Round 5, Board 6

[inquiry]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sk643hk2dacjt8763&s=st7hq9dqt987cak42]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

A complaint about the scoring of this hand has already been lodged. If "west" (at the table) had 6S=4H, then spade Ace and a spade would defeat 5 clubs (presumably Ace would likely be from AQ of spades). If West is 5-4 in the majors, then the hand is essentially cold fo 5 clubs. As a concession to the potential spade ruff if West had six of them, I lowered teh score for 5C from 11 to 10, but since I still think 5C is a great favorite to make, my scoring is....

 

5C=10, 3HEx=7, 4C=5, 2NT=4, 3HE=3, 2D=2, 3N/3D=1, 2HE=0

 

(remember, these hands were NS in the contest)

 

5CS hrothgar/Free

5CN mbodell - javabean

5CN tylere / bid_em_up

3H-XE East4Evil/sohcahtoa

3CN elianna/awm

4CN Flycycle/Wackojack

4CN jdonn/gib

4CN jlall/hanp

4CS kfay/jchiu

3CN olegru - driver733

4CN peachy/lg62

4CN rogerClee/cherdano

3CN sallyally/joylson

4CS Siegmund/MSchmahl

1NN bluecalm/redds

3HE kristen33/jillybean

2DS tlgoodwin/timg

3NN ant590 - crayzeejim

3DS gnasher/catch22

3NN karlson/threenobob

3NN lobowolf/bkjswan

[shyams]

Ben, the script for E/W actions is missing. Can you pls add it? Thanks

[bluecalm]

Yeah 5♣ is clearly the top spot here.

We have another hand here when only few pairs get a chance to double 3♥. For example our "opponents" didn't compete even to 2♥ after:

 

1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT passes

 

but it seems at other tables they were willing to find hearts. No complaints really but I think scripts should take into account more methods/sequences and just say something like:

"W overcalls with spades then bids hearts if it's below 2♠" etc.

There was similar hand in previous set too.

[rogerclee]

I still don't get why 5C deserves the top score. West drove to the 3 level unfavorable at matchpoints into an unlimited auction where partner did not promise a fit. He does not rate to be 5431 at all, his most likely shapes are 64(21), 6430, and 5440. In the first two cases you are instantly down (Ben seems to think the hand is rotated, but the player with short spades is on lead), and in the third case you can always pick up diamonds if you are looking at the opponents' hands, but you can only ruff diamonds twice in your hand due to the 3-0 trump break, so you have to choose to play west for ONE of KJxx, Kxxx, or Jxxx (I think Ben mistakenly analyzed it double dummy, where you can pick up all three of these holdings). So overall I think 5C should actually be below average, by my estimates it would go down much more than half the time if we couldn't see the opponents' hands.

 

I also don't get how 3Hx could get such a high score, I would expect it to usually make on the CA lead, and making 4 is not even that unlikely.

[Fluffy]

I am also surprised by the high score for 3♥ X. I dunno the auction so can't rate the rest of what roger says.

[rogerclee]

I am also surprised by the high score for 3♥ X. I dunno the auction so can't rate the rest of what roger says.

The auction at most (standard) tables started this way:

 

1D 1S 2C P

3C X

[bluecalm]

I wasn't aware that opponents bid that way when saying 5C is clearly top spot.

They somehow turned into lambs when playing at our table :)

[awm]

I'd like to see the script for this one too.

 

My recollection was that the auction at our table started P-P-1♠-2♣-P-2♠-X. This double is often used to show a spade rebid (since opener usually gets the lead of his suit anyway, just saying "please lead my suit" is a bit redundant), which would already imply that spades are 6-1...

 

It may be worth noting that any 3-0 club break probably beats 5♣ (the onside 3-0 gives you trouble disposing of your spade losers), as well as the 6-1 spade break beating you off the top. Obviously a priori neither of these things are all that likely, but if it sounds from the bidding like east has extra shape (which it seems that it did) I wouldn't be so convinced.

[TimG]

West bids 1♠ (either open or overcalls) unless South

opens precisely 1♣ in which case west doubles. In 2nd

round of the auction, west will double if EW have bid 2 or

3♣'s for takeout and east will respond only if ♣'x is passed

back to him, in which case he will bid the cheapest number

of ♥s, but never beyond 3♥s. West will not bid beyond

the 2nd round.

Doubling 2♠ seems a mistake.

[JLOGIC]

On the bidding at our table clubs 3-0 and spades 6-1 are both pretty likely. Also, 3H X seems pretty bad (because both 3-0 clubs and 6-1 spades are pretty likely!).

 

It's not just 6-1 spades to worry about.

[kayin801]

Yeah, even I think I was smoking something when I Xed 3♥

 

(Guess I'm still on it if I can't keep my mouth shut :))

[jdonn]

I really agree with the objections, I'm not sure 5♣ is better than 4♣ at all on this auction (in fact I'm pretty sure it's not) and there's no way it's this much better.

[cherdanno]

Ben, a 10 for 5♣ is really off the mark. I would say it's a 3 or 4.

[Mbodell]

It sounds like this is another board where the E/W hands shown in some (many?) people's auction is different than what E/W actually has and may show in some auctions. If Tim's post shows the script then since W will double 1♣ but overcall 1♠ otherwise and is supposed to double ♣ for takeout after opening or overcalling 1♠ then it does seem like the most likely hand type is 5440 with either 5431 or a bad 6 card spade suit with 6430 or 6421 also possible.

 

That might be a very different layout than you'd expect on the awm auction or some of the other auctions. But should that count against people if the script suggests 5440 even if that isn't what is shown on your auction? I think the consensus on the other hands was, yeah it should, and that is just a systemic fix.

[Free]

We opened 1♠ with the South hand, showing 9-14 unbal with 4+♦ (may have longer ♣). I guess the script didn't foresee this because West passed in the first round so we could show the minor 2-suiter easily.

 

Perhaps a thought for further boards, to have a defense against MOSCITO in the script ;)

[inquiry]

We opened 1♠ with the South hand, showing 9-14 unbal with 4+♦ (may have longer ♣). I guess the script didn't foresee this because West passed in the first round so we could show the minor 2-suiter easily.

 

Perhaps a thought for further boards, to have a defense against MOSCITO in the script :)

I am not going to lose sleep over building defense to MOSCITO in the script since you guys are bidding in this for "fun".

 

As far as doubling 2♠ goes, that was not in the script, the double was to be of clubs only. I could have worded it better I guess.

[hanp]

FWIW I also thought that 5C was bad here, surprised to see the scores.

[inquiry]

FWIW I also thought that 5C was bad here, surprised to see the scores.

On all the hands, the opponents possible hands are controlled by the "script". In another thread there was a complaint that the two suited overcall didn't happen at a table (because of the auction), and therefore, should the simulations for that table not take into account that EW hands are two suited.

 

The answer to that "inquiry" is of course, no. The two suited hands remain two suited despite the absences of the call at that table.

 

The same logic applies to this hand. The script called for a 1♠ overcall, unless the opening bid was 1♣, in which case there is a takeout double. Later in the hand, the overcaller doubles only if the opponents last bid was 2 or 3 clubs, and this double is for takeout (i altered it as such at the tables where I made it).

 

This bidding is not consistent with Overcalling having, for instance a singleton diamond, nor for that matter a doubleton diamond. At least in my mind. I also don't think it is all that consistent for 6-4 in the majors, but ok, I will allow as 6-4 might be vaguely possible. It is also probably not consistent with any hand were WEST is lacking the Diamond king, since he could force the bidding to the three level. Anyway, when running simulations and looking at possible EW hands, I have to take into account the full script that helps decided the EW hands.

 

Within the confines of the bidding script, what do you think 5♣'s should be graded out at?

[awm]

Within the confines of the bidding script, what do you think 5♣'s should be graded out at?

That the bidding script seemed not to be followed at my table is perhaps a separate issue.

 

The script seems consistent with 5431, 5440, and 6430 shapes. However, doubling at the three-level would require pretty substantial extras if 5431, and doubling at the one-level would be strange on 6430 unless holding pretty substantial extras. Thus 5440 seems like the most common shape.

 

A 5♣ contract seems pretty difficult to make on this distribution. After two rounds of spades (which is in many ways a helpful -- though likely -- lead, since it removes the need for a dummy entry to take the spade finesse) a natural line of play proceeds:

 

(1) Cash the diamond ace

(2) Club to the ace in case they break

(3) Ruff a diamond

(4) Jack of clubs ducked around

(5) Club to king

(6) Ruff a diamond...

 

Note that we don't have the entries to ruff a third diamond. So on these diamond plays, we need to guess whether opener started with ♦K+J (where we need to be taking ruffing finesses at each round) or ♦K only (we need to let the queen ride at some point to smother the jack) or ♦J only (we need to ruff low diamonds each round so the queen sets up). Of course, double-dummy play always gets this right but at the table it seems extremely easy to go wrong. I'd put the odds at maybe 40% here (the ♦K will usually but not always be onside based on points, but the jack seems like a pure two-way guess).

 

Of course, 5♣ always makes when opponent is 5431 and never makes when he's 6430 (both with the necessary extra values).

 

Seems like around a 50/50 shot.

[gnasher]

A 5♣ contract seems pretty difficult to make on this distribution. After two rounds of spades (which is in many ways a helpful -- though likely -- lead, since it removes the need for a dummy entry to take the spade finesse) a natural line of play proceeds:

 

(1) Cash the diamond ace

(2) Club to the ace in case they break

(3) Ruff a diamond

(4) Jack of clubs ducked around

(5) Club to king

(6) Ruff a diamond...

 

Note that we don't have the entries to ruff a third diamond. So on these diamond plays, we need to guess whether opener started with ♦K+J (where we need to be taking ruffing finesses at each round) or ♦K only (we need to let the queen ride at some point to smother the jack) or ♦J only (we need to ruff low diamonds each round so the queen sets up). Of course, double-dummy play always gets this right but at the table it seems extremely easy to go wrong. I'd put the odds at maybe 40% here (the ♦K will usually but not always be onside based on points, but the jack seems like a pure two-way guess).

How about leading ♥K after ♦A? Then if they take it we have an extra entry for setting up the long diamond, and if they don't we can take an immediate ruffing finesse, throwing the last heart.

 

I'd be quite pleased with myself if I'd thought of that at the table.

[awm]

How about leading ♥K after ♦A? Then if they take it we have an extra entry for setting up the long diamond, and if they don't we can take an immediate ruffing finesse, throwing the last heart.

 

I'd be quite pleased with myself if I'd thought of that at the table.

The problem with doing this is that RHO can win and return a spade, ruffed with the five of clubs and overruffed. Now you have to guess the clubs, and will lose to singleton queen on the right.

 

But it may still improve your overall chances.

[JLOGIC]

Awm has ignored 6421 shape. That seems like a very common shape on the auction:

 

1D (1S) 2C (p)

3C X

 

Not sure if that is a normal auction, but in that auction diamond length is kind of irrelevant and the double is almost always 6-4 in the majors unless extremely strong. That is my basis for thinking 5C is down so often, it's down on any 6-4 in the majors and also on 5440 (the most likely 54 shape to double with). It makes only on 5431 which seems like the least likely of them all.

[inquiry]

Ok, if West is 5440, we are at 50/50 (let's accept this for a moment as an absolute truth -- we will dispute it below as being not true). If west is 5431, we are 100% to make (6C, 1H, 1S, 1D, 2 spade ruff). So using your analysis of the hands (assuming briefly equal chance for 5440 and 5431) chance of 5C making is 75%. 0.75*12 = 9

 

Statistically, 5431 is wildly more likely than 5440, and when I ran this through the simulator, i initially defined WEST as 54(3-4)(0-1) with the majority of the hcp missing. So needless to say, the 5431 showed up something like 6 times as often as 5440 (i haven't rechecked, but my recollection is 5431 is way more likely than 5440). So from a simulator standpoint, the chance of "easily" making 5 clubs goes up.

 

But let's assume that it is 100% sure 5440 (as was the case on the given hand in the contest). Now lets play it after spade and spade, win the king, cash diamond ace, NOW KEY, lead the heart king. West must duck or it gives you a needed entry to establish the long diamond for 11th trick.

 

After the heart king wins, now play club to ace (whoops, west shows out). Lead the diamond 9 and if WEST does not cover let it run, throwing dummies heart away. East wins Jack, if he has it. Now you have a very high percentage diamond hook through WEST for the king, and sufficient entries to manage it. This wins 6C, 1S, 1H, 1S ruff, and two diamonds. Seems like this line is very close to 100% on the given auction/script.

[awm]

You're missing two things here.

 

First, pretty much any opening hand with 5440 qualifies for the auction given. Most opening hands with 5431 do not qualify -- you need a lot of extras to double at the three-level. You are also ignoring 6430 and 6421.

 

Second, on the line you (and Gnasher) gave, RHO can win the heart king with the ace and play a spade. This is ruffed with the ♣5 and overruffed with the ♣K. Now you have your extra entry, but you're also going down if RHO started with a singleton club queen.

[cherdanno]

Ben, 6=4 is a VERY normal holding in the majors for bidding 1♠ and doubling 3♣, why are you ignoring this shape?