pick a partscore

[Apollo81]

All vul, IMPs

 

♠Kx

♥J1098xx

♦xxx

♣xx

 

1♦-1♥

2♣-??

[pclayton]

2♦ I guess, although this is my idea of a WJS if we are playing them.

 

I'm sure pard is bidding on, which isn't great news, but this is a useful dummy most of the time.

[mikeh]

2♦: I truly don't understand the problem. Am I supposed to rebid 2♥ with this?

 

I agree, this is a good hand for a WJS.

 

The fact that I would wjs opposite a vaguely defined 1♦ opener doesn't mean that I should rebid hearts now. Opposite the opener, I could expect some degree of fit quite often.. enough to warrant the bid, but after 2♣, partner will often be very short in hearts.. no 1N rebid, no 3 card raise on a minimum 1=3=5=4, etc. If he has a maximum 1=3=5=4, he'll correct 2♦ to 2♥ and we get back to par.

[mike777]

2d

 

With the vote now at 4 for 2d and 3 for 2h I thought this was an excellent learning post.

 

I thought this was an excellent problem, ty for posting.

I do not play wjs so this is a minimum 1h for me, good hand to review/discuss what a minimum response looks like.

 

Now 2d, good review/discuss on how to show a minimum rebid hand now.

[Mosene]

I bid 2♥. My hand plays so much better in hearts - and if partner has 1 lousy heart we should be OK. My hearts are more than useless in a diamond contract. (which would probably need to be cross-ruffed). This might also stop partner from bidding more with a misfit.

[ArtK78]

I would have bid 2♥ WJS on the first round if available.

 

I bid 2♥ now. My hand is worth 3-4 tricks in hearts, and certainly less than that in diamonds. Partner's primary honors in the minors are valuable in a heart contract. I don't see the 5-3 diamond fit playing as well as the 6-1 or 6-2 heart fit. Even if partner is void in hearts, 2♥ may have play.

 

Only if partner's minor suits are full of intermediate cards will 2♦ play better than 2♥.

[jdonn]

2♦. Partner is probably short in hearts since they aren't bidding spades. Therefore playing in hearts creates 2 extra losers very often. Meanwhile in diamonds we may get several black suit ruffs in our hand.

[TimG]

Simulation suggests that diamonds will play about 0.6 tricks better than hearts and 2D will make almost twice as often as 2H.

 

The real challenge is keeping the opponents out of 2S -- they can make 2S over 90% of the time. So, maybe there should be some consideration to which auction is more likely to elicit a balance: 1D-1H; 2C-2D or 1D-1H; 2C-2H. If you don't think there is much difference to the opponents, then 2D is an easy winner.

 

Conditions: opener has fewer than 4 spades, fewer than 3 hearts, at least as many diamonds as clubs (though I know that 3145 or similar is possible), not 3244, at most 10 minor suit cards, and 12-17 HCP; neither opponent has as many as 6 spades.

[Lobowolf]

Simulation suggests that diamonds will play about 0.6 tricks better than hearts and 2D will make almost twice as often as 2H.

 

The real challenge is keeping the opponents out of 2S -- they can make 2S over 90% of the time. So, maybe there should be some consideration to which auction is more likely to elicit a balance: 1D-1H; 2C-2D or 1D-1H; 2C-2H. If you don't think there is much difference to the opponents, then 2D is an easy winner.

 

Conditions: opener has fewer than 4 spades, fewer than 3 hearts, at least as many diamonds as clubs (though I know that 3145 or similar is possible), not 3244, at most 10 minor suit cards, and 12-17 HCP; neither opponent has as many as 6 spades.

How's it pan out if you allow for longer clubs without the strength to reverse?

 

With respect to 2♦ making almost twice as often, what are the rough percentages?

 

I'd guess if anything, opponents would be more likely to balance over 2♦, suggesting some semblance of a fit, so to the extent that's a consideration, I'd weigh even more in favor of rebidding 2♦.

[han]

We can be quite sure that partner has at least a 16-count and will bid again if we bid 2D. I'd rather bid 2H now since this may slow him down with short hearts, and if partner bids again we can bid 3D to a offer choice of partscores.

[mike777]

Given on this auction my partner cannot have a balanced or semibalanced 14+ count I thought 2d was fine. If it is the opp hand we tried our best to make it tough for them.

[han]

Simulation suggests that diamonds will play about 0.6 tricks better than hearts and 2D will make almost twice as often as 2H.

 

The real challenge is keeping the opponents out of 2S -- they can make 2S over 90% of the time. So, maybe there should be some consideration to which auction is more likely to elicit a balance: 1D-1H; 2C-2D or 1D-1H; 2C-2H. If you don't think there is much difference to the opponents, then 2D is an easy winner.

 

Conditions: opener has fewer than 4 spades, fewer than 3 hearts, at least as many diamonds as clubs (though I know that 3145 or similar is possible), not 3244, at most 10 minor suit cards, and 12-17 HCP; neither opponent has as many as 6 spades.

Why are these reasonable conditions? Either opponent had the chance to overcall 1S, wouldn't they often do this with only 5 spades?

 

When I dealt hands where partner had 11-15 points with at least 5 diamonds and 4 clubs and at most 3 spades, I found that one of the opponents would have a very clear overcall or takeout double on 49 out of the first 50 hands. The one remaining hand was less clear and partner was exactly 3-1-5-4 with 15 HCP.

 

I think it is very good that you provide your simulation conditions in your post, but starting your post with "simulation suggests" is in this case a joke.

[TimG]

Simulation suggests that diamonds will play about 0.6 tricks better than hearts and 2D will make almost twice as often as 2H.

 

The real challenge is keeping the opponents out of 2S -- they can make 2S over 90% of the time.  So, maybe there should be some consideration to which auction is more likely to elicit a balance: 1D-1H; 2C-2D or 1D-1H; 2C-2H.  If you don't think there is much difference to the opponents, then 2D is an easy winner.

 

Conditions: opener has fewer than 4 spades, fewer than 3 hearts, at least as many diamonds as clubs (though I know that 3145 or similar is possible), not 3244, at most 10 minor suit cards, and 12-17 HCP; neither opponent has as many as 6 spades.

Why are these reasonable conditions? Either opponent had the chance to overcall 1S, wouldn't they often do this with only 5 spades?

 

When I dealt hands where partner had 11-15 points with at least 5 diamonds and 4 clubs and at most 3 spades, I found that one of the opponents would have a very clear overcall or takeout double on 49 out of the first 50 hands. The one remaining hand was less clear and partner was exactly 3-1-5-4 with 15 HCP.

 

I think it is very good that you provide your simulation conditions in your post, but starting your post with "simulation suggests" is in this case a joke.

I should have said something like: I can only assume the opponents have been gagged and mean only to address the relative merits of playing in diamonds vs hearts on hands consistent with opener's bidding. And, left out the part about the opponents being able to make a spade partscore so often.

 

I expected the contest between hearts and diamonds to be closer. I think others would have guessed hearts better in the long run -- someone said "My hand plays so much better in hearts." That's really what I was trying to address.

 

I think it would be very difficult to set up conditions for a simulation such that neither opponent would be intervening.

[han]

I think it would be very difficult to set up conditions for a simulation such that neither opponent would be intervening.

Yes I agree, it would take quite some effort to exclude the hands where either of the opponents would make a bid with. But that wouldn't be the end of it, we'd also have to look at how often partner would bid on. If you agree with me that partner would bid again maybe 90% of the time or more, than what good does it do to compare the results in 2D with 2H?

 

Your point about this hand not playing better in hearts is a good one.

[TimG]

If you agree with me that partner would bid again maybe 90% of the time or more, than what good does it do to compare the results in 2D with 2H?

I was influenced by the thread title: "pick a partscore". I agree with you that it will be rare that responder can place the contract in 2D or 2H, either because the opponents will balance or because partner will bid again.

 

I like your idea of bidding 2H to discourage partner later in the auction. Maybe the best way to accomplish that is to go back and pass 1D. (*ducks*)

[han]

Well, I did some more simulations and now I'm in the 2D camp. I just looked at a lot of hands, what partner is likely to have and when he;'s likely to bid and when he will pass. With my latest simulation (which excludes a lot of possible overcalls and takeout doubles for the opponents) 2H will make 42% of the time and 3D 45% of the time. Yes, that means that even if 2H persuades partner not to bid on while he would bid over 2D, we would still do better after 2D! Of course, the more possible overcalls I exclude, the more likely it becomes that partner has heart shortness.

 

So I think 2D is right.

[TimG]

Well, I did some more simulations and now I'm in the 2D camp. I just looked at a lot of hands, what partner is likely to have and when he's likely to bid and when he will pass. With my latest simulation (which excludes a lot of possible overcalls and takeout doubles for the opponents) 2H will make 42% of the time and 3D 45% of the time.

I had to try, too. When I eliminated a lot of the hands that EW would intervene with, I got 2H making 43%, 2D making 64%, and 3D making 37%.

 

A couple of further items for comparison:

 

Average HCP for opener: 15.4

Average hearts for opener: 1.09

 

And, even though talking about spades got me into trouble earlier, the result of the simulation was that the opponents could make 2S 76% of the time.

 

The usual simulation disclaimers apply even more than usual: I'm sure EW hands that would intervene slipped through, some they wouldn't intervene with were discarded, and that both those items depend a lot on the opponents' approach to intervention; double-dummy tends to favor the defenders relative to table results, but this effect decreases as the auction reveals more; yada yada; the exact percentages are probably off, but they are probably not bad in relative terms (2D making 50% more often than 2H and 2H making about as often as 3D).

[P_Marlowe]

2D.

 

As it is, I would have passed 1D, ... most likely.

And even if not, I would not have made a WJS.

Since we play WJS, I cant bid 2H now, because

this would be an huge overbid.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kgr]

2D

In my system I would also have started with 2D over 1D. This is multi: weak with 6card M or very good 6cM with not a lot at the side.

[Apollo81]

Partner this time had Axx --- KQxxx AKxxx, I think, and played in 2♦+2. Other table bid 2♥-2NT, and responder didn't correct to 3♦.

[jdonn]

Partner this time had Axx --- KQxxx AKxxx, I think, and played in 2♦+2.  Other table bid 2♥-2NT, and responder didn't correct to 3♦.

He passed 2♦?? Wow. Not correcting to 3♦ at the other table was also fairly amazing, though 2NT was a bit of a misbid / overbid anyway (tough choice between pass and 3♣).

[MickyB]

Thought I'd already posted, seems not. 2♦ looks auto to me. I wouldn't WJS here, I rarely do with three-card support for opener's suit.

[MarkDean]

Glad for the simulation results: I was a two heart bidder, also converted, but having to do less work to be converted.

[skjaeran]

I'd have rebid 2♦, assuming I've taken over for someone after my first bid. I'd have WJS'd.