Straight evaluation

Fluffy · March 5, 2008

Anyone have an opinion on the difference between 5♥ and 6♥?

Appart from the obvious that forces to slam, With A10xxx I really want my partner to raise himself if I am to play slam in this strain.

I wouldn't raise 5♠ to 6, I'd rather play at the 5 level. If neither major is 3-3 you can't stablish 5th ♥.

Finch · March 5, 2008

Can I please say in passing that I wouldn't have opened this control-rich, anti-positional, suit-play orientated hand 1NT? Thanks for listening.

Now, if it is systemic that I have to open all 15-17 balanced hands 1NT, that presumably also includes something like

xx

AQJ10x

Axx

AJx

That looks more like a 6H bid over 4NT to me.

I don't think the heart suit on the actual hand is good enough for 6H. The last time I had a similar auction (1NT - 2D - 2H - 4NT - 6D) opener had AKQxxx in the suit. OK, we won't usually have AKQxxx in a major, but I think jumping to slam should be a serious attempt to play there opposite xxx or Hx.

5H feels more descriptive - and if partner bids 5NT over it I shall pass.

March 5, 2008

Subject to that, and assuming what I viewed as normal technique and not looking for esoteric positions (I have only so much time available), the results were that in 56 hands, all slams failed 25 times, all slams (6N/6♥/6♠) made 14 times, 6♥ was the only making slam 5 times, 6♠ 4 times, 6N and 6♠ 3 times, and 6N + 6♥ 5 times.

This relatively small sample confirmed that it was a good idea to suggest hearts as a suit, and that slam is a good bet on the whole.

I'm not sure if these results confirm that bidding is a great idea, slam makes 31 times and goes down 25 times but you have to always reach the right slam. I don't feel like that is such a claimer especially when it sometimes involves playing 5-2 fits, and no doubt sometimes involves avoiding 5-3 heart fits.

On the other hand the 5H bidders can sometimes stop in 5S or 5N as well, so if their judgement is good enough i guess bidding is slightly better, but given the small sample and how close the results were I don't think that we can conclude much.

Anyways, I had this hand in partnership bidding with Arend. 5H would have gotten 6H which is a good contract (partner had Kxx).

han · March 5, 2008

Mike, were there any hands where 4NT is in danger? If so then that would of course tilt the scale more in the direction of bidding.

If not then this seems an extremely close decision.

Can I please say in passing that I wouldn't have opened this control-rich, anti-positional, suit-play orientated hand 1NT? Thanks for listening.

Not listening, got my hands over my eyes!

March 5, 2008

Oh and btw I passed but it was 11 AM and I had been up all night :) I think 5H is best now, in fact I was surprised that the simulation made it so close.

jdonn · March 5, 2008

Mike, were there any hands where 4NT is in danger? If so then that would of course tilt the scale more in the direction of bidding.

Or if there was not much danger in 5NT. Pretty much anything except exactly 10 tricks!

mikeh · March 5, 2008

I don't keep track of the hands from simulations and I didn't consciously track this issue. I do recall seeing that some hands had no play for slam and I think that on a few of them I topped out at 10 sure winners, with no play for 12... but my vague recollection is that these hands would usually have a play for 11... if pushed, I'd guess that of the 56 hands, all made at least 10 tricks and maybe 2 or 3 made only 10 tricks.

The constraints weren't great: 5332 15-16 hcp, and I kicked out a few very soft 5332 15 count hands. I would expect that a more rigorous simulation would include some 17 counts... I don't think that responder should be driving to slam on all such hands... and inclusion of such hands would tend to make bidding on more successful.. because opener has the controls that make a big soft hand better.

Justin's point about my simulation not being a strong endorsement for slam... the results said 'yes' to slam but only if we knew we'd bid the right one... is valid, but I think the prospect of adding a few 17 count invites would tilt the scale more in favour of moving.

2.5k · March 5, 2008

Yes, agree there will be 17 counts inviting.

I suppose if you can get out in 5NT, as Josh mentions earlier, that is another point in favor of bidding.

My agreements after 1NT-4NT go no further than 'when accepting, bid 4 card suits at the 5 level and 5 card suits at the 6 level', hence on the similar auction here, by bidding 5♥, we are 'accepting' the invitation. But it does make sense that if responder bids 5NT then opener is allowed to pass. Would responder ever bid at the 6 level without a heart fit over 5♥?

Cascade · March 5, 2008

Here are my results from a similar simulation to Mike's.

The similation is double dummy.

The constraints were partner has any 5♠-3-3-2 hand and fifteen or sixteen hcp.

Like Mike it seems clear to accept and offer hearts - hearts was the most likely best strain.

Frequency spades:
[space] [space]0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1
[space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3
[space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] 15
[space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space]112
[space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]311
[space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]341
[space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space]217
Frequency no trumps:
[space] [space]0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]8
[space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space] 66
[space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]260
[space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]445
[space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space]221
Frequency hearts:
[space] [space]0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2
[space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space] 63
[space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]246
[space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]425
[space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space]264

mikeh · March 5, 2008

Here are my results from a similar simulation to Mike's.

The similation is double dummy.

The constraints were partner has any 5♠-3-3-2 hand and fifteen or sixteen hcp.

Like Mike it seems clear to accept and offer hearts - hearts was the most likely best strain.

Frequency spades:
[space] [space]0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1
[space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3
[space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] 15
[space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space]112
[space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]311
[space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]341
[space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space]217
Frequency no trumps:
[space] [space]0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]8
[space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space] 66
[space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]260
[space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]445
[space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space]221
Frequency hearts:
[space] [space]0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2
[space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space] 63
[space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]246
[space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]425
[space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space]264

Sorry Wayne, but I don't like double-dummy simulations in support of bidding propositions.

They over-estimate the success of aggressive bidding.

Take a simple but relevant extrapolation of the actual heart suit: assume A108xx opposite KJ9.

The correct percentage play for no losers is to cash the K and lead the J. We lose whenever the Q is in front of the KJ9, unless it is stiff. We should assess contracts on that basis.. double-dummy, you will pick up the suit on all 3-2 or 4-1 breaks... significantly increasing the percentage of hands on which bidding slam works.

While double-dummy analysis will occasionally result in the failure of a real-life contract, because the defence finds a double-dummy defence, most of the edge goes to the side with the greater resources... i.e. declarer.

jdonn · March 6, 2008

Call me simple minded but isn't partner's range 16-17 with that shape, not 15-16? Or at least very good 15 to most 17s. I expect that would make a significat difference in simulation results.

March 6, 2008

With 5332 I would expect partner to be 15-16. Jdown you don't force to slam with 32 and a 5 card suit?!

jdonn · March 6, 2008

With 5332 I would expect partner to be 15-16. Jdown you don't force to slam with 32 and a 5 card suit?!

Depends on how good the 5 card suit is, but you have less reason to if partner knows you have that suit already.

March 6, 2008

With 5332 I would expect partner to be 15-16. Jdown you don't force to slam with 32 and a 5 card suit?!
Depends on how good the 5 card suit is, but you have less reason to if partner knows you have that suit already.

I don't agree, I would generally play partner for about 1 less HCP for 1N 2H 2S 4N as opposed to 1N 4N so it would definitely make a difference to me.

jdonn · March 6, 2008

I'm at work and sleepy and honestly wasn't even considering that hands with a 5 card suit will invite with less. Sorry, carry on.

Cascade · March 6, 2008

Here are my results from a similar simulation to Mike's.

The similation is double dummy.

The constraints were partner has any 5♠-3-3-2 hand and fifteen or sixteen hcp.

Like Mike it seems clear to accept and offer hearts - hearts was the most likely best strain.
Frequency spades:
[space] [space]0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1
[space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3
[space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] 15
[space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space]112
[space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]311
[space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]341
[space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space]217
Frequency no trumps:
[space] [space]0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]8
[space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space] 66
[space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]260
[space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]445
[space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space]221
Frequency hearts:
[space] [space]0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
[space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2
[space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space] 63
[space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]246
[space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]425
[space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space]264
Sorry Wayne, but I don't like double-dummy simulations in support of bidding propositions.

They over-estimate the success of aggressive bidding.

Take a simple but relevant extrapolation of the actual heart suit: assume A108xx opposite KJ9.

The correct percentage play for no losers is to cash the K and lead the J. We lose whenever the Q is in front of the KJ9, unless it is stiff. We should assess contracts on that basis.. double-dummy, you will pick up the suit on all 3-2 or 4-1 breaks... significantly increasing the percentage of hands on which bidding slam works.

While double-dummy analysis will occasionally result in the failure of a real-life contract, because the defence finds a double-dummy defence, most of the edge goes to the side with the greater resources... i.e. declarer.

I understand fully.

I will try and do a single-dummy simulation here and see what the difference is. It might have to be after the weekend.

On another recent problem with a control rich invite to game the double dummy and single dummy results were similar. At a higher level I would expect or at least I have been told double dummy is more likely to favour declarer.

This would be a reason why my numbers are slightly more favourable for the slam.

skjaeran · March 6, 2008

Our agreements here is to answer to RKCB at 5-level and bid natural with a good 5c-suit at 6-level to suggest another strain when accepting.

I'd accept with this hand.

The hearts aren't strong enough to suggest 6♥ and I'd not show my number of KC, since that suggest 3c support. I'd thus try 5NT - pick a slam. If partner suggest a minor suit I'm correcting to 6♠, which partner then passes or recorrects to 6NT. If partner suggest 6♥ I'm obviously passing.

jdonn · March 6, 2008

Our agreements here is to answer to RKCB at 5-level and bid natural with a good 5c-suit at 6-level to suggest another strain when accepting.

I'd accept with this hand.

The hearts aren't strong enough to suggest 6♥ and I'd not show my number of KC, since that suggest 3c support. I'd thus try 5NT - pick a slam. If partner suggest a minor suit I'm correcting to 6♠, which partner then passes or recorrects to 6NT. If partner suggest 6♥ I'm obviously passing.

If partner bids a minor with these methods why not bid 6♥? He will know they aren't better since you didn't bid it over 4NT, and if he doesn't like hearts he can always suggest spades himself on the way to 6NT. That must be a better strategy.

han · March 6, 2008

Harald, I would rather pass than move to slam if I knew I couldn't play hearts.

skjaeran · March 6, 2008

Our agreements here is to answer to RKCB at 5-level and bid natural with a good 5c-suit at 6-level to suggest another strain when accepting.

I'd accept with this hand.

The hearts aren't strong enough to suggest 6♥ and I'd not show my number of KC, since that suggest 3c support. I'd thus try 5NT - pick a slam. If partner suggest a minor suit I'm correcting to 6♠, which partner then passes or recorrects to 6NT. If partner suggest 6♥ I'm obviously passing.
If partner bids a minor with these methods why not bid 6♥? He will know they aren't better since you didn't bid it over 4NT, and if he doesn't like hearts he can always suggest spades himself on the way to 6NT. That must be a better strategy.

Agree Josh. You should rebid 6♥ over 6m. Obviously a little too tired. Soon getting to bed.

skjaeran · March 6, 2008

Harald, I would rather pass than move to slam if I knew I couldn't play hearts.

Since you'd declare 6♥ yourself, I can't understand that sentiment Han. :P

Cascade · March 6, 2008

A small sample - 100 hands.

Double dummy tricks compared with single dummy tricks.

I limited the simulation to the hand in the opening post opposite 15-16 hcp with five spades and three hearts and three-two or two-three in the minors.

Tr    DD    SD
13    25    18
12    43    51
11    28    21
10     4     9
9      0     1

mean  11.89 11.76

han · March 6, 2008

Harald, I would rather pass than move to slam if I knew I couldn't play hearts.
Since you'd declare 6♥ yourself, I can't understand that sentiment Han. :P

Huh? Wait...

Wayne, mikeh's simulation didn't assume that responder had 3 hearts. Of course, if we knew responder had 3 hearts then we'd obviously bid on.

Cascade · March 6, 2008

I know the purpose of this simulation was just to determine the difference between DD and SD tricks.

I thought that comparison might be skewed if you forced GIB to declare a non-fit 6♥.

The earlier simulation that I did did not make this assumption.

han · March 6, 2008

Ah, ok!

Straight evaluation

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jlall

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jlall

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jlall

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jlall

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation