Free Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 I have a question where I think I know the answer for one of the 2 scorings, but I'd like to be convinced completely. Say your partnership has a 4-4 fit in ♣ or ♦, and you're allowed to play 1NT or 2m, opps will be good and keep their mouth. What will give you the best scores in the long run? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally, I thought 2m. My mentor has shown me the error of my ways, including several pages of random sample hands. One issue turns out to be that the leads at 1NT tend to be inferior to the leads at 2m. A large pile of sample hands did convince him that 3m with 4-4 is superior to 2NT, however. If you're not willing to take a shot at 3NT, 2NT does not have good odds. Ack, I see now I voted for 2m by mistake. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 A lot may depend upon how you get to 1NT or 2m. 1NT-P is harder to lead to than 1D-1S-1NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted August 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Suppose responder doesn't have a 4 card Major Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricK Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 At MP: The weaker you are, the more you want to be in 2m. Conversely, the stronger you are the more you want to be in 1NT. The reason being, if you have say 23 points between the two hands you have a good chance of making 2NT against 3m (120 v 110). Whereas with only 19 or 20 points you have a good chance of being -1 in 2m but -2 in 1NT (-50 v -100) although here, the opps are probably missing a part-score. At IMP: The same thing applies, but for a slightly different reason. For weak hands, 2m is more likely to make than 1NT, and is rarely a lot down (as 1NT might be), so you definitely want to be in it. For strong hands, 1NT is also more likely to make than 2m because of possible cross-ruffs, or bad trump breaks etc. Unfortunately, this isn't one of your options, so I shan't vote! Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 i guess i'd need to know responder's shape... since no 4 card M, after 1C he would bid 1D if, say, 2344 or 2254 and pass opener's 1nt.. if even flatter, say 3334, i can't see him bidding 2C at mps or imps... the same seems to apply if 1D is opened, except opener will have 4+ diamonds slightly more often Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted August 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 If the bidding goes 1♣-1♦, you can still play 2♦ in a 4-4 fit, right? You can also bid 1NT with a fit. It doesn't always have to be in opener's suit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 that's true, and opener should probably bid 2D with 2245 rather than 1nt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 Your insistence on the opponents' silence makes the question meaningless in my opinion. Given that silence, I would want to be in 2m every time at IMPs. Significantly safer contract and scoring difference is negligible. At MPs I would want to be in 2m if weak because the prospect of 120 in 1NT is much less. If strong I want to be in 1NT because the prospect of 130 in 2m will be less than 120 in 1NT (if 1 am making 130 in 2m I might want to have a shot at 3NT). However in practice I always want to be in 1NT, BECAUSE the opponents will not let me buy it in 2m in an 8 card fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummer_ Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 I ran two simulations of 100 hands each with an 8 card ♦ fit 4-4 or 5-3 and no other 8 card fit. The first had 19-20 combined hcp and the second 21-23. In the 19-20 2♦ went down 44 times and 1N went down 67 times. With 21-23 hcp 2♦ went down 10 times and 1N 24 times. Seems like we should have more respect for 2 of a minor even at MPs. :lol: Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulhar Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 That depends on how the simulations were run. If you randomly dealt hands and then had Deep Finesse play them, the assumption is that both declarer and defenders will play perfectly seeing all 52 cards. This doesn't happen in real life. Another point: if 1NT goes down 24 times in 100, I presume it also makes +120 a lot of times too. Most of these will be winners. On the other hand, 1NT will go down 200 more often (probably not too often with extra points though.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted August 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 Hi Hummer, welcome to the forum and tnx for the little simulation. 100 deals can give some sort of picture. As paulhar mentioned, it's not only about making the contract, it's also making overtricks. I have the impression that in imps 2♦ will be the winner, but with MP's it might be different since you almost certainly get a bottom when 1NT makes +1. I still hope Cascade manages to run a big simulation -> HINT HINT :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummer_ Posted August 4, 2004 Report Share Posted August 4, 2004 With the 21-23 hcp simulation 33 made 2♦ and 37, 18, and 2 made 3, 4 & 5 respectively for an expected score of 107.6 on each of the 90 hands that make. In 1N 38, 20, 14, and 4 make 1 to 4N respectively for an expected score on the 76 hands that make of 113.7. So if the contract is making you want to be in notrump at MPs, but if you don't know if its makeing and you are nv the expectations are 71 for notrump and 91 for ♦s. :P Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted August 4, 2004 Report Share Posted August 4, 2004 If you factor in the likelihood that opponents can make 2M combined with the relative likelihood of their bidding it over 2m contrasted with over 1N, when failing in 1N is still likely to be a good score at MP, then I still say play in 1N at MP. May even be right at IMP. Mind you, I don't see any easy way of factoring that into a simulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cave_Draco Posted August 5, 2004 Report Share Posted August 5, 2004 Dragon view... 2m is rarely good at MP, 1NT is often good! At MP, 2m is almost forcing, :huh: At IMPs... who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulhar Posted August 5, 2004 Report Share Posted August 5, 2004 2m is rarely good at MP, 1NT is often good! When the opponents let me play 2D on my 8 card fit in matchpoints, it's usually worth a lot of matchpoints :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.