Round 1, Board 1

[inquiry]

First, thanks to contestant and BBO yellow Cascade (Wayne Burrows) for lin converter which was used to quickly convert all 16 hands from the lin file format used at the teaching table to the EAST-WEST format used in all 16 of the hand post.

 

Second, for a few days, i will not post peoples scores. The reason for this is to allow people to discuss -- among other things -- the scores I assigned for each contract without knowing how many "points" they might need to move up in the standing. Of course, anyone can calculate their own scores by adding up their results.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&w=st4h4dt965cakq876&e=saj52haj83d4ct943]266|100|Scoring: MP

Board 1. Bidding Script: North opens 1♦ and south bids 1♥ if he can if not, he bids 2♥ if he

can. If north can rebid 2♦ he does and if south can rebid 2♥ he does, if south can not

bid 2♥ he is finished as is north.

 

Notes: When East makes a light takeout double of 1♦, West will have to drag EAST kicking and screaming if game is to be bid, as East will not be proud of his takeout double. If East passes, and west overcalls 3♣, game will still be hard to reach. But if West overcalls 2♣ there is just enough room to for East/West to get to 5♣ by sound bidding as East, having not made a takeout double, will realize how powerful a hand in support of clubs he has.

 

Board 1 scores. 5♣ew = 10, 4♣ew = 5, 2Ne/w = 3, 3Ne/w = 1 2♥ns = 0

[/hv]

 

On this hand, contracts ranged from the normal

3♣ (16 times)

4♣ (2 times)

5♣ (8 times)

3N (1 time)

 

It is moderately intersting that none of the top 11 in the standing bid 5♣.

Briefly, Gerardo doubled with East and in competition, raised Canadagrl to 3♣ where she blasted to game. Agusaris dlbed 1♦ also and here helene_t made a better (imho) call of 3♣, but here her partner leaped to game. Mohitz and akjq and an auction I actually envisioned, where EAST past and west jumped overcalled 3♣ which east carried on to game.

 

5C W East4Evil/sohcahtoa

5C W peachy/lg62

5C W olegru - driver733

5C W bluecalm/redds

5C W CanadaGrl/Gerardo

5C W gnasher/catch22

5C W helene_t-agusaris

5C W mohitz/akjq

4C w elianna/awm

4C W lobowolf/bkjswan

3N W jlall/hanp

3C W karlson/threenobob

3C W mbodell - javabean

3C W rogerClee/cherdano

3C W tlgoodwin/timg

3C W Flycycle/Wackojack

3C W tylere / bid_em_up

3C W zasanya/ravia6

3C W cascade kermit

3C W kfay/jchiu

3C W jdonn/gib

3C W Hrothgar/Free

3C W Siegmund/MSchmahl

3C W kristen33/jillybean

3C W ant590 - crayzeejim

3C W sallyally/joylson

3C W Codo-Fluffy

NA 0 j0i/gwnn

NA 0 Tomi2-JHDW

NA 0 Vampyr/Lamford

[awm]

I'm not sure 5♣ is really such a good contract here. A trump lead seems to give it almost no play (and such a lead is not unlikely given a game bid on thin values). Even on a neutral lead, trying to cross-ruff the hand will often lead to an overruff at some point. I'd at least consider giving the club partials a score closer to the top spot, like 7/10, to account for the possibility that 5♣ fails.

[Free]

5♣ makes because ♠KQ are onside. You can play twice to ♠AJ to discard a ♦. Then you only need 2 ruffs.

 

That being said, it's indeed not a great contract, because the chance is huge that South has one of the ♠ honours in which case 5♣ doesn't stand a chance.

[JavaBean]

I'm with Adam - 5♣ seems like it can't be better than 75% to make, even accounting for the possibility North has ♠KQ.

[Cascade]

5♣ makes because ♠KQ are onside. You can play twice to ♠AJ to discard a ♦. Then you only need 2 ruffs.

 

That being said, it's indeed not a great contract, because the chance is huge that South has one of the ♠ honours in which case 5♣ doesn't stand a chance.

I thought we weren't supposed to take into account the precise location of the opponent's honours/cards in the file that was bid.

[Free]

5♣ makes because ♠KQ are onside.  You can play twice to ♠AJ to discard a ♦.  Then you only need 2 ruffs.

 

That being said, it's indeed not a great contract, because the chance is huge that South has one of the ♠ honours in which case 5♣ doesn't stand a chance.

I thought we weren't supposed to take into account the precise location of the opponent's honours/cards in the file that was bid.

After reading the other boards, it's clear that the location of honours is taken into account in the scores...

[JavaBean]

Not at all. Board 8, for example, makes it clear that we're playing against "expected" NS hands, not the ones they happened to have at the teaching tables. And board 3 is an example of a different sort: we can't even count on oppo to have hands that resemble the auction.

[Fluffy]

I played 4♣ not 3♣. I also think 5♣ ain't that great.

[Hanoi5]

I think 5♣ is a great contract and was always expecting it to get the highest grade. I do believe the part-cores in club deserve 1 or 2 MP's more.

[cherdanno]

I would have thought 5♣ gets a trump lead quite often, after which it seems to be less than 30% to make. Even without that, the danger of a diamond overruff seems quite big (given the 1♦ opening). My scoring would have been s.th. like 5C=5, 4C=7 (on a top of 12).

[Hanoi5]

I simulated North having 6+ diamonds and 4 spades at most and South having 6+ hearts and 4 spades at most and 5♣ made 62% of the time. ♠KQ on side, non-trump lead or non-trump return, singleton ♣J are some of the things that should give 5♣ its best contract status.

[cherdanno]

I simulated North having 6+ diamonds and 4 spades at most and South having 6+ hearts and 4 spades at most and 5♣ made 62% of the time. ♠KQ on side, non-trump lead or non-trump return, singleton ♣J are some of the things that should give 5♣ its best contract status.

Even if you think it's 62%, shouldn't it get 7 instead of 10 (62% out of 12 even if everybody else is in partscore)? Again, this is assuming scoring is based on MP expectancy, rather than "best spot gets 10".

[kayin801]

South also needs to have a trump to lead... also whoever wins the first diamond also has to have a 2nd trump to lead. North with sometimes be 4261 with the AKQJ of diamonds (okay we can hope, that looks like 3♦ competition to me, maybe 4351), and then on top of that we're still okay if both spade honors are onside? At least there's some extra chances.

 

I'm always confused how much 'human' (in quotes since we're not actually bidding against humans) element is brought into a bidding contest like this. Given his partner opened diamonds there's gotta be a decent chance they lead a diamond, after which we're in good shape. But double dummy I can see why the partscore might be a better score.

[Mbodell]

I simulated North having 6+ diamonds and 4 spades at most and South having 6+ hearts and 4 spades at most and 5♣ made 62% of the time. ♠KQ on side, non-trump lead or non-trump return, singleton ♣J are some of the things that should give 5♣ its best contract status.

Even if you think it's 62%, shouldn't it get 7 instead of 10 (62% out of 12 even if everybody else is in partscore)? Again, this is assuming scoring is based on MP expectancy, rather than "best spot gets 10".

Yeah, this. If it is 62% to make, and the club partials always make (maybe 3♣ scores better than 4♣ if 4♣ is down more than 10% of the time - the same otherwise), then it does seem like 5♣ can't be better than 7.44/12 (and round down for sure since multiple people bid it, so it isn't a solo top when it makes either).

[cherdanno]

So if we forget the East hand, what does the panel think should West do over a takeout double by East?

3♣ or game force?

[Codo]

game force , so much playing strength.

[gnasher]

Yes, game-force.

[inquiry]

If 5♣ was up or down top (12 versus 0), the most it deserves is an "8". The fact is, however, when 5♣ is going down several other things maybe happening. First, 3NT maybe going down two, and certainly one. In addition, NS maybe making 2♥ or even 3♥. So of the times 5♣ is not making, the hand is not a zero. Therefore, I consider the score for 5♣ better than the mathematical expectations of 5♣ in the 8 range. For this, i gave it the 10 for top EW score. This also is consistent with my mindset to award the highest scoring contract EW can play (or defend) at least a ten.

 

Part-scores in clubs will of course make, with no difference between 2, 3, and 4 (other than unlikely possible trick one ruff).

 

Since the field bid club partscores, and 5♣ is greater than 60% chance to make (depends upon what restrictions you give to the NS hands for their auctions, you can get it up to around 65, 67%), club part-scores have to be below average in expectations (for example, here 8 pairs bid 5♣, All the part-scores would get 1 point for outscoring 3NT, would tie each other for an additional 8.5 points or 9.5/26 = 4.4 out of 12 matchpoints if 5♣ made. If 5♣ went down they would get an addition 8 for 17.5/26 or 8 out of 12. If 5♣ was 50/50 chance to make the expectation would be half the difference or 6.2. However, the chance of 5♣ is greater than 50%, even taking a conservative 60% it will drop below 6, so the 5 I gave part-score is certainly within the expected range here on the auctual bidding.

 

So while the complaint that 10 for 5♣ might be valid (maybe 8 would be a bit low, but 9 might be the most), I think the other scores are sound. So unless there is something I am terribly overlookings, the scores are finalized here.

 

There are some interesting auctions here that would be worth discussion...

 

for instance.. one had West jump to 3♣ after EAST passed, and EAST blasted 5♣. Others made a freebid of 2♣ and 3♣ over 1♥ after partner made a takeout double. I am fairly sure these are both underbids, but would be interested in discussion of the choices.

[TylerE]

Just to make sure I understand...the 4♣ score would also apply for any lower ♣ partscore?

[awm]

So we have 18 pairs in a ♣ partial, 8 in a ♣ game, and 1 in 3NT. Supposing that 3NT won't make (and is usually down two) we have:

 

If 5♣ makes, then 5♣ scores 22.5 and ♣ partial scores 9.5.

 

If 5♣ fails, then 5♣ scores 4.5 and ♣ partial scores 17.5.

 

Notice that if 5♣ made exactly half the time, the two scores would be equal in expectation. If anything, the effect of 3NT possibly failing by only one trick only hurts the 5♣ bidders (since ♣ partial always beats 3NT, but 5♣ will occasionally push with 3NT when both are one off).

 

Using Ben's numbers of 5♣ making 65% of the time the expected scores are:

 

For 5♣ 16.2 and for ♣ partial 12.3. If we normalize such that 5♣ is worth 10, we get a score of 7.6 for the ♣ partial. This is a lot higher than the score it received in the scoring.

 

I guess the point is, missing a 65% game at MPs is not a horrible result in expectation.

[cherdanno]

This also is consistent with my mindset to award the highest scoring contract EW can play (or defend) at least a ten.

I think this is a mistake. It means that missing a 60% game becomes exactly as costly as missing an 90% game, which is very much unlike matchpoint bidding (or any kind of bridge bidding).

CTC have thought about this a lot and there scoring is based strictly on matchpoint expectancy.

[inquiry]

Just to make sure I understand...the 4♣ score would also apply for any lower ♣ partscore?

If not otherwise stated, the answer is yes.. 4C scores the same here as 1C, 2C, and 3C....

[TimG]

So we have 18 pairs in a ♣ partial, 8 in a ♣ game, and 1 in 3NT. Supposing that 3NT won't make (and is usually down two) we have:

 

If 5♣ makes, then 5♣ scores 22.5 and ♣ partial scores 9.5.

 

If 5♣ fails, then 5♣ scores 4.5 and ♣ partial scores 17.5.

 

Notice that if 5♣ made exactly half the time, the two scores would be equal in expectation. If anything, the effect of 3NT possibly failing by only one trick only hurts the 5♣ bidders (since ♣ partial always beats 3NT, but 5♣ will occasionally push with 3NT when both are one off).

 

Using Ben's numbers of 5♣ making 65% of the time the expected scores are:

 

For 5♣ 16.2 and for ♣ partial 12.3. If we normalize such that 5♣ is worth 10, we get a score of 7.6 for the ♣ partial. This is a lot higher than the score it received in the scoring.

 

I guess the point is, missing a 65% game at MPs is not a horrible result in expectation.

But, then everybody would be above average!

 

I see your point and understand the math, it's not really that the club partial deserves a better score, but that the club game doesn't really deserve a 10.

 

I agree with you: once you decide the top spot must get a 10, then you should adjust the other scores so that they are right on a relative basis.

[Siegmund]

I guess the point is, missing a 65% game at MPs is not a horrible

result in expectation.

 

This comment applies not just to this board, but to several others in the set. We were told that the scoring would reflect matchpoint expectations; but it seems, uniformly, to be a "find the best spot" contest instead.

 

There are quite a number of contracts in this set of 16 that appear to depend on finding a key card or something similar - but I don't remember ANY where the scores for a partscore and a game in the same suit were nearly tied.

 

Seconding the remark that, depending on the exact probabilities, 8 for 5C and 5 for 3C is more like what I expect (or 10-7 if we insist on normalizing them up, which we shouldnt).

[cherdanno]

Btw, I still don't understand why 5♣ is supposed to be a 60% game. When I tried simulations, I got 38%.