Swanna introduce those hearts?

[sartaj1]

2D = transfer to 2H

followed by 3S forcing (unless partner jumps in hearts)

 

Coudnt resist an advert for my chosen methods ;)

[CSGibson]

I think I'm opening this 2♣. I would be sick if 1♠ somehow passed around, and it really does describe my hand in terms of slam potential much more than 1♠. I understand if this may be a minority view, but it's a 3 loser hand with great controls, and as seen, even having the extra room is not all that valuable since you're forced to jump around anyway.

 

after opening 2C I can bid 2♠, 3♠, 4♥, and get the hand off my chest, or if it miracle of miracles goes 2S-3H, I can just bid key card and get to the right spot.

[whereagles]

3H

Isn't there some danger that partner with 1=3 in the majors and one or other minor unstopped will raise to 4♥?

NO NO NO. Statistically, he won't have that hand. And even if he does, he should still bid 3NT because opener, who has a strong hand, probably has a stop anyway.

[rbforster]

I think I'm opening this 2♣.

I was going to point this out too. Game in hand? Check. Unwilling to open game directly? Check. Must leave 2♣.

 

Notice that something like 90%+ of the spade simulations are making game or better. This is also without exploring for hearts when they might offer a better strain either.

[bid_em_up]

This hand predealt no other constraints.

 

Spades made:

 

    7          1
   8         17
   9         71
  10        188
  11        390
  12        269
  13         64

Hearts made :

 

    4          7
   5         21
   6         57
   7        106
   8        133
   9        118
  10        113
  11        230
  12        172
  13         43

Hearts made more than spades  158/1000

 

Draw your own conclusion but I think it worth investigating slam and exploring for a heart fit.

If I am reading this table correctly, the number on the left is the number of tricks taken, and the number on the right is the number of times. Right?

 

Please explain your conclusion that it is worth "exploring" a heart fit, or that Hearts made more than spades 158/1000. Because I sure dont see the same thing.

 

Assuming my math is right, spades took 10+ tricks a total of 911 times out of 1000 or 91.1% of the time. Hearts tooks 10+ tricks a total of 558 times out of 1000 or 55.8%. (For 9+ tricks the numbers are 98.2% vs. 67.6%)

 

Hmmm, lets see. 91.1% vs. 55.8%, this is a no-brainer for spades, imo.

[jtfanclub]

Please explain your conclusion that it is worth "exploring" a heart fit, or that Hearts made more than spades 158/1000. Because I sure dont see the same thing.

He's saying that on 158 out of 1000 specific hands, the hand took more tricks in hearts than spades.

 

That has nothing to do with the chart he posted.

[pclayton]

I think this beast is good enough for 2♣. I think 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ - 2N - 3♠ - 3N - 4♥ describes this hand the best.

 

If I have a 2N or 3♣ gadget available, I'd pull that out. If I didn't, I'd try the 3♥ / 4♠ route.

[helene_t]

Funny to see that the number of hearts tricks is bimodal. Wonder if this is reproducible.

 

Not that even if some 15% of deals take more tricks in hearts than is spades, the number of deals on which it would be correct to bid a heart contract may be smaller (or larger for that matter). For example it could be that if p is 1-4, the expected number of spades tricks is always larger than the expected number of heart tricks, but sometimes hearts split more friendly.

[jtfanclub]

Funny to see that the number of hearts tricks is bimodal. Wonder if this is reproducible.

I suspect 8 tricks is the most common result with a 6 or less card fit, and 11 tricks is the most common with an 8+ card fit, with 7 card fits falling somewhere between.

[nick_s]

Cool analysis snipped

If I am reading this table correctly, the number on the left is the number of tricks taken, and the number on the right is the number of times. Right?

 

Please explain your conclusion that it is worth "exploring" a heart fit, or that Hearts made more than spades 158/1000. Because I sure dont see the same thing.

 

Assuming my math is right, spades took 10+ tricks a total of 911 times out of 1000 or 91.1% of the time. Hearts tooks 10+ tricks a total of 558 times out of 1000 or 55.8%. (For 9+ tricks the numbers are 98.2% vs. 67.6%)

 

Hmmm, lets see. 91.1% vs. 55.8%, this is a no-brainer for spades, imo.

Following on: I guess what I'd really like to know is when hearts was a better contract than spades, when the same, and when worse etc.

 

I'm asking a lot, I know. :)

[Free]

According to these statistics, the average number of tricks is 9.626 in ♥, while it's a massive 11.012 in ♠...

[bid_em_up]

Please explain your conclusion that it is worth "exploring" a heart fit, or that Hearts made more than spades  158/1000. Because I sure dont see the same thing.

He's saying that on 158 out of 1000 specific hands, the hand took more tricks in hearts than spades.

 

That has nothing to do with the chart he posted.

JT.

 

I am assuming that the chart shows 1000 hands, and the number of tricks taken in spades for those 1000 hands, and the number of tricks taken in hearts for the same 1000 hands.

 

It simply isnt possible that hearts made more tricks than spades 158 times, unless he is meaning that on a given hand spades made 8 tricks, but hearts made 9, or spades made 10 but hearts made 11, or some other similar comparison. I find this hard to believe though.

 

Overall, its clear that spades is the better contract.

[skjaeran]

I've two possible ways to bid this hand after 1♠-1NT:

 

Either rebid 2♦ (transfer) followed by 3♠ (unless partner jump in hearts).

 

Or, preferably, rebid a conventional GF 2NT followed by 3♠ unless partner shows 4c hearts (or more) (over 3NT from pard I rebid 4♠).

[SchTsch]

Hm, I thought we are bond to use natural bidding.

 

Usage of gazzilli 2♣ simplifies things.

[jtfanclub]

It simply isnt possible that hearts made more tricks than spades 158 times, unless he is meaning that on a given hand spades made 8 tricks, but hearts made 9, or spades made 10 but hearts made 11, or some other similar comparison. I find this hard to believe though.

I believe that's exactly what he's saying. I suspect that there are very few hands where responder has 4+ hearts where you're better off playing in spades.

[Cascade]

This hand predealt no other constraints.

 

Spades made:

 

    7          1
   8         17
   9         71
  10        188
  11        390
  12        269
  13         64

Hearts made :

 

    4          7
   5         21
   6         57
   7        106
   8        133
   9        118
  10        113
  11        230
  12        172
  13         43

Hearts made more than spades  158/1000

 

Draw your own conclusion but I think it worth investigating slam and exploring for a heart fit.

If I am reading this table correctly, the number on the left is the number of tricks taken, and the number on the right is the number of times. Right?

 

Please explain your conclusion that it is worth "exploring" a heart fit, or that Hearts made more than spades 158/1000. Because I sure dont see the same thing.

 

Assuming my math is right, spades took 10+ tricks a total of 911 times out of 1000 or 91.1% of the time. Hearts tooks 10+ tricks a total of 558 times out of 1000 or 55.8%. (For 9+ tricks the numbers are 98.2% vs. 67.6%)

 

Hmmm, lets see. 91.1% vs. 55.8%, this is a no-brainer for spades, imo.

Yep you are reading the numbers wrong.

 

Well most of what you are reading is correct you are just missing one thing.

 

The 158/1000 is another statistic. That is the number of times (hidden in the rest of the data) that hearts was a better contract than spades.

 

I feel that 15% is a big enough minority option to at least make some exploration for the alternative contract.

[jdonn]

What are the statistics for hearts and spades specifically when partner has 4+ hearts?

[Cascade]

I think I'm opening this 2♣.

I was going to point this out too. Game in hand? Check. Unwilling to open game directly? Check. Must leave 2♣.

 

Notice that something like 90%+ of the spade simulations are making game or better. This is also without exploring for hearts when they might offer a better strain either.

Actually I did a further simulation and there was a smaller but still around 80% chance of making 4♠ when partner had a hand too weak to respond to 1♠.

 

Having said that personally I am experimenting with opening at the one-level on stronger and stronger hands. And so far this approach seems to work ok.

 

Sometimes when partner passes or would have passed the opponents rescue you.

[Cascade]

Funny to see that the number of hearts tricks is bimodal. Wonder if this is reproducible.

 

Not that even if some 15% of deals take more tricks in hearts than is spades, the number of deals on which it would be correct to bid a heart contract may be smaller (or larger for that matter). For example it could be that if p is 1-4, the expected number of spades tricks is always larger than the expected number of heart tricks, but sometimes hearts split more friendly.

I will try and reproduce it. I am not at all surprised though.

 

If partner has not many hearts we don't rate to make many tricks at all. Whereas if partner has lots of hearts we rate to make lots of tricks.

[TimG]

3H

Isn't there some danger that partner with 1=3 in the majors and one or other minor unstopped will raise to 4♥?

NO NO NO. Statistically, he won't have that hand. And even if he does, he should still bid 3NT because opener, who has a strong hand, probably has a stop anyway.

I believe the correct call with 1-3 in the majors and a hand unsuitable to bid 3N is 3S.

[Cascade]

3H

Isn't there some danger that partner with 1=3 in the majors and one or other minor unstopped will raise to 4♥?

NO NO NO. Statistically, he won't have that hand. And even if he does, he should still bid 3NT because opener, who has a strong hand, probably has a stop anyway.

I believe the correct call with 1-3 in the majors and a hand unsuitable to bid 3N is 3S.

Yes I like false preference on this sort of auction too. But I am not sure that is standard.

[Cascade]

Cool analysis snipped

If I am reading this table correctly, the number on the left is the number of tricks taken, and the number on the right is the number of times. Right?

 

Please explain your conclusion that it is worth "exploring" a heart fit, or that Hearts made more than spades 158/1000. Because I sure dont see the same thing.

 

Assuming my math is right, spades took 10+ tricks a total of 911 times out of 1000 or 91.1% of the time. Hearts tooks 10+ tricks a total of 558 times out of 1000 or 55.8%. (For 9+ tricks the numbers are 98.2% vs. 67.6%)

 

Hmmm, lets see. 91.1% vs. 55.8%, this is a no-brainer for spades, imo.

Following on: I guess what I'd really like to know is when hearts was a better contract than spades, when the same, and when worse etc.

 

I'm asking a lot, I know. :P

I hope this makes some sense:

 

Spade Length (rows - horizontal) versus Heart Length (columns - vertical)
Spades made more tricks than hearts.

             0      1      2      3      4      5      6    Sum
  0          0      7     22     13      0      0      0     42
  1          6     19     85     66      8      1      0    185
  2         13     54    147    139     28      3      1    385
  3          5     56     93     87     26      2      0    269
  4          6     22     34     24      9      2      1     98
  5          1      3      7      5      3      0      0     19
  6          0      0      2      0      0      0      0      2
Sum          31    161    390    334     74      8      2   1000

Spade Length (rows - horizontal) versus Heart Length (columns - vertical)
Spades made the same number of tricks as hearts.

       1      2      3      4      5      6      7    Sum
  0    0     10     21      9      1      0      0     41
  1    2     28     76     73     22      7      1    209
  2    1     19    140    210     74     12      1    457
  3    0      8     93    108     32      3      1    245
  4    0      1     21     20      5      0      0     47
  5    0      0      1      0      0      0      0      1
Sum     3     66    352    420    134     22      3   1000

Spade Length (rows - horizontal) versus Heart Length (columns - vertical)
Spades made fewer tricks than hearts.

         2      3      4      5      6      7      8      Sum
  0      2     46    121     70     18      4      0      261
  1      1    123    241    179     49      6      1      600
  2      0      1     60     51     20      1      0      133
  3      0      0      1      2      2      0      0        5
  4      0      0      0      0      1      0      0        1
Sum       3    170    423    302     90     11      1     1000

[Cascade]

What are the statistics for hearts and spades specifically when partner has 4+ hearts?

Partner has exactly four hearts
===============================

Spade Tricks

   7          3
   8         19
   9         91
  10        197
  11        382
  12        267
  13         41

Heart Tricks

   6          4
   7         17
   8         49
   9         88
  10         90
  11        362
  12        319
  13         71

  More heart tricks than spade tricks 276/1000

Partner has five or more hearts
===============================

Spade Tricks

   7          3
   8         19
   9         91
  10        197
  11        382
  12        267
  13         41

Heart Tricks

   6          4
   7         17
   8         49
   9         88
  10         90
  11        362
  12        319
  13         71

  More heart tricks than spade tricks 505/1000


Partner has four or more hearts
===============================

Spade Tricks

   7          2
   8         16
   9         92
  10        234
  11        390
  12        227
  13         39


Heart Tricks

   6          2
   7         12
   8         37
   9         64
  10         94
  11        388
  12        336
  13         67

  More heart tricks than spade tricks 364/1000

[Cascade]

Funny to see that the number of hearts tricks is bimodal. Wonder if this is reproducible.

 

Not that even if some 15% of deals take more tricks in hearts than is spades, the number of deals on which it would be correct to bid a heart contract may be smaller (or larger for that matter). For example it could be that if p is 1-4, the expected number of spades tricks is always larger than the expected number of heart tricks, but sometimes hearts split more friendly.

I will try and reproduce it. I am not at all surprised though.

 

If partner has not many hearts we don't rate to make many tricks at all. Whereas if partner has lots of hearts we rate to make lots of tricks.

Ten smaller samples of 100 hands:

 

       Total
   0     0       0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0
   1     0       0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0
   2     0       0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0
   3     1       1   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0
   4     7       0   0   0   1   0   1   2   0   3   0
   5    34       2   3   2   0   4   3   6   6   3   5
   6    64       8   9   8   7   4   9   4   5   2   8
   7    98       5  11  12   9   8   7  13  15  10   8
   8   104      11  10  13   4  18   7   6   9  17   9
   9   133      10  14   9  18  17  12  13   9  14  17
  10   126      17   9  15  15   9  13  12  14  11  11
  11   226      22  22  24  25  19  22  21  23  24  24
  12   157      18  17  12  16  17  22  17  15  12  11
  13    50       6   5   5   5   4   4   6   4   4   7

 

A bigger sample. I haven't done the numbers but it might be too close to call as to whether it really is bimodal.

 

   0          0
  1          0
  2          0
  3          7
  4         76
  5        285
  6        573
  7        915
  8       1233
  9       1250
 10       1169
 11       2312
 12       1781
 13        399

[awm]

Hmm I'm not sure what Cascade's numbers are suggesting. His first post artificially equalizes the number of hands where each contract is better, and the second doesn't seem to count situations where hearts and spades are equal.

 

I think the relevant question is, suppose that your choices are:

 

(1) Insist on spades by rebidding 4♠ or something like this. Now you always play in spades.

(2) Introduce hearts, accepting that you will now always play in hearts if partner has 4+♥ and occasionally play in hearts when partner is 1-3 or 0-3 in the majors.

 

The question is which approach is better. So what we need to know is:

 

(1) Given that partner has 4+♥, what is the probability that hearts are better than spades relative to the probability that spades are better than hearts? Obviously there will be a substantial amount of the time when either major is equally good -- this doesn't really matter one way or the other.

 

(2) Given that partner has 3♥ and 0-1♠, what is the probability that hearts are better than spades relative to the probability that spades are better than hearts? What is the frequency of partner having this shape? Can we quantify the frequency of a 4♥ raise with such a hand versus a 3NT bid (which we can correct to 4♠)?