Analyze this!

[OleBerg]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s753ha52dkqj4ca75]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Uncontested bidding:

 

1♦  -  1♠

1NT - 4♥

 ?

 

1NT was 12-14. Partner had a checkback option, so 4♥ is absolutely non-slammish. (And naturally promises at least 5-5.)

 

I passed thinking that diamonds might produce a number of discards, and that these discards would be more valuable in a heart contract, as spades were more likely to be a weak suit.

 

Is the reasoning sound?

[Jlall]

I think this is pretty legit except that partner might be 6-5. I always bid 4S in these situations but always think about passing. Basically I'm not sure, but I think 4S is right but I admire your pass :)

[jjbrr]

Why are spades more likely to be weak?

[Jlall]

Why are spades more likely to be weak?

I think he meant our combined holdings in spades are likely to be weaker than our combined holding in hearts based on our relative strengths in those suits.

 

Obviously partner is slightly more likely to have better spades than hearts because we have the ace of hearts.

[jjbrr]

I would just bid 4♠ anyway since partner might have 6. I don't really agree with guessing which honors partner does and does not have in each suit. Unless I'm missing something, 2 pitches from the ♦ suit dont really help so much...

 

edit: ok partner might have the ace. fair enough.

[Jlall]

I would just bid 4♠ anyway since partner might have 6. I don't really agree with guessing which honors partner does and does not have in each suit. Unless I'm missing something, 2 pitches from the ♦ suit dont really help so much...

 

edit: ok partner might have the ace. fair enough.

We also might get 3 pitches on a good day.

 

One problem with this is assuming a club lead, our only entry to the diamonds will be the ace of hearts. This might cause some problems. On the other hand if we need 2 heart pitches because hearts are 4-1, we won't lose our entry if we're playing in spades.

 

More generally we always prefer our entry to be in a side suit rather than in trumps, especially when we have short trumps in dumy.

[jdonn]

I think it's sound reasoning, but probably not enough to pass.

[Jlall]

Yeah a lot of hands I'm thinking of spades is better. For instance take a hand like

 

AKxxx

KQxxx

Tx

x

 

Where we have a clear 2 pitches. We'd rather be in spades than hearts. If hearts are 4-1 and spades 3-2 we can always just pitch 2 hearts and be fine. If spades are 4-1 and hearts 3-2 if we get 2 spade pitches in then we have gained a trick, but to do so we'll have to play KQ of hearts, then the ten of diamonds. They duck and we play another diamond. It's possible now with 5-2 diamonds they play another diamond and ruff it. This is one problem that arises when our entry is Axx of trumps in dummy.

 

Change the hand now to

 

AKxxx

KQxxx

xx

x

 

Now if hearts are 4-1 and spades are 3-2 its ok because we can play AK of spades and just ruff a heart. But if spades are 4-1 and hearts 3-2 and we play in hearts it's not even clear we're going to get 2 pitches in, we need the DA onside. If we get 1 pitch it doesn't help. Etc.

 

This is another symptom of the Axx trump problem since we can't really ruff spades in dummy when thats the position.

 

So it's not even clear to me if partner was always 5-5 we should be in hearts rather than spades.

[gnasher]

I'd bid 4♠. With two trump suits of equal length, it's nearly always best to play in the one that lacks top cards. Consider these carefully constructed examples:

 

(1) Partner has QJ109x QJ109x Ax x It's easier for them to arrange a spade ruff in 4♥ than a heart ruff in 4♠, so we want to be in spades.

 

(2) Partner has KJxxx KJxxx Ax x. If spades are AQ10x offside and hearts are 3-2 with the queen onside, we want to play in 4♥. If, however, hearts are Q109x offside and spades are 3-2 with either honour onside, we want to play in 4♠. Again, 4♠ is better than 4♥.

[skjaeran]

4♠ for me.

 

Two reasons:

Easier to keep my entry for the diamonds.

If there's a ruff out, it's normally easier for opps to take it if they hold the ace in the side suit, and I know they don't hold the heart ace.

[nigel_k]

I passed thinking that diamonds might produce a number of discards, and that these discards would be more valuable in a heart contract, as spades were more likely to be a weak suit.

 

Is the reasoning sound?

IMO this would have more weight if your hearts were QJx instead of Axx

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s753ha52dkqj4ca75]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Uncontested bidding:

 

1♦  -  1♠

1NT - 4♥

 ?

 

1NT was 12-14. Partner had a checkback option, so 4♥ is absolutely non-slammish. (And naturally promises at least 5-5.)

 

I passed thinking that diamonds might produce a number of discards, and that these discards would be more valuable in a heart contract, as spades were more likely to be a weak suit.

 

Is the reasoning sound?

I would correct to ♠ as number of ♠ are = or > ♥ you are only going to get 2 tricks in ♦ if partner has only 1. Setting up the non trump major will be the source of most of the non trump tricks for your side.

[OleBerg]

Thank you all fpr your replies.

 

I held the hand in a speedball tournament (4 boards in 13 minuttes), so I didn't consider it for a long time at the table.

 

I struck gold:

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sak1082hq10743d6ck4&s=s753ha52dkqj4ca75]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

(Hearts came down for one loser, ♦A onside and spades couldn't be solved for zero losers.)

 

Afterwards it seemed to me, that the trick would be to play in the suit, where partner is likely to control the third round, i.e. hold some low honours. (All this assuming you are willing to discard the 6-5 hands.)

 

It also seemed, that partner would have to have a decent amount of HCP/Playing strength in the major-suits.

 

I am not so strong in probabilety, but isn't it more likely that partner will have these low honours in hearts, rather than in spades, as he cannot have the ♥A? :genuinely bewildered: (Maybe the difference is insignificant?)

[hanp]

To lazy or not to lazy?

 

I did a double dummy simulation. If partner is exactly 5-5 in the majors with 11-13 HCP then the difference between 4H and 4S is very small (less than 1% over 1000 hands).

[jdonn]

To lazy or not to lazy?

 

I did a double dummy simulation. If partner is exactly 5-5 in the majors with 11-13 HCP then the difference between 4H and 4S is very small (less than 1% over 1000 hands).

So then clearly we should go back to spades since partner is more likely 6-5 than 5-6 unless he is Fluffy in which case it's a 100% guess. ;)

[pooltuna]

To lazy or not to lazy?

 

I did a double dummy simulation. If partner is exactly 5-5 in the majors with 11-13 HCP then the difference between 4H and 4S is very small (less than 1% over 1000 hands).

So then clearly we should go back to spades since partner is more likely 6-5 than 5-6 unless he is Fluffy in which case it's a 100% guess. :)

It's tough to resist scratching behind the ears? ;)

[hanp]

To lazy or not to lazy?

 

I did a double dummy simulation. If partner is exactly 5-5 in the majors with 11-13 HCP then the difference between 4H and 4S is very small (less than 1% over 1000 hands).

So then clearly we should go back to spades since partner is more likely 6-5 than 5-6 unless he is Fluffy in which case it's a 100% guess. ;)

Yes that's also the conclusion I came to.

[Cascade]

To lazy or not to lazy?

 

I did a double dummy simulation. If partner is exactly 5-5 in the majors with 11-13 HCP then the difference between 4H and 4S is very small (less than 1% over 1000 hands).

I did a similar simulation but with partner's range 10-14 HCP and both with a restriction on precisely 5=5 and with spades at least as long as hearts at least as long as five.

 

Average Tricks in Spades 10.296/10.152

 

Average Tricks in Hearts 10.264/10.166

 

The second figure is for precisely 5/5 distribution. The first allows for the possibility of 6/5.

 

No doubt if there is some chance of 5/6 then the first numbers would even up a little.

[Jlall]

I think there is one other factor (which I generally don't look at). "Everyone" will be playing in spades which makes it clear to play in spades, because it's quite close anyways, and our superior cardplay edge comes out more if we're in the same contract as everyone else. Also even if I didn't have a cardplay edge I'd rather get an average 100% of the time than a top 50.1 % of the time and a bottom 49.9 % of the time because it allows my superior bridge abilities to let me win the event more often anyways.

 

I was telling cherdano the other day that my dream is to declare a normal contract on every board in a MP event.

[OleBerg]

I think there is one other factor (which I generally don't look at). "Everyone" will be playing in spades which makes it clear to play in spades, because it's quite close anyways, and our superior cardplay edge comes out more if we're in the same contract as everyone else. Also even if I didn't have a cardplay edge I'd rather get an average 100% of the time than a top 50.1 % of the time and a bottom 49.9 % of the time because it allows my superior bridge abilities to let me win the event more often anyways.

 

I was telling cherdano the other day that my dream is to declare a normal contract on every board in a MP event.

Partner is going to be declarer! B)

[kenrexford]

I think there is one other factor (which I generally don't look at). "Everyone" will be playing in spades which makes it clear to play in spades, because it's quite close anyways, and our superior cardplay edge comes out more if we're in the same contract as everyone else. Also even if I didn't have a cardplay edge I'd rather get an average 100% of the time than a top 50.1 % of the time and a bottom 49.9 % of the time because it allows my superior bridge abilities to let me win the event more often anyways.

 

I was telling cherdano the other day that my dream is to declare a normal contract on every board in a MP event.

"Everyone" is a bit strong, even if the idea is right.

 

Some might open 1NT with this hand (whether upgraded, or a 11-14 range or a 13-15 range or a 14-16 range) and hear a response showing both majors (maybe 3♦, 3♥, or 3♠) and then opt to play 4♥.

 

I kept looking at the original post to re-read what I did not completely want to read because it interfered with another thought. Passing also has the advantage of stopping partner from reconsidering, if you don't want partner reconsidering. I mean, if partner has a hand with no slam interest UNLESS you elect spades (for some reason), then paqssing has the advantage of ending the auction. But, the "absolutely no slam interest" condition seems clear.

 

I also think passing has another advantage -- ability to move. If the auctuon goes ...4♥-P-4♠-X!!! or ... 4♥-P-4♠-P-P-X!!!, you wish you had passed 4♥. If the auction goes ...4♥-P-P, then only one more chance for X!!! exists, which might not be made if LHO fears a 4♠ contract, or which might be saved by a pull to 4♠. Of course, then you have the slight risk of a bludd double into the wrong contract.

 

All of that said, 4♠ for me.

[Jlall]

"Everyone" is a bit strong, even if the idea is right.

bleh I even put it in quotation marks!

[jdonn]

Also even if I didn't have a cardplay edge I'd rather get an average 100% of the time than a top 50.1 % of the time and a bottom 49.9 % of the time because it allows my superior bridge abilities to let me win the event more often anyways.

I heard a story once about some amazing online poker player who specialized in large multi-table tourneys, although I'll never remember who. Someone asked him once "wouldn't you rather just fold in 51-49 situations because they are so random and you can later take advantage of some 80-20 situation?" And he replied "I'd rather take advantage of both."

 

Of course it doesn't equate perfectly to bridge but you made me think of it since clearly you don't feel the same about bridge as he does about poker.

[Jlall]

Bridge and poker are clearly different dude. The people who in general pass up +cEV situations in tournaments are almost always misguided. cEV and $EV is the same early on in a tournament, later in the tournament they are different so passing up +cEV spots can be fine because of ICM.

 

However if someone was playing a big live tournament with a bunch of fish at his table and a very slow structure it might be right to pass up on marginally +cEV spots because he had an edge on the field. We are talking very small spots, because the edge you have cannot be that big in poker. In an online setting where the players are tougher and the structures are much faster, it is right to push all edges, especially because you can play a ton of tournaments each day.

 

In bridge we have different options, and way bigger edges are possible (because of a far lower amount of luck and higher amount of skill), and very high variance slightly +EV spots are VERY infrequent occurances, whereas in bridge they are not.

 

Moreover, the goal in bridge is not to accumulate all the chips. There is no such thing as doubling up or busting on a hand, it's simply doing as well as you can on each board and how that fits in to your overall score. So the things we are evaluating are different.

 

Here we are evaluating "how likely are we to win the event if we get an average on 1 single board" vs "how likely are we to win the event if we get a top on the board" minus "how likely are we to win the event if we get a bottom on the board."

 

I will contend that getting a bottom on a board hurts my chances of winning more than getting a top on a board helps my chances of winning. Getting an average on the board is fine. This is because I have a big enough edge on all other boards where I rate to win pretty often on those boards as long as I don't get a bottom. I don't need to win by even more by getting a top.

 

Also note I said 50.1 vs 40.9 not 51 vs 49. We are talking a really small edge.

 

Also, my hypothetical that if I play a normal contract I rate to get an average was just hypothetical. My real point of all this is let's say I rate to get 65 % if I play a normal 4S contract. I would need hearts to outperform spades a huge amount of the time in order for me to risk turning 65 % into a 0 just to get it up to 100 %.

 

For a more real life analysis lets say I get 65 % when I play 4S because I AM THE BEST. Let's say I get 100 % 65.1 % of the time when I play 4H, and 0 % 34.9 % of the time. It is obvous for me to take my 65 % and not risk the zero even though 4H is +EV because getting a top doesn't help my chances of winning compared to a 65 % whereas 0 % really hurts my chances of winning.

 

If I was truly a 50 % player in normal contracts I should take a top/bottom situation even if it was 49.9 % to get a top and 50.1 % to get a bottom because I would welcome the variance. As a 65 % player in normal contracts (at least) I will win a lot if I get "normal" scores for me, so I do not welcome variance.

[dburn]

One thought (because I never have more than one, and often have fewer): imagine partner with KJ109x in both majors and enough stuff that the contract depends on finding ♥Q if there are two losers in spades.

 

Now: playing in spades, partner can delay the heart guess until he has more information about the distribution in other suits. Playing in hearts, he cannot.

 

This may be another manifestation of what is called the "Vondracek effect": when two possible trump fits are equally distributed in the declaring side's hands, the weaker suit should be trump.