "What I do not do is passing a hand in fourth position I would open in any other" Unquote. Are you serious? I am hoping that you didnt really mean what you were saying. ♠xx, ♥KQxx, ♦Kxxx, ♣KJx. Would you open this hand in 4th position OR would you not open this in other positions?

Quote “Nobody likes to be proven wrong. If the facts do not support their assessment, they will rather question the facts (or claim they are not "relevant") than change their minds” Unquote Your 2nd study that found NS made on average 1.1 more tricks than EW has only 900 deals for NS and 1000 deals for EW. Your 1st study listed 1000 deals each way and found that NS made on average 1.0 more tricks than EW. I for one am very happy to reconsider my opinion which assumed that NS would make somewhat less than one trick more than NS. Conventional wisdom is not always correct. Could I therefore ask that the results be presented as follows or at least in an improved way: Of the number of deals that West can make x tricks: How many times does South make x tricks or fewer? This would favour pass in MP How many times does South make x+1 tricks or more? This would favour open 1♥.in MP The results would need to be imped in a team match and the game bonus would therefore skew the tipping point to favour NS. What interests me now is how do we indentify these hands that should be opened in 4th position? We do not have the luxury of doing a simulation study at the table. So back to basics: With North having 5 hearts and a singleton spade, on average NS will have 7 and 2/3 hearts and EW 8 spades. Then according to the LAW the median total tricks = 15 and 2/3. And if NS and EW have equal strength and other things being equal you would expect on average EW to have the advantage in trick taking. On average however, NS will have a strength advantage. NS will have 20 and 2/3 HCP and EW 19 and 1/3, giving NS an average advantage of 1 and 1/3 HCP. What fraction of a trick in favour of NS would this represent? Perhaps this would even up the average trick taking potential. Then why do the studies show an average of 1 more trick for NS? One thing that was mentioned is that a bad spade break for EW is assured whereas a bad heart break for NS is probabilistic. Also South having A and AQ put NS ahead in trick taking potential and damaging EW’s trick taking potential. Could this be responsible for the extra trick?

On average you will have 1 and a bit more points than the opps. With 8 hearts out you are most likely to have an 8 card heart fit and the opps an 8 card spade fit. This means you will be lucky to out bid the opps and make. If you are blessed with a 9 card heart fit then the opps are more likely to have a 9 card spade fit. So again you will be out bid. The same goes for a 10 card heart fit. The LAW says do not open.

And if you get a 1♦, 1♥ or 2♣ response then double jitters. Remember you are playing 12-14 no trump. Just relax.

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn||st%7C%7Cmd%7C1S46TH9QD38JC4679A%2CS57QKH58TD67KAC35%2CS389JH234KD2C2TJQ%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%2011%7Csv%7Co%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1D%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1S%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2C%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH4%7C Expert or lucky to rightside? Would you criticise 1D-1H-1NT-3NT?

Nice problem. Not sure it is at the beginner’s level though- but what do I know? My solution: Play A♣, Q♠ discarding remaining ♣. Then, A♥ just in case singleton offside, up to A♦, ♥ to Q. If it loses to K offside there are none left so claim. If K♥ onside comes up and another, then take a ruffing finesse of clubs. Why? South will not have a 6 card spade suit otherwise would have opened 2♠. So based on North’s peter he has four. If South is leading from ♣Kx(x)2. Then North has 7 red cards and must hold the K♥ since South did not open the bidding. Then if you finesse the club successfully it does not help you if you cannot avoid losing 2 heart tricks. The only distribution that will help you is when ♥ split 2-2. If South is leading from a singleton, then he has 8 cards in the red suits and the most likely distribution is the 4351. Then North’s is 4135. Suppose North has the K♥. Then if you 1st play A♥, you will drop the singleton King and then just concede 1 heart trick to make the contract. If you do not play off the A♥ and instead finesse, then you go off. If South has ♥Kxx, then have to concede just 1 heart trick whether or not you play off the ace or finesse. I assume the point of the problem is to try and read the opps hands from their bidding (lack of) and play of 1st 3 cards and play accordingly.

Yes. My table says that the odds of keeping to the loss of 1 trick only by intrafinessing the 7 (and then finessing on the way back) is 13%. Almost identical odds to playing ace and another so your choice would be according to who you thought had the ace of hearts. In other words if as is likely you are going to lose 2 diamond tricks, then you want to lose first to the hand you think has the ace of hearts.

If clubs turn out to be 5-1 (West having 5) and you go to plan B (diamonds) then you will almost always be 1 trick behind those who started on diamonds. So in MP this has to be inferior. Yes I did recognise that this affected the odds. As I see it, it will further depress the upside on playing diamonds first, but I am not sure that it affects significantly the far bigger downside on playing clubs first. My conclusion now is that it is very close, so that playing on diamonds first is not obviously inferior.

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|wackojack,jw1942,Tryggolaf,patrik61|st%7C%7Cmd%7C1S5QH5JKD78AC278JK%2CS69TH346TAD2TC56T%2CS8KAH29QD3469JC4A%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%207%7Csv%7Cb%7Cmb%7C1C%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1D%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cmc%7C10%7C Yesterday I looked ar Richards commentary on youtube. On this hand the rest of the field played on clubs and finding them 3-3 with the Queen well placed made 11 tricks. Richard and I as declarers played on diamonds and made 10 tricks for an equal bottom. He did comment that he wasnt sure that he played against the odds. That led me to giving it some thought. I put the suits into the odds tables: http://www.automaton.gr/tt/en/OddsTbl.htm and came up with this analysis. Play on clubs (no losers 17.8%) Result 11 tricks Play on diamonds (1 loser 12.4%) Result 11 tricks. Thus the upside on playing clubs rather than diamonds = 5.6%. Play on clubs ( 1 loser 43.6%) Result 10 tricks Play on diamonds (2 losers 78%) Result 10 tricks. Play on clubs (2 or more losers 38.6%) Result 9 tricks or fewer Play on diamonds (3 or more losers 9.6%) Result 9 tricks or fewer. Thus the downside on playing clubs rather than diamonds = 29%. This suggests that the play on diamonds gives give you the better match point odds. The lead of a heart rather than a spade may affect the odds slightly. I got a heart lead and I think I incorrectly let it run to my Jack rather than take with the Queen in dummy. Nevertheless that did not affect the result. Am I right?

The book you are looking for is Robson & Segal's "Partnership Bidding at Bridge" Chaper 1 is "Support with support: the theory" Chapter 2 is "Support with support in practice" This takes you up to page 82 It goes on to page 234 on pressure bidding and competing with and without known fits. It is the most influential best bridge book I have read.

Nothing that west has done makes any sense at all. Between you, you have pushed to boat out by bidding 3NT and it being imps you must try and make the contract if at all possible. So what chance have you got? Certainly if West started with ♥A43(x), then you make by playing another diamond. However, that being the case, Eat is poosibly feeling the squeeze holding ♠QJ10, ♣QJ104 and so by now playing ♣AK you will also make. Play another diamond and hope.

Fualty reasoning Play AK♣first and Q does not drop and spades don't behave then you make 6 tricks. Play off top spades first and then top clubs even if the Q♣comes down on the second round you only make 6 tricks when you could have made 9 tricks had you played clubs first. Go with the odds.

Yes indeed. As I said, if you play ♣K and then the ♣Jack, you may well have your problem solved because South holding Qxx may well cover because that is the correct play if declarer has KJ doubleton. The point about this hand is that clubs should be played before spades and ♣K then ♣J gives you the best odds. If I am wrong please tell me.

Yes I said in my OP that this was last Sunday's BBO Forum Indy which is MP there being 5 tables. OK with Acol 12-14 no trump. The auction might well go 1♠-2♠-pass. It is not clear how this might be played even assuming a heart lead. So I see no reason to go anti-field if it is not the best odds. Playing a spade to the King and hooking the club the other way is really poor odds. If it loses to the Q, then you are 2 off if you are very lucky and 5 off if unlucky. If the 10 holds, then all you make if North has Qxxx is 7 tricks if spades 4-2 and 8 tricks if spades 3-3. Yes of course you make lots of tricks (9 or 10) if North has ♣Q, Qx or Qxx, but that chance is less than 50%.

1. Absolutely right. 2. Yes true. Moreover, suppose the Jx♠ is over the 10. Then North covers with the 10 and eventually South will score the 9. In other words running the 10♠ only works for half the 3-3 breaks and never works for any 4-2 spade breaks. So as you say best play the way you say. 3. OK you throw a 2 diamonds from dummy and then when in with the Q♥ which is the best suit to play first? Suppose you play off the spades first. Then the only way you will make 5 club tricks is if the Q drops when you play the King. OR you run the J♣immediately and it wins. Otherwise the clubs become blocked. So you must play on clubs first. Play the K first to see if the Q drops. Then play the Jack. Now suppose South has Qx. South does not know if you also have the 10. Suppose you had only ♣KJ. Then it would be right for South the cover with the Queen in order to promote partner's 10. So it would be a very outstanding South (or perhaps a complete novice) either not to cover with the Queen or at least hesitate. In fact f2f if South hestitaed you must let it run. On BBO a hesitation might be because the cat wants to get out so not so certain. Sorry this is not quite right and I have no time to edit this properly as I have to go out right now. So I wait to be corrected.

Err no! You do do it if you can. Convince yourself that double for take out scores better than double for penalty particularly over a strong no trump where you can re-open with a double more freely.

Sorry East opens 1N and all pass

[hv=pc=n&w=skt2h3d7542ca9832&e=saq74hqjtdq98ckjt&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1nppp]266|200[/hv] 8♥lead to Ace and 10. North returns 6♥ to Q and K, declarer discarding the 2♠ from dummy. South continues with 2♥ and this time declarer discards the 2♦ from dummy and North plays the 5 and declarer wins with the J♥. Next declarer plays 4♠ to the King, South playing the 5 and North the 3. Then declarer plays the 10♠ frpm dummy and when North played the 6, he let it run (playing the 7) which lost to the Jack. The defence proceeded to take 8 tricks. Questions to the less experienced players. 1. Comment on the first spade discard. 2. Why was running the 10♠ the worst thing that declarer could do? 3. Say you were declarer and instead threw 2 diamonds from dummy. What do you think is the best play when you are in with the J♥. This is a hand from last sunday's BBO Forum Indy. I realise that sometimes when the spotlight is on you that thinking clearly is not easy, so please only polite criticism.

OK suppose I led the 10♠ being unethically swayed by the hesitation and then the director is called. Lets say the director rules against me and we lose 13 imps. Then I appeal and we use this sample of replies (plus the fact that my opposite number led a spade). 50% vote for spade lead. So 50% = push and 50% I lose 13. So by leading a spade (unethically?) we only lose 6.5 imps. Would it work like this?

[hv=pc=n&s=stht964d632cqjt52&w=s98763h732d874cak&n=sakqj5h8da9c98763&e=s42hakqj5dkqjt5c4&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1hp1sp2dp2hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] OK I led Q♣ which I probably would have led anyway. However, in the auction after 4♥ was passed round to partner, she thought for maybe 10 secs before passing. I knew she was thinking of doubling and would have led my singleton spade had she done so. Actually my partner was not pleased with my lead to say the least as we lost 13 imps after my opps seat did lead the singleton. She didnt seem to understand that a spade lead after the hesitaion was a no no. We did win the match by 16 imps but it could have been by 31 had partner doubled. Obviously she was wrong in thinking I should have led a spade. Now marks for a double please Nigel?