Simple(?) hand evaluation

[antonylee]

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt643h863dj53c5&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n(15-17)p]133|200[/hv]

 

Matchpoints.

Partner will occasionally upgrade 14 counts, but not very aggressively.

You have the option of showing a 5(!)-card invite (which can be balanced or not) by bidding Stayman then 2♠ (over which partner's 2N would be a shortness ask).

[Tramticket]

If you transfer, will partner break the transfer and with which hands?

 

I would want to be in game opposite partner with a fit.

[FelicityR]

You're never going to know what cards partner has in the other suits, or for that matter ♠s. It's a hand that's just as likely to make 2♠ (with very bad breaks) to make 4♠ if partner has the right cards and/or a maximum.

 

I'm an optimist. Let partner make the final decision. The play of the hand and/or the opening lead could make a difference here, but there should be good play for 3♠ in most cases. I feel I am half a trick short of going full pelt and bidding 4♠. I prefer to have 6421 shape than the semi-stodgy 6331.

[pescetom]

You're never going to know what cards partner has in the other suits, or for that matter ♠s. It's a hand that's just as likely to make 2♠ (with very bad breaks) to make 4♠ if partner has the right cards and/or a maximum.

 

Yes, but that's what superaccepts are for.

 

@antonylee: can the 1NT opener have a 5-card major here?

[FelicityR]

Yes, but that's what superaccepts are for.

 

Yes, I agree. Superaccepts may help the bidding process, especially if you have a partnership that uses more than a basic 3♠ level superaccept (i.e 2NT to show a maximum with 4♠s and 4333 shape, and 3♣/3♦/3♥ to show a doubleton in the suit bid, 4♠s and a maximum).

 

However, in the absence of a superaccept agreement you are at the mercy of the bridge gods. Those two trebletons in your hand are going to need a lot of support cards from partner, particularly controls. It looks a hand where game is not guaranteed but has a 50/50% chance.

 

Though you're not going to win Matchpoint Pairs events by playing safe at every opportunity.

[antonylee]

We systemically open 1N with 5M332, and superaccept very, very rarely, and only to 3♠ -- 4(5...) card support and primes outside. I believe that superaccepts showing doubletons tend to help the defense more often that us, but I guess it's a style thing.

I also forgot to add the poll option of forcing to game with a Texas transfer, for the very optimistic ones :) edited the poll accordingly.

[fromageGB]

You seem to have answered your question. If 4♠ has any chance, the bidding goes 2♥ 3♠ 4♠. Otherwise it goes 2♥ 2♠ pass.

[mikeh]

 

 

Though you're not going to win Matchpoint Pairs events by playing safe at every opportunity.

You also are not going to win Matchpoint Pairs events by getting minus scores when the hand belongs to your side.

 

I have far more sympathy for an aggressive move at imps, especially if red, than I do for the same action at mps.

 

If I play in 2S, making 4 on misdefence or skilled declarer play, I expect above average (for the declarer play aspect, this falls away in say the Blue Ribbon Pairs or later sessions in the LM Pairs or equivalent).

 

If I play in 4S down 1 on routine defence I expect to score well below average.

 

Fortunately, I don't need to make the decision unilaterally. I bid 2H then pass should partner bid 2S and bid game should partner superaccept.

 

No guarantees...there are a lot of 2S hands for him where game rates to make and a lot of super-accepts where game fails, but this approach increases the likelihood that we will be in the right spot.

[kuhchung]

simple xfer and pass unless pard supers, yup. and doubleton supers seems pretty stupid to me too.

[akwoo]

I don't like doubleton superaccepts, but there are other possibilities.

 

One I've seen recently is for 2M+1 to be the superaccept, after which responder can bid 3M, 4M, or 3X with shortness (2N with a heart suit and spade shortness) - this way the information that's revealed is in dummy, and it's only revealed if relevant to finding game or slam.

 

Or you could have superaccepts show a side 4 card suit with concentration of values.

 

Or you could combine the two as in (reverse) Kokish game tries (except shortness is doubleton, or you could use some other useful feature as the 2nd type of try).

 

Pick something, but there has to be a way to use the 4 bids between 2M and 3M.

[mikeh]

I don't like doubleton superaccepts, but there are other possibilities.

 

One I've seen recently is for 2M+1 to be the superaccept, after which responder can bid 3M, 4M, or 3X with shortness (2N with a heart suit and spade shortness) - this way the information that's revealed is in dummy, and it's only revealed if relevant to finding game or slam.

 

Or you could have superaccepts show a side 4 card suit with concentration of values.

 

Or you could combine the two as in (reverse) Kokish game tries (except shortness is doubleton, or you could use some other useful feature as the 2nd type of try).

 

Pick something, but there has to be a way to use the 4 bids between 2M and 3M.

There is undoubtedly a way, but not so clearly good reason for doing it. Responder rarely has the hand that bids game after the superaccept where he wasn’t about to bid game, often a COG 3N, over a simple acceptance

 

However, it happens enough to warrant using superaccepts.

 

Given that bidding game because of the superaccept occurs infrequently, it will be even more unusual that providing some additional info would cause responder to act differently than over a generic superaccept. Often the reason the game is good or bad will depend on something other than whatever it is you are showing, and in the meantime you give information that the defence may need more than does responder, and not just against game. If responder rejects, then the info may lead to beating 3M, plus it may prove impossible to have opener on play in 3M

 

While right-siding is not, imo, as big a deal as some claim, it is often better to protect the strong hand on openin* lead, and to conceal it during the play as much as possible

[rhm]

This is easy to simulate.

 

I used 1000 random deals giving North a balanced 15-17 HCP

 

Result:

 

If North declares double dummy North makes

 

10 tricks or more on 495 deals (49.5%)

9 tricks on 820 deals (82%)

8 tricks on 972 deals (97.2%)

 

If South is declarer

 

10 tricks or more on 467 deals (46.7%)

9 tricks on 802 deals (80.2%)

8 tricks on 965 deals (96.5%)

 

North makes double dummy in notrumps

 

9 or more tricks 249 deals (24.9%)

8 tricks on 498 deals (49.8%)

7 tricks on 775 deals (77.5%)

 

Transferring to spades looks right.

But passing 2♠ looks too conservative even at matchpoints.

Simply transfer and raise 2♠ to 3♠, assuming you can not show shortage in an invitational hand.

 

The big question is whether you should correct, should opener suggest 3NT over 3♠.

Double dummy that is correct, but single dummy at matchpoints this is closer, but probably still correct.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[FelicityR]

This is easy to simulate.

 

I used 1000 random deals giving North a balanced 15-17 HCP

 

Result:

 

If North declares double dummy North makes

 

10 tricks or more on 495 deals (49.5%)

9 tricks on 820 deals (82%)

8 tricks on 972 deals (97.2%)

 

Thank you for doing this, Rainer. What it also tells us is that North doesn't necessarily need to have 17 HCPs for 4♠ to be a viable contract as the simulation was based on 15-17 HCPs. That's why I also felt that passing 2♠ after transferring was far too conservative with this hand.

[antonylee]

Thanks for the input.

An old criterion I learned for evaluating 6-card invites was to think of them as weak-two openers (given that a balanced hand opposite a weak-two opener needs around 15 to make a move towards game). Here this is a worse than average weak-two, so I would transfer and pass. Any better guidelines you can suggest?

We cannot directly show shortness in an invitational hand, but we can bid Stayman followed by 2♠ (nominally a 5-card invite) and partner can ask for shortness over that. I notice that no-one commented about this option?...

[AL78]

This is easy to simulate.

 

I used 1000 random deals giving North a balanced 15-17 HCP

 

Result:

 

If North declares double dummy North makes

 

10 tricks or more on 495 deals (49.5%)

9 tricks on 820 deals (82%)

8 tricks on 972 deals (97.2%)

 

If South is declarer

 

10 tricks or more on 467 deals (46.7%)

9 tricks on 802 deals (80.2%)

8 tricks on 965 deals (96.5%)

 

North makes double dummy in notrumps

 

9 or more tricks 249 deals (24.9%)

8 tricks on 498 deals (49.8%)

7 tricks on 775 deals (77.5%)

 

Transferring to spades looks right.

But passing 2♠ looks too conservative even at matchpoints.

Simply transfer and raise 2♠ to 3♠, assuming you can not show shortage in an invitational hand.

 

The big question is whether you should correct, should opener suggest 3NT over 3♠.

Double dummy that is correct, but single dummy at matchpoints this is closer, but probably still correct.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Do these percentages include those hands where North would superaccept? If so, you should remove that subset before calculating the percentages, since you are only considering what to do if opener bids 2♠.

[pescetom]

I don't like doubleton superaccepts, but there are other possibilities.

 

One I've seen recently is for 2M+1 to be the superaccept, after which responder can bid 3M, 4M, or 3X with shortness (2N with a heart suit and spade shortness) - this way the information that's revealed is in dummy, and it's only revealed if relevant to finding game or slam.

 

Or you could have superaccepts show a side 4 card suit with concentration of values.

 

Or you could combine the two as in (reverse) Kokish game tries (except shortness is doubleton, or you could use some other useful feature as the 2nd type of try).

 

Pick something, but there has to be a way to use the 4 bids between 2M and 3M.

 

In one partnership we play that 3M = 4+ sub-max, 2NT = 3 max, 3C = 4 max, 3D = 5 max.

Not much memory load, compatible with opener holding 5cM and works the same way over 2NT too.

No agreement that a suit bid in response is necessarily shortness, but it would show control and often that is enough for declarer with the strong hand to figure out whether it is shortness or not, assuming he cares.

[rhm]

Do these percentages include those hands where North would superaccept? If so, you should remove that subset before calculating the percentages, since you are only considering what to do if opener bids 2♠.

No they do not. .

People differ when they superaccept.

If you superaccept spades only with 4 spades and a maximum only a small percentage of North hands will qualify when you hold six. My guess is at best 10%

 

I doubt it affects the outcome very much

 

Rainer Herrmann

[smerriman]

Rainer's numbers surprised me, so I ran my own 1000 hands to compare. I got slightly different figures for North declaring in spades (and the opposite conclusion):

 

• 
   
  
• 10 or more tricks on 46.9% of hands
  
• 9 or more tricks on 84.2% of hands
  
• 8 or more tricks on 96.7% of hands
   
  

Under the assumptions that:

 

• 
   
  
• North will accept an invite with any 16+ HCP
  
• North will superaccept with 17 HCP and 4 spades:
   
  

and comparing transferring and passing with transferring and inviting:

 

• 
   
  
• 2.5% of the time, opener superaccepts (excluded from cases below)
  
• 15.8% of the time, we take 8 or less tricks, so passing wins
  
• 19.2% of the time, we take 9 tricks, but opener accepts an invite, so passing wins
  
• 17.2% of the time, we take 9 tricks, but opener rejects the invite so it doesn't matter
  
• 15.8% of the time, we take at least 10 tricks but opener rejects an invite, so it doesn't matter
  
• 29.5% of the time, we take at least 10 tricks and opener accepts an invite, so inviting wins
   
  

This means passing the transfer is better than inviting with 3♠ - it wins 35% of the time, and loses 29.5% of the time.

 

(This sim doesn't take into account upgrades - ie allows North to have 17 counts with a good 5 card suit and no 14 counts - but of course, adjusting for that makes North weaker, so would be more in favor of staying low.)

[MrAce]

Super accept only with 17 hcp is bean counting. Every hand (except aceless hands or 4333 min hands) should preaccept with 4 or 5 card support IMO.

So to me, when pd fails to super accept the % of making 10 tricks goes lower than the simulators suggested, which was not very high for MP anyway IMO.

[smerriman]

Super accept only with 17 hcp is bean counting. Every hand (except aceless hands or 4333 min hands) should preaccept with 4 or 5 card support IMO.

So to me, when pd fails to super accept the % of making 10 tricks goes lower than the simulators suggested, which was not very high for MP anyway IMO.

It actually turns out to be the other way around:

 

*Given* no superaccept (beancounter), pass wins 35.9% and loses 30.3%

*Given* no superaccept (your definition), pass wins 34.9% and loses 31.4%

 

I guess it's a lot of the max 3 card supports that are weighing in.

 

But passing is still a clear favorite for both.

[pescetom]

Assuming that:

- North will accept an invite with any 16+

Is that a legitimate assumption?

I would decline an invite with quite a few 16 HCP hands.

[rhm]

As I said people have different opinions when to superaccept.

 

Assume the 1NT opener has 4 or 5 spades.

The 1NT opener is still much more limited than responder.

When responder passes your superaccept you will often go down and this is much more frequent than responder having just enough to bid game over a superaccept and game makes, where responder would otherwise have passed at the 2-level. It is not that under those conditions game will always make or even be a good proposition.

It is true that quite often opponents can balance profitably if you do not superaccept and responder is weak, but do they know? Balancing is inherently quite risky

If they do balance you can still bid one more for the road.

 

Overall I think superaccepting makes only sense if you have a good 1NT opener and at least 4 card support.

You should be slightly more aggressive superaccepting hearts than spades and of course vulnerability for both sides come into consideration as does scoring.

Otherwise superaccepting is a losing proposition, particularly at matchpoints, though you will get your occasional triumph.

 

Let's make some simple assumptions for superaccept, which are easy to simulate

You superaccept with 5 spades and you superaccept with 4 spades with 16-17 HCP, except when you have 16 HCP and 4♠333

 

Again I simulated 1000 random deals with the South hand excluding superaccepts for North:

 

If North declares double dummy North makes at spades

 

10 tricks or more on 479 deals (47.9%)

9 tricks on 843 deals (84.3%)

8 tricks on 974 deals (97.4%)

 

If South is declarer

 

10 tricks or more on 451 deals (45.1%)

9 tricks on 821 deals (82.1%)

8 tricks on 963 deals (96.3%)

 

North makes double dummy at notrumps

 

9 or more tricks 259 deals (25.9%)

8 tricks on 497 deals (49.7%)

7 tricks on 788 deals (78.8%)

 

Compare this to my previous run.

The difference is marginal, given that any simulation run has some statistical variations.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[pescetom]

As I said people have different opinions when to superaccept.

 

Assume the 1NT opener has 4 or 5 spades.

The 1NT opener is still much more limited than responder.

When responder passes your superaccept you will often go down and this is much more frequent than responder having just enough to bid game over a superaccept and game makes, where responder would otherwise have passed at the 2-level. It is not that under those conditions game will always make or even be a good proposition.

It is true that quite often opponents can balance profitably if you do not superaccept and responder is weak, but do they know? Balancing is inherently quite risky

If they do balance you can still bid one more for the road.

 

Overall I think superaccepting makes only sense if you have a good 1NT opener and at least 4 card support.

You should be slightly more aggressive superaccepting hearts than spades and of course vulnerability for both sides come into consideration as does scoring.

Otherwise superaccepting is a losing proposition, particularly at matchpoints, though you will get your occasional triumph.

 

Let's make some simple assumptions for superaccept, which are easy to simulate

You superaccept with 5 spades and you superaccept with 4 spades with 16-17 HCP, except when you have 16 HCP and 4♠333

 

Again I simulated 1000 random deals with the South hand excluding superaccepts for North:

...

Compare this to my previous run.

The difference is marginal, given that any simulation run has some statistical variations.

 

There are bound to be some hands that work out badly with superaccepts and this looks like one, as your simulations suggest.

 

I fully agree with you about looking at zones and being more aggressive with hearts than spades, but in general I have found superaccepts to be a winning proposition, including an automatic accept with 4+ cards and 15-16 HCP when denoted by a specific bid. When this did send us down it often turned out to be a decent MP score nevertheless.

Ultimately I think this boils down to Law of Total Tricks and the extent to which you trust it. Opponents with half the HCP in the pack will balance almost automatically over a Jacoby transfer at MP, so I see no clear reason not to anticipate them. However weak responder is, the superaccept should be protected by a 5-4 fit.

[smerriman]

Compare this to my previous run.

The difference is marginal, given that any simulation run has some statistical variations.

Just to reiterate though, you're looking at the wrong numbers in terms of deciding whether to actually invite in this situation.

[rhm]

There are bound to be some hands that work out badly with superaccepts and this looks like one, as your simulations suggest.

 

I fully agree with you about looking at zones and being more aggressive with hearts than spades, but in general I have found superaccepts to be a winning proposition, including an automatic accept with 4+ cards and 15-16 HCP when denoted by a specific bid. When this did send us down it often turned out to be a decent MP score nevertheless.

Ultimately I think this boils down to Law of Total Tricks and the extent to which you trust it. Opponents with half the HCP in the pack will balance almost automatically over a Jacoby transfer at MP, so I see no clear reason not to anticipate them. However weak responder is, the superaccept should be protected by a 5-4 fit.

Of course everything can happen and will eventually happen in this game.

The Law of Total Tricks is fine when you or your opponents can judge total trump length round the table.

Bridge is a game of incomplete information and anyway I do not consider the LAW a substitute for judgement.

In this case opponents do not know your degree of fit and only the last opponent will get a chance to hear responder pass after the transfer.

I very much doubt that opponents with half the HCP in the pack will invariably balance over 2♠ at MP, particularly when vulnerable.

If they balance you can always bid 3♠ and sometimes they will balance and get doubled or go down when nothing makes, because neither side has a nine card fit.

Jumping to 3♠ when opponents are not in the bidding, when only you know your side has a 5-4 fit, does not look to me to be winning MP tactics.

You may sometimes get a decent MP score going down in 3♠, but I bet your MP score would have been better making or going down less in 2♠.

 

Rainer Herrmann