Would you have opened, hand on heart?

[BillPatch]

Ran a sim using Jack5. sample size 50. of South hand from original post. 30 plus and 20 minus scores resulted from letting Jack bid hands with a fourth hand opening of 1 ♥. 9 successful heart games were made. Opponents made 2 games and found 2 500 point penalties. Perhaps the hand is a fourth hand reopener despite the warts.

[BillPatch]

Ran another sim. on Jack5. Instead of attempting to use British Acol with weak NT, the wrong range for opening the 5 card major I set the system to 2/1 with correct range to rebid one no trump over the response of 1 ♠ to 1♥. Opening one heart using these more standard methods produced disaster. 30 negative scores and 20 positive, and only three heart games. Jack attempted over a dozen 3NT contracts without success. The warts seem worse in Standard, K/S or 2/1.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sah97542daq6cj853&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=ppp]133|200|

Should I have opened? Some others did so this evening and made 4 hearts, which makes it hard to defend passing. Our ops said my hand qualified on the rule of 20, my singleton ace was valuable and I was in fourth seat, so I should have opened. I explained that almost all of my points were in my short suits, over a 1NT response I could only bid 2 clubs, and we were at adverse vulnerability. Don't think it is relevant but we play Acol and weak NT.[/hv]

Ran a sim using Jack5. sample size 50. of South hand from original post. 30 plus and 20 minus scores resulted from letting Jack bid hands with a fourth hand opening of 1 ♥. 9 successful heart games were made. Opponents made 2 games and found 2 500 point penalties. Perhaps the hand is a fourth hand reopener despite the warts.

Ran another sim. on Jack5. Instead of attempting to use British Acol with weak NT, the wrong range for opening the 5 card major I set the system to 2/1 with correct range to rebid one no trump over the response of 1 ♠ to 1♥. Opening one heart using these more standard methods produced disaster. 30 negative scores and 20 positive, and only three heart games. Jack attempted over a dozen 3NT contracts without success. The warts seem worse in Standard, K/S or 2/1.

Interesting that Billpatch's 2 sims disagree. Dissent from the consensus view: playing Acol, I rank

1. 1♥ = NAT. Poor suit. Honours in short suits. But 2.5 quick tricks. And a singleton ♠ means a bad split for opponents. Over 1♠, you can rebid 2♣. You can pass most other replies (so game is unlikely).
2. 1N = BAL. 12-14. If partner replies 2♥ (transfer) then you can pass.
3. Pass = NAT. Less risky, so advisable If you're doing well

[rhm]

I think it's a clear pass because the opponents control the spade suit and will usually be able to win the auction.

 

One popular idea for evaluating a 4th seat opening bid is "Pearson Points". You add your HCP to your spade length and open with 15+.

 

While following this rule blindly is obviously a mistake, with a weak heart suit, and only 12 PP I would pass this hand against all but the weakest/tightest opponents.

While it may backfire, passing an opening bid hand you do so at your own peril.

Pearson points are good for borderline hands. This hand is not borderline.

I am not surprised that 4♥ was on, given that you hold aces and a 5431 distribution.

Any downgrades are misguided.

The value of this hand in a suit contract is about 14 points. (K&R is clearly wrong here)

Sure I would prefer the ♥A instead of the ♠A, but even singleton aces are no reason for downgrades. (Aces in longer suits are a reason for upgrades)

 

Silly advise here.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Ran a sim using Jack5. sample size 50. of South hand from original post. 30 plus and 20 minus scores resulted from letting Jack bid hands with a fourth hand opening of 1 ♥. 9 successful heart games were made. Opponents made 2 games and found 2 500 point penalties. Perhaps the hand is a fourth hand reopener despite the warts.

How likely is a game in hearts?

Of course partner will need heart support for that.

Assume partner has at least 4 hearts.

 

I ran a simulation with Dealmaster Pro.

 

I assumed no passed hand had more than 11 HCP or 10 HCP, if unbalanced.

So each passed hand had between 7-11 HCP, 11 only if balanced.

No one had 6 spades (weak two) or a seven card minor.

Partner had 4 or more hearts (more than 4 hearts was rare)

 

Sample size 1000 random deals under those specification.

 

4♥ made double dummy on 521 deals (52%)

Average number of tricks per deal was 9.6

 

It shows the potential of this hand.

K&R is clearly wrong here.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mcphee]

I think opening these hands not so wise and is a likely loser over time. I would be sick if the opps bid a spade game making on a H lead who only cause greater pain.

[NickRW]

How likely is a game in hearts?...

 

Partner had 4 or more hearts (more than 4 hearts was rare)

 

Sample size 1000 random deals under those specification.

 

4♥ made double dummy on 521 deals (52%)

Average number of tricks per deal was 9.6

 

It shows the potential of this hand.

K&R is clearly wrong here.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

So you ran a better sample in the sense of larger, but fixed things so that partner always had 4 hearts and found that game was still only about a 50/50 bet in a 9+ card fit. What percentage of deals got rejected because partner did not have 4 hearts? And what percentage of those had opps making 2♠ or similar part scores.

 

While I agree that the hand is quite borderline, I think you make an inflated case for opening.

 

Nick

[rhm]

So you ran a better sample in the sense of larger, but fixed things so that partner always had 4 hearts and found that game was still only about a 50/50 bet in a 9+ card fit. What percentage of deals got rejected because partner did not have 4 hearts? And what percentage of those had opps making 2♠ or similar part scores.

 

While I agree that the hand is quite borderline, I think you make an inflated case for opening.

 

Nick

I do not make an inflated case.

Of course there will be no heart game unless we have a heart fit.

If I just need a nine card or better heart fit to have a better than even chance to make game it must be worthwhile opening this hand.

Since there are 8 heart cards outstanding I realize that on average partner will have less cards in hearts more often.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Stephen Tu]

I ran some more sims with random amount of heart fit, seem to support opening. If you have heart fit, it seems you can go plus in hearts (take > tricks than their spades, and >= tricks than their minor), about 61% of the time or so. If they have spade fit, you don't have heart fit, you can still successfully outbid them in a minor about 60%. Of course this doesn't take into account errors in judging how high to compete, e.g. you may compete to 3H down when the right course of action was to pass 2s and beat it. Then again they might misdefend against your 3 and let you make it when they were supposed to set you ...

[Wackojack]

On average you will have 1 and a bit more points than the opps.

With 8 hearts out you are most likely to have an 8 card heart fit and the opps an 8 card spade fit. This means you will be lucky to out bid the opps and make.

 

If you are blessed with a 9 card heart fit then the opps are more likely to have a 9 card spade fit. So again you will be out bid. The same goes for a 10 card heart fit.

 

The LAW says do not open.

[rhm]

On average you will have 1 and a bit more points than the opps.

With 8 hearts out you are most likely to have an 8 card heart fit and the opps an 8 card spade fit. This means you will be lucky to out bid the opps and make.

 

If you are blessed with a 9 card heart fit then the opps are more likely to have a 9 card spade fit. So again you will be out bid. The same goes for a 10 card heart fit.

 

The LAW says do not open.

Sorry the Law does not say anything and your conclusions are all wrong.

I do not open this hand because I expect that our side will have "on average 1 and a bit more point than the opponents"

 

I open this hand because I have a 5431 distribution with 2 aces and a well positioned diamond queen.

I already said that this hand is worth more. Holding aces is very important in this game.

If I held 2♠=5♥=3♦=3♣ throwing in this deal would be much more understandable even though opponents will hold one spade less.

 

The law makes only claims about total tricks and total trumps.

Assume your opponents hold a spade fit and we hold a heart fit does this really mean we will be outbid?

Yes I do know spades rank higher.

The law makes a prediction about total tricks, it does not say how these total tricks will be distributed between both sides.

My point is and was we will make on average one trick more than our opponents and this means all your arguments are good for the waste basket and it will be a mistake to pass the deal out.

 

To prove my point I reran my simulations, but with a twist:

 

I kept the following assumptions:

 

No passed hand had more than 11 HCP or 10 HCP, if unbalanced.

So each passed hand had between 7-11 HCP, 11 only if balanced.

No one had 6 spades (weak two) or a seven card minor.

 

I assumed at least an 8 card heart fit, but the number of hearts in partners hand could vary according to the following rule:

 

If partner held 3 cards in heart he had to have exactly 4 cards in spades (both sides have an 8 card fit in the majors)

If partner held 4 cards in heart he had to have exactly 3 cards in spades (both sides have an 9 card fit in the majors)

If partner held 5 cards in heart he had to have exactly 2 cards in spades (both sides have an 10 card fit in the majors. This last case is unlikely in practice, not because partner could not have 5 hearts. Both opponents must hold exactly 5 spades and both must have passed with that)

 

I then looked how many tricks there was for South in hearts and for West in spades on the same deals

 

1000 random deals:

 

Result:

 

South made on average per deal 8.6 tricks with hearts as trumps

West made on average per deal 7.6 tricks with spades as trumps

 

The breakdown of tricks in hearts for South was as follows:

 

>7 - 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 11 12 tricks

36 144 257 340 174 39 10 deals

 

The breakdown of tricks in spades for West was as follows:

 

>7 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 - 10 11 12 tricks

169 313 314 161 39 4 0 deals

 

Note, how few times East West could make a high level spade contract. Even though having at least an 8 card spade fit East West could not make anything beyond the one-level in almsot half the deals.

Of course there was the odd deal where East West could make even more tricks in spades than South in hearts.

But those deals were few and far between. There were of course many more where South made more tricks.

For example in only 17% of the 340 deals where South could make 9 tricks in a heart contract, West could make 9 tricks or more in a spade contract.

In only 2% of the 174 deals where we could make game East West could also make game.

 

I ran some more sims with random amount of heart fit, seem to support opening. If you have heart fit, it seems you can go plus in hearts (take > tricks than their spades, and >= tricks than their minor), about 61% of the time or so. If they have spade fit, you don't have heart fit, you can still successfully outbid them in a minor about 60%. Of course this doesn't take into account errors in judging how high to compete, e.g. you may compete to 3H down when the right course of action was to pass 2s and beat it. Then again they might misdefend against your 3 and let you make it when they were supposed to set you ...

Exactly.

Rule of thumbs, like HCP, Pearson Points, Rule of twenty, the Law are useful, but there are many exceptions and they are no substitute for evaluating your hand properly and using your brain.

Otherwise you will not get anywhere in this game

 

Rainer Herrmann

[manudude03]

Typing this again since it didn't go through the first time.

 

I'm not sure why you are limiting the opps fit at all. Why is it not possible that we have a 8 card fit and the opps have a 9 card spade fit? Also, if we should be outbidding them in a minor, we might not find our fit after 1H-(1S)-X-(3S) or even the same auction with a 2S advance. Also, we are w/r meaning that the opps are bidding r/w, so we can't even rule out one of them having 6 spades.

 

I said in my initial reply that I would pass, but thought it was close. I don't mind being proven wrong by sims, but the sims being posted don't seem particularly relevant.

[rhm]

In my first simulation I was interested how good our chance with the South hand was making game in hearts, which is what apparently happened when the deal was played.

I was not convinced that this is such a "borderline" hand.

So I assumed South would find at least 4 cards in hearts in dummy. Simulation showed that under those conditions your chances are better than even that you could make game.

 

My second simulation was in response to

 

With 8 hearts out you are most likely to have an 8 card heart fit and the opps an 8 card spade fit. This means you will be lucky to out bid the opps and make.

 

If you are blessed with a 9 card heart fit then the opps are more likely to have a 9 card spade fit. So again you will be out bid. The same goes for a 10 card heart fit.

 

The LAW says do not open.

I considered this all wrong. So in response I made a second simulations where each side had the same combined number of trumps in spades and hearts.

The result was that it was highly likely that North South would be able to outbid East West, not the other way round.

 

Now you claim:

 

 

I'm not sure why you are limiting the opps fit at all. Why is it not possible that we have a 8 card fit and the opps have a 9 card spade fit? Also, if we should be outbidding them in a minor, we might not find our fit after 1H-(1S)-X-(3S) or even the same auction with a 2S advance. Also, we are w/r meaning that the opps are bidding r/w, so we can't even rule out one of them having 6 spades.

If opponents bid like that South could make a responsive double or could bid 3♣ over 2♠.

Whatever the simulations do not show that there are no deals where East West can not outbid us, only that they are much less common than the ones were we can outbid them.

Bridge is essentially a game of probabilities. Here the probabilities are stacked in favor of North South and that should induce South to open.

 

I have no problem changing any of the assumptions I made. I do not care.

I know from many simulations that small changes in assumptions do not lead to big changes of results. The results are fairly robust.

Of course it is entirely possible that opponents have a 9 card fit while we have only an 8 card fit. But the opposite is also possible.

I think it is fairly unlikely that either opponent has 6 spades, but of course it is not impossible. Even if we allow it in the sims there will be very few deals, since they are created randomly, and they will not affect much the result.

To satisfy your curiosity I tried the following assumptions: To keep things simple, let's assume that both sides have at least an 8 card major suit fit. If we do not have such a fit, chances are we can compete in a minor. So this is not much of an assumption.

So let us give North between 3 and 5 hearts and between 2 and 4 spades randomly.

Again I simulated 1000 random deals

 

Result:

 

South made on average per deal 8.9 tricks with hearts as trumps

West made on average per deal 7.8 tricks with spades as trumps on the same deals.

 

The breakdown of tricks in hearts for South was as follows:

 

>7 - 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 11 12 tricks

15 101 259 315 241 59 10 deals

 

The breakdown of tricks in spades for West was as follows:

 

>7 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 10 11 12 tricks

98 313 349 187 47 6 0 deals

 

So North South still have on average an advantage of 1.1 tricks per deal over East West

We have only made the assumption that North South have at least an 8 card fit in hearts and game in hearts makes on 310 deals or in 31% of all deals.

East- West also have at least an 8 card fit in spades, but can make game only on 53 deals or in 5.3% of all deals.

But they can not make anything beyond the one level on over 40% of all deals.

 

I said in my initial reply that I would pass, but thought it was close. I don't mind being proven wrong by sims, but the sims being posted don't seem particularly relevant.

I do not believe you. It is the other way round.

The sims contradict your original assessment, so the assumptions of the sims must be wrong.

This is very human, but it is not rational. Anyway I can modiy the assumptions to your liking and you will find out it does not matter significantly..

It is not close and you and others are simply underestimating the South hand.

Spades are not everything and a singleton ace is still an ace.

That was the reason why I did the simulations. My assessment of the South hand was different and I wanted to check whether I was wrong or not.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[manudude03]

If opponents bid like that South could make a responsive double or could bid 3♣ over 2♠.

Whatever the simulations do not show that there are no deals where East West can not outbid us, only that they are much less common than the ones were we can outbid them.

Bridge is essentially a game of probabilities. Here the probabilities are stacked in favor of North South and that should induce South to open.

What I had posted there was to do with real life practicality. Maybe your partners appreciate bidding 3C on both this and a 5-5 16 count. My partners do not.

 

I have no problem changing any of the assumptions I made. I do not care.

I know from many simulations that small changes in assumptions do not lead to big changes of results. The results are fairly robust.

Of course it is entirely possible that opponents have a 9 card fit while we have only an 8 card fit. But the opposite is also possible.

I think it is fairly unlikely that either opponent has 6 spades, but of course it is not impossible. Even if we allow it in the sims there will be very few deals, since they are created randomly, and they will not affect much the result.

To satisfy your curiosity I tried the following assumptions: To keep things simple, let's assume that both sides have at least an 8 card major suit fit. If we do not have such a fit, chances are we can compete in a minor. So this is not much of an assumption.

So let us give North between 3 and 5 hearts and between 2 and 4 spades randomly.

Again I simulated 1000 random deals

 

Result:

 

South made on average per deal 8.9 tricks with hearts as trumps

West made on average per deal 7.8 tricks with spades as trumps on the same deals.

 

The breakdown of tricks in hearts for South was as follows:

 

>7 - 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 11 12 tricks

15 101 259 315 241 59 10 deals

 

The breakdown of tricks in spades for West was as follows:

 

>7 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 10 11 12 tricks

98 313 349 187 47 6 0 deals

 

So North South still have on average an advantage of 1.1 tricks per deal over East West

We have only made the assumption that North South have at least an 8 card fit in hearts and game in hearts makes on 310 deals or in 31% of all deals.

East- West also have at least an 8 card fit in spades, but can make game only on 53 deals or in 5.3% of all deals.

But they can not make anything beyond the one level on over 40% of all deals.

 

While this is a more convincing simulation, there are 2 issues still:

1. You are still assuming you have a heart fit. While you will likely have a fit there, it's not like pass promises hearts.

2. You are showing the number of boards where you have x tricks. The relevant point in MPs is whether or not you are going to be positive more often than not. Now the results do suggest that it probably is, but it isn't a perfect correlation.

 

I do not believe you. It is the other way round.

The sims contradict your original assessment, so the assumptions of the sims must be wrong.

This is very human, but it is not rational. Anyway I can modiy the assumptions to your liking and you will find out it does not matter significantly..

It is not close and you and others are simply underestimating the South hand.

Spades are not everything and a singleton ace is still an ace.

That was the reason why I did the simulations. My assessment of the South hand was different and I wanted to check whether I was wrong or not.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

I'm not really sure what you mean by "It is the other way round". When I play the game, I bid and play the boards first and then consult outside later. I don't consult others/computers first and then make my decision.

[rhm]

I'm not really sure what you mean by "It is the other way round".

What I mean is simple.

 

People claim if they are given evidence contrary to their assessment they will reconsider their opinion.

But this is not what is happening and people are not as open minded as they claim.

 

I don't mind being proven wrong by sims, but the sims being posted don't seem particularly relevant.

Nobody likes to be proven wrong.

If the facts do not support their assessment, they will rather question the facts (or claim they are not "relevant") than change their mindset.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

.

[Wackojack]

Quote “Nobody likes to be proven wrong.

If the facts do not support their assessment, they will rather question the facts (or claim they are not "relevant") than change their minds” Unquote

 

Your 2nd study that found NS made on average 1.1 more tricks than EW has only 900 deals for NS and 1000 deals for EW.

 

Your 1st study listed 1000 deals each way and found that NS made on average 1.0 more tricks than EW.

 

I for one am very happy to reconsider my opinion which assumed that NS would make somewhat less than one trick more than NS. Conventional wisdom is not always correct. Could I therefore ask that the results be presented as follows or at least in an improved way:

 

Of the number of deals that West can make x tricks:

How many times does South make x tricks or fewer? This would favour pass in MP

How many times does South make x+1 tricks or more? This would favour open 1♥.in MP

The results would need to be imped in a team match and the game bonus would therefore skew the tipping point to favour NS.

 

What interests me now is how do we indentify these hands that should be opened in 4th position? We do not have the luxury of doing a simulation study at the table. So back to basics:

With North having 5 hearts and a singleton spade, on average NS will have 7 and 2/3 hearts and EW 8 spades. Then according to the LAW the median total tricks = 15 and 2/3. And if NS and EW have equal strength and other things being equal you would expect on average EW to have the advantage in trick taking. On average however, NS will have a strength advantage. NS will have 20 and 2/3 HCP and EW 19 and 1/3, giving NS an average advantage of 1 and 1/3 HCP. What fraction of a trick in favour of NS would this represent? Perhaps this would even up the average trick taking potential.

 

Then why do the studies show an average of 1 more trick for NS? One thing that was mentioned is that a bad spade break for EW is assured whereas a bad heart break for NS is probabilistic. Also South having A and AQ put NS ahead in trick taking potential and damaging EW’s trick taking potential. Could this be responsible for the extra trick?

[rhm]

What interests me now is how do we indentify these hands that should be opened in 4th position? We do not have the luxury of doing a simulation study at the table. So back to basics:

Quite right.

I did not do the simulation and then came to a conclusion, but because my assessment of the South did not coincide with the vast majority of posters, I checked my assessment of the South hand with simulations.

I am not a slave to HCP or rules of thumb like Pearson points, though I do take them into account, if I am in doubt.

In my experience most players are.

 

What I do not do is passing a hand in fourth position I would open in any other.

 

 

Then why do the studies show an average of 1 more trick for NS?

One thing that was mentioned is that a bad spade break for EW is assured whereas a bad heart break for NS is probabilistic. Also South having A and AQ put NS ahead in trick taking potential and damaging EW’s trick taking potential. Could this be responsible for the extra trick?

To answer your question:

 

Learn to evaluate hands properly. Sims can help develop good hand evaluation.

 

For example understand that the combination of a preponderance of aces and good distribution and length in a major is a reason for upgrades not for downgrades.

You will need to find a fit, in notrump the hand is worth less.

This is what gives us more playing power than East West and better chances of additional defensive tricks.

Location of honors can be a detriment but is much less important than people think and should take a backseat. That is the reason why even K&R is plain wrong on this hand.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Quote “Nobody likes to be proven wrong.

 

Of the number of deals that West can make x tricks:

How many times does South make x tricks or fewer? This would favour pass in MP

How many times does South make x+1 tricks or more? This would favour open 1♥.in MP

The results would need to be imped in a team match and the game bonus would therefore skew the tipping point to favour NS.

 

I use Dealmaster Pro for simulation, which has strength and weaknesses.

The problem with your question is, that the number of tricks South makes, depends where a fit exists.

West and East are unlikely to compete successfully unless they have a spade fit.

But North South could have a fit in any other suit.

If North South have an advantage on average of more than 0.5 tricks they will be able to outbid East-West on the majority of deals.

Having an advantage of one trick or more means there are very few deals where East West can outbid North South.

If East West got a spade fit and North South will have no heart fit, it is extremely likely they have a fit in a minor.

In fact there is just one specific distribution for North 4♠=2♥=4♦=3♣, where East West have an 8 card spade fit and we have no fit.

I checked what would happen if North would have at most 4 spades, at most 2 hearts and four or more clubs (at most six).

In this case they have a spade fit, and we have a club fit.

Of course game is unlikely since we now need 11 tricks. But I expected we can still outbid East West. The results more than confirmed my expectations. The difference in trick taking is now even larger. South spade ruffs will now be in "shorter" trump hand.

 

1000 random deals

 

Result:

 

South made on average per deal 9.3 tricks with clubs as trumps

West made on average per deal 7.5 tricks with spades as trumps

 

The breakdown of tricks in clubs for South was as follows:

 

>7 7 - 8 -- 9 -- 10 - 11 12 13 tricks

7 42 195 315 282 116 40 3 deals

 

The breakdown of tricks in spades for West was as follows:

 

>7 -- 7 -- 8 --- 9 - 10 11 12 tricks

208 324 278 155 32 3 0 deals

 

Note, North South are much more likely to make game in clubs, about one deal in six , than East West in spades, about one in 30.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I checked what would happen if

Why not simply do a simulation based on what is known (3 passes and the South hand) rather than specifying various scenarios that may or may not reflect the overall situation? Perhaps one of our other sim-gurus would be willing to program that if Rainer remains reluctant.

[gwnn]

I would open the hand 1H in 4th seat with or without the simulations (this is more of a case of "a broken clock is right twice a day" than anything else as I open just about every hand in 4th seat). I do find them interesting in this case, particularly how big the difference in expected number of tricks is.

 

But could you just do the unrestricted simulation? I understand that it is easier to compare the tricks in specific strains as opposed to the tricks in the best fit whatever they may be, but maybe it would be interesting to see the likelihoods of various scenarios without any constraints on distributions, except maybe <6 spades and <7 minors for all three other players to account for their lack of preempts (and of course <12 points or <11 points).

 

edit: cross-posted with Zel above.

Edited May 1, 2016 by gwnn

[rhm]

Why not simply do a simulation based on what is known (3 passes and the South hand) rather than specifying various scenarios that may or may not reflect the overall situation? Perhaps one of our other sim-gurus would be willing to program that if Rainer remains reluctant.

I have done this but then I have to count manually the deals where East West can make as many or more tricks in spades than North South in any of the other trump strains.

The result is about 20% and around 80% where North South can make in at least one trump suit more tricks, often in two trump suits.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Wackojack]

Rainer:

 

In the light of your studies and most of the points you have made, I am tipping towards the view that opening 1♥ on the South hand is the odds on winner. Thank you for that.

 

Now you say this:

 

Quote "What I do not do is passing a hand in fourth position I would open in any other" Unquote.

 

Are you serious? I am hoping that you didnt really mean what you were saying. ♠xx, ♥KQxx, ♦Kxxx, ♣KJx. Would you open this hand in 4th position OR would you not open this in other positions?

[gwnn]

♠xx, ♥KQxx, ♦Kxxx, ♣KJx

Unless my partner were known to be a light opener or my RHO were known not to be able to open in 3rd seat with suitably reduced strength, I'd open that hand too. We have a 12 count and nobody else at the table has a 12 count. Moreover, RHO has a lower minimum than my partner so we're already outgunning them by quite a margin. The only real problem case is if LHO has precisely 5 spades (with 6 he would likely have opened already, and RHO would have opened 1S on most hands with his likely strength and 5 spades). A 4-4 spade fit is possible too of course but in that case they still need to find it.

[rhm]

Are you serious? I am hoping that you didnt really mean what you were saying. ♠xx, ♥KQxx, ♦Kxxx, ♣KJx. Would you open this hand in 4th position OR would you not open this in other positions?

I would not mind passing this hand in any position.

I would certainly pass in second position and in first if vulnerable.

I like to open light on unbalanced hands and aces are important.

Balanced ace less hands are overrated.

Make it any stronger and I open.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I have done this but then I have to count manually the deals where East West can make as many or more tricks in spades than North South in any of the other trump strains.

How about calculating the IMP expectation based on the par score without doubles? There are some good reasons why this is perhaps unrealistic but it strikes me as one way of providing an objective number rather than continuing to make assumptions about where the hand might be played. It is comparatively quick and easy to calculate so I cannot see any reason not to do so. We can argue about the significance of the result once it is available (note that I am neutral in that discussion having no position to defend). ;)