Choose your poison

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&w=skt62hdakj9642cqt&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=4h]133|200[/hv]

 

Once you make your choice the N hand is in the spoiler and you can decide what you want to do with that over your choice.

 

 

[hv=pc=n&n=saq853h642dcak853]133|100[/hv]

 

 

This was dealt while practicing so no particular form of scoring but feel free to say if you'd do different things depending on that

[DavidKok]

Double, intending to pull 5♣ to 5♦. This traditionally shows a 'big diamond hand', and if partner raises to six with middling values I'll have to live with that (and who knows, two black aces and two small diamonds and it might make).

 

If partner bids 4♠ instead I'm passing. I don't love it, but that's preempts for you.

[LBengtsson]

I chose X, looked at spoiler and thought north hand could be east hand :)

 

now having looked I would still X. you can run to 5♦. occasionally you will go for -800/1100 however that should not change your decision. bidding 5♦ direct over south 4♥ can miss ♠ fit.

 

btw what does north bid over west X? east/west can easily miss a slam if they decide to penalise you, possibly in 5♦X

[TMorris]

Double seem right to me. Trying to be perfect after a pre-empt is pointless. I will pull 5C to 5D and live with the consequences

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=skt62hdakj9642cqt&d=s&v=b&a=4h?]133|200|CyberYeti's poison West

+++++++++++++++++++++

I rank:

1. Double = keep ♠ in the picture,

2. 5♦ = a poor second choice.[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&n=saq853h642dcak853&d=s&v=b&a=4hd?]133|200|

CyberYeti's poison North

+++++++++++++++++++++

I rank:

1. XX = Show some enthusiasm. OK for now.

2. 6♥ = Give opps last guess.

3. 7♥ = Punt

4. Pass = But continuations are less clear.

[/hv]

[Winstonm]

I think you really are pretty much compelled to double but I certainly hope partner can bid and won't pass with a balanced smattering of cards.

[Douglas43]

At IMPs I'd prefer to bid 5♦ because a 4-4 Spade fit might run into trouble.

 

At matchpoints, the extra points for the major might tempt me to double and hope for the best.

[gszes]

With so little needed (from partner)to make game Axxxx xx T8 xxxx I feel compelled to try x. I was curious to see what the spoiler was going to bring.

After 4h x and with the opps having a 9/10+ card diamond fit AND heart shortness I feel playing around looking for a penalty just seems wrong. I intend to bid slam even if partner were to show me no key cards so I might as well try for 7 just in case partner has the heart AK. I am indeed willing to gamble p does not have a side ace vs the heart ace.

 

4n rkc fortunately I do not play or recommend those void showing variants since the information is rarely useful and it can backfire sometimes getting us too high.

[Cyberyeti]

With so little needed (from partner)to make game Axxxx xx T8 xxxx I feel compelled to try x. I was curious to see what the spoiler was going to bring.

After 4h x and with the opps having a 9/10+ card diamond fit AND heart shortness I feel playing around looking for a penalty just seems wrong. I intend to bid slam even if partner were to show me no key cards so I might as well try for 7 just in case partner has the heart AK. I am indeed willing to gamble p does not have a side ace vs the heart ace.

 

4n rkc fortunately I do not play or recommend those void showing variants since the information is rarely useful and it can backfire sometimes getting us too high.

 

And here lies the rub. The reason I posed the question was that overcalling 5♦ deprives you of the ace ask. I actually got the N hand wrong it's the same honours but 6♠/4♣ rather than 5-5.

 

This is the whole hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s97hakqt9753dtc63&w=skt62hdakj9642cqt&n=saq8543h642dcak84&e=sjhj8dq8753cj9752]399|300[/hv]

 

Nigel's decision of XX over 4♥x will lead to 4N from E, 5♦ from W and now N has a guess (6♥ ?) 7♦ is a good save unless NS bid 7♥.

[mikeh]

I was trying to post earlier, but my phone died. Anyway, I think double of 4H is nuts, and not because Cyber was laying a trap, lol. We have negative defence and double gets passed far too often, and when it doesn’t it often leads to a poor 4-4 spade fit. AKJxxxx spells trump. 5D is clear, imo

[Cyberyeti]

I was trying to post earlier, but my phone died. Anyway, I think double of 4H is nuts, and not because Cyber was laying a trap, lol. We have negative defence and double gets passed far too often, and when it doesn’t it often leads to a poor 4-4 spade fit. AKJxxxx spells trump. 5D is clear, imo

 

I wasn't laying a trap as such, I just noticed the unanticipated side effect. Give partner Q9xxx, xx, x, J9xxx and you may not enjoy the choice of 5♦ much while you might come out alive after X.

 

I'm glad after your post it wasn't unanimous.

[nullve]

I was trying to post earlier, but my phone died. Anyway, I think double of 4H is nuts, and not because Cyber was laying a trap, lol. We have negative defence and double gets passed far too often, and when it doesn’t it often leads to a poor 4-4 spade fit. AKJxxxx spells trump. 5D is clear, imo

Dealer script:

predeal west SKT62, DAKJ9642, CQT
condition hearts(south)>= 8 and spades(east)==4
produce 100
action average "avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract" (tricks(west,diamonds)), average "avg. # of tricks if East is declarer in a S contract" (tricks(east,spades))

One run:

avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract: 10.28
avg. # of tricks if East is declarer in a S contract: 9.81
Generated 31453 hands
Produced 100 hands
Initial random seed 1620637123
Time needed   13.130 sec

[Douglas43]

I wasn't laying a trap as such, I just noticed the unanticipated side effect. Give partner Q9xxx, xx, x, J9xxx and you may not enjoy the choice of 5♦ much while you might come out alive after X.

 

I'm glad after your post it wasn't unanimous.

 

I misread the spoiler and thought that the black two suiter was partner's hand, which is what usually happens when I bid 5♦. Now feeling much happier!

[mikeh]

Dealer script:

predeal west SKT62, DAKJ9642, CQT
condition hearts(south)>= 8 and spades(east)==4
produce 100
action average "avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract" (tricks(west,diamonds)), average "avg. # of tricks if East is declarer in a S contract" (tricks(east,spades))

One run:

avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract: 10.28
avg. # of tricks if East is declarer in a S contract: 9.81
Generated 31453 hands
Produced 100 hands
Initial random seed 1620637123
Time needed   13.130 sec

You don’t understand my argument.

 

If I knew that partner had 4+ spades I’d double, since much of the time he’d have reasonably good spades and often 5+.

 

The biggest downside to doubling isn’t that we play spades rather than diamonds. It’s that I’m going to be on lead against 4H doubled, with far less defence than double suggests.

 

There is also the fact that sometimes a 4-4 spade fit, when he has bad spades, may play very poorly, since It may prove impossible to establish and run diamonds.

 

Oh, and what a way to run a simulation! You give opener at least 8 hearts. In today’s game, 4H doesn’t promise 8 hearts, even vulnerable. But more to the point you specified partner having 4S. That’s enough to invalidate your simulation. How the heck do you, looking at this hand sitting over a 4H opening, ‘know’ that partner has at least 4 spades?

 

 

Why not run a simulation that reflects reality? Of course, one of the weaknesses of simulations is that it can be difficult to set the constraints. Opener will often hold 8 hearts, but sometimes 9 or even 10, but also some 7 card suits, especially if, say, 7=4.

 

And the other main weakness is that you have to look at every hand to assess what partner will do. Will he pass? Will he bid 4N? Will he move towards slam?

 

Now, if your point, for some strange reason, was to assess whether a 4-4 spade fit will lead to a better result for double than would overcalling 5D when partner has 4 spades, I guess you win. Personally, I generally don’t know that much about partner’s hand thus early in the auction.

[LBengtsson]

I was trying to post earlier, but my phone died. Anyway, I think double of 4H is nuts, and not because Cyber was laying a trap, lol. We have negative defence and double gets passed far too often, and when it doesn’t it often leads to a poor 4-4 spade fit. AKJxxxx spells trump. 5D is clear, imo

 

agree and disagree. if the opening pre-empt is 4♠ as opposed to 4♥ partner has less choosing. however, we have to keep a contract of 4♠ in the mix on this hand. yes, we can end up in poor 4-4 ♠ fit if you X with west hand (agree) but disagree that 5♦ is a better bid. you can still run to 5♦ after X but you make it difficult for ♠ fit to be found once you bid 5♦ direct over 4♥.

[nullve]

Now, if your point, for some strange reason, was to assess whether a 4-4 spade fit will lead to a better result for double than would overcalling 5D when partner has 4 spades

Yes, that was the point.

 

The biggest downside to doubling isn’t that we play spades rather than diamonds. It’s that I’m going to be on lead against 4H doubled, with far less defence than double suggests.

Agree.

 

In today’s game, 4H doesn’t promise 8 hearts, even vulnerable.

 

[...]

 

Why not run a simulation that reflects reality? Of course, one of the weaknesses of simulations is that it can be difficult to set the constraints. Opener will often hold 8 hearts, but sometimes 9 or even 10, but also some 7 card suits, especially if, say, 7=4.

I was pretty sure it wouldn't help your argument if I included more shapes.

 

Anyway, here's an improved script:

predeal west SKT62, DAKJ9642, CQT
condition (hearts(south)>= 8 or (hearts(south)==7 and (clubs(south)>=4 or diamonds(south)>=4))) and spades(east)==4
produce 1000
action average "avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract" tricks(west,diamonds), average "avg. # of tricks if East is declarer in a S contract" tricks(east,spades)

One run:

avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract: 10.169
avg. # of tricks if East is declarer in a S contract: 9.903
Generated 150360 hands
Produced 1000 hands
Initial random seed 1620676152
Time needed   90.370 sec

[nige1]

A variation on Nullve's simulation, illustrating that

• 4♠ is a good contract when East has a fit, and
• South is quite likely to make 4♥X.

For more reliable numbers, bump the produce count.

predeal west SKT62, DAKJ9642, CQT
condition 
spades (east) > 3 and (hearts(south) > 7 
or (hearts (south) == 7 and (clubs (south) > 3 or diamonds (south) > 3))) 
produce 100
action 
frequency "D tricks by W" (tricks (west, diamonds), 11, 11),
frequency "S tricks by E" (tricks (east, spades), 10, 10),
frequency "H tricks by S" (tricks (south, hearts), 10, 10)

 

 

Frequency D tricks by W:
Low      	48   
11      	36
High      	16
Frequency S tricks by E:
Low      	25   
10      	22
High      	53
Frequency H tricks by S:
Low      	38   
10      	30
High      	32
Generated 7941 hands
Produced 100 hands
Initial random seed 1620769811
Time needed   33.437 sec

[mikeh]

A variation on Nullve's simulation, illustrating that

• 4♠ is a good contract when East has a fit, and
• South is quite likely to make 4♥X.

For more reliable numbers, bump the produce count.

predeal west SKT62, DAKJ9642, CQT
condition 
spades (east) > 3 and (hearts(south) > 7 
or (hearts (south) == 7 and (clubs (south) > 3 or diamonds (south) > 3))) 
produce 100
action 
frequency "D tricks by W" (tricks (west, diamonds), 11, 11),
frequency "S tricks by E" (tricks (east, spades), 10, 10),
frequency "H tricks by S" (tricks (south, hearts), 10, 10)

 

 

Frequency D tricks by W:
Low      	48   
11      	36
High      	16
Frequency S tricks by E:
Low      	25   
10      	22
High      	53
Frequency H tricks by S:
Low      	38   
10      	30
High      	32
Generated 7941 hands
Produced 100 hands
Initial random seed 1620769811
Time needed   33.437 sec

I have no idea why anyone would feel the need to run a simulation to determine whether 4S would be a good spot, most of the time, if east has 4 or more. I would have thought it self evident, although it is equally self-evident that xxxx is unlikely to make for a good contract...in spades or diamonds, although xxxx xx Qx AJ9xx makes a diamond contract pretty good...and I don't need a simulation to prove that, lol.

 

Run a proper simulation, giving opener 7+ hearts...if 7 then not 7222 and always, if 7, very good hearts...at least AKJ10xxx and likely, then, either some 7330 or some 74 hand...even then there would be hands some would say fit and some would say don't. Make it too good, and one may have a 1H opener. Make it too weak and one might have a 3H opener.

 

Then look at each hand...what would LHO do, over double (directly or after passing and having advancer bid)? What will advancer do?

 

Nobody can be objective, btw, doing this, if they know our hand.

 

So simulations, which have very powerful uses in some scenarios, are essentially worthless here, if the desire is to prove what action is best. I doubt that I'd agree with nullve or nige's selection of hands and actions for the other players...not that my views would be entitled to any deference, but simply because these judgement calls are never unanimous. Heck, in discussions with two of my long time partners, both multiple national champions, and we play similar methods in the 2 partnerships, we don't agree on all choices even on simpler hands than this.

 

At the end of the day, one relies on one's own experiences and biases. Mine tell me that x is too high a risk, not because of a fear of spades (though on a bad day spades is going for a number and is the only contract LHO can double) but because, added to the risk of a poor spade contract, and far more importantly, partner won't expect so little defence for double and will pass far too often...or drive too high in a black suit.

 

As I said before: if all I knew was that partner held 4+ spades, I'd bid x in a heartbeat. Lacking that information, I bid 5D

[Winstonm]

I have no idea why anyone would feel the need to run a simulation to determine whether 4S would be a good spot, most of the time, if east has 4 or more. I would have thought it self evident, although it is equally self-evident that xxxx is unlikely to make for a good contract...in spades or diamonds, although xxxx xx Qx AJ9xx makes a diamond contract pretty good...and I don't need a simulation to prove that, lol.

 

Run a proper simulation, giving opener 7+ hearts...if 7 then not 7222 and always, if 7, very good hearts...at least AKJ10xxx and likely, then, either some 7330 or some 74 hand...even then there would be hands some would say fit and some would say don't. Make it too good, and one may have a 1H opener. Make it too weak and one might have a 3H opener.

 

Then look at each hand...what would LHO do, over double (directly or after passing and having advancer bid)? What will advancer do?

 

Nobody can be objective, btw, doing this, if they know our hand.

 

So simulations, which have very powerful uses in some scenarios, are essentially worthless here, if the desire is to prove what action is best. I doubt that I'd agree with nullve or nige's selection of hands and actions for the other players...not that my views would be entitled to any deference, but simply because these judgement calls are never unanimous. Heck, in discussions with two of my long time partners, both multiple national champions, and we play similar methods in the 2 partnerships, we don't agree on all choices even on simpler hands than this.

 

At the end of the day, one relies on one's own experiences and biases. Mine tell me that x is too high a risk, not because of a fear of spades (though on a bad day spades is going for a number and is the only contract LHO can double) but because, added to the risk of a poor spade contract, and far more importantly, partner won't expect so little defence for double and will pass far too often...or drive too high in a black suit.

 

As I said before: if all I knew was that partner held 4+ spades, I'd bid x in a heartbeat. Lacking that information, I bid 5D

 

Mike, I had the same qualms about double - but I would rather play at the 4-level than 5-level. I've almost convinced myself that pass has a lot of merit because this hand really isn't all that good. At mps I bid - what the heck. At imps, I feel screwed no matter what I do.

 

So my question is: how do you rate pass?

[mikeh]

Mike, I had the same qualms about double - but I would rather play at the 4-level than 5-level. I've almost convinced myself that pass has a lot of merit because this hand really isn't all that good. At mps I bid - what the heck. At imps, I feel screwed no matter what I do.

 

So my question is: how do you rate pass?

If I had to pass at any form of scoring, it would be mps, but I’d not pass at any form of scoring.

 

Imps risks a double game swing. Picture partner with Qx xxx Qxxx KJxx. We’re cold for 5D while they’re cold for 4H if opener has 8 hearts...8 hearts and two black aces. Mps, it’s only a board. Btw, if we double and catch partner with that hand, we’re minus 790. Into our 600....obviously we can equally generate hands where double wins big, so I’m not pretending this is likely.

 

I’m not a fan of Bobby Wolff....despite his being a great player....but I do like a saying he used in the BW MSC, on numerous occasions....hands like these are ‘too dangerous to pass’

 

Remember...LHO doesn’t know your hand, especially when you bid 5D. For all he knows you have 8 diamonds. He’s more likely to take the push to 5H over 5D than over double, especially if he’s loaded in spades (when passing the double might give him a shot at 4S)

 

Admittedly that’s a tiny, maybe non-existent, edge against good players who know that they bid immediately or not at all.

[nullve]

Run a proper simulation, giving opener 7+ hearts...if 7 then not 7222 and always, if 7, very good hearts...at least AKJ10xxx and likely, then, either some 7330 or some 74 hand...even then there would be hands some would say fit and some would say don't. Make it too good, and one may have a 1H opener. Make it too weak and one might have a 3H opener.

Ok, here's another try:

 

Script:

 

 

 

south_4H = 
hcp(south)<11
and
(hearts(south)>=8 
or
(
hearts(south)==7
and
(hcp(south,hearts)>=9
or
(
hcp(south,hearts)==8
and
top5(south,hearts)==4
)
)
and 
shape(south, any 7330 + any 74xx)
)
)

predeal west SKT62, DAKJ9642, CQT
condition south_4H and spades(east)==4 
produce 1000
action average "avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract" tricks(west,diamonds), average "avg. # of tricks if E is declarer in a S contract" tricks(east,spades)

 

 

One run:

avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract: 10.546
avg. # of tricks if E is declarer in a S contract: 10.311
Generated 437839 hands
Produced 1000 hands
Initial random seed 1620812489
Time needed   65.457 sec

 

it is equally self-evident that xxxx is unlikely to make for a good contract...in spades or diamonds, although xxxx xx Qx AJ9xx makes a diamond contract pretty good...and I don't need a simulation to prove that, lol.

So, does 5♦ tend to be a better contract than 4♠ opposite xxxx (interpreted as 8xxx or worse)?

 

Slightly modified script:

 

 

 

south_4H = 
hcp(south)<11
and
(hearts(south)>=8 
or
(
hearts(south)==7
and
(hcp(south,hearts)>=9
or
(
hcp(south,hearts)==8
and
top5(south,hearts)==4
)
)
and 
shape(south, any 7330 + any 74xx)
)
)

predeal west SKT62, DAKJ9642, CQT
condition south_4H and spades(east)==4 and hcp(east,spades)==0 and not hascard(east,9S)
produce 500
action average "avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract" tricks(west,diamonds), average "avg. # of tricks if E is declarer in a S contract" tricks(east,spades)

 

 

One run:

avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract: 9.086
avg. # of tricks if E is declarer in a S contract: 8.1
Generated 6302538 hands
Produced 500 hands
Initial random seed 1620813618
Time needed   41.724 sec

 

 

As I said before: if all I knew was that partner held 4+ spades, I'd bid x in a heartbeat. Lacking that information, I bid 5D

Fair enough.

[mikeh]

Ok, here's another try:

 

Script:

 

 

 

south_4H = 
hcp(south)<11
and
(hearts(south)>=8 
or
(
hearts(south)==7
and
(hcp(south,hearts)>=9
or
(
hcp(south,hearts)==8
and
top5(south,hearts)==4
)
)
and 
shape(south, any 7330 + any 74xx)
)
)

predeal west SKT62, DAKJ9642, CQT
condition south_4H and spades(east)==4 
produce 1000
action average "avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract" tricks(west,diamonds), average "avg. # of tricks if E is declarer in a S contract" tricks(east,spades)

 

 

One run:

avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract: 10.546
avg. # of tricks if E is declarer in a S contract: 10.311
Generated 437839 hands
Produced 1000 hands
Initial random seed 1620812489
Time needed   65.457 sec

 

 

So, does 5♦ tend to be a better contract than 4♠ opposite xxxx (interpreted as 8xxx or worse)?

 

Slightly modified script:

 

 

 

south_4H = 
hcp(south)<11
and
(hearts(south)>=8 
or
(
hearts(south)==7
and
(hcp(south,hearts)>=9
or
(
hcp(south,hearts)==8
and
top5(south,hearts)==4
)
)
and 
shape(south, any 7330 + any 74xx)
)
)

predeal west SKT62, DAKJ9642, CQT
condition south_4H and spades(east)==4 and hcp(east,spades)==0 and not hascard(east,9S)
produce 500
action average "avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract" tricks(west,diamonds), average "avg. # of tricks if E is declarer in a S contract" tricks(east,spades)

 

 

One run:

avg. # of tricks if W is declarer in a D contract: 9.086
avg. # of tricks if E is declarer in a S contract: 8.1
Generated 6302538 hands
Produced 500 hands
Initial random seed 1620813618
Time needed   41.724 sec

 

 

 

Fair enough.

One of us doesn’t remotely understand the other. I point out that a simulation based on specifying that partner has 4 spades is of no relevance to our decision over 4H, since most of us don’t know partner’s shape at that point, and your response is to run even more simulations specifying that partner has 4 spades. What, if anything, does that ‘prove’?

 

Plus I point out how running simulations, with no effort to look at the generated hands and try to estimate how the other players would, in real life, act is largely a waste of time.

 

Say you to run 1000 hands, randomizing partner and LHO.

 

Working out, say, that the partnership will make, on average, 8.3 tricks in spades ad 10.53 tricks in diamonds means nothing.

 

The number of tricks in spades is meaningless unless it’s realistic to play in spades after double.

 

The number of tricks our way, in either strain, is meaningless if partner should be passing the double

 

The number of tricks our way is meaningless (in most cases) if LHO is raising hearts (only if partner has a hand on which he can bid over 5H is it relevant).

 

And so on.

[lamford]

I agree with mikeh that double is poor. 5D for me, and second choice pass. If partner has his striped-tailed jacket on he will double 5H and pull the redouble to 6D.

[nige1]

Nullve's simulations seem to show that 4♠ is more likely to make than 5♦, whenever East has 4 or more spades (which is quite likely).

• If you double, EW might still play in 5♦ but
• If you bid 5♦, you can't get back to 4♠.
• A drawback of double is that when partner has fewer than 4 ♠s and chooses to pass -- 4♥X seems quite likely to make.

Admittedly, double-dummy analysis is unrealistic but less tedious and controversial than human analysis of 1000 deals. NS agreement about a 4♥ pre-empt might be a factor, especially if South's hearts need to be headed by top honours. In my circles, I'm unaware of any such requirements.

 

Below is a rerun of the simulation without ♠ restraints. Please note that 5♦ is still poor and 4♠ often makes.

 

 

 

 

predeal west SKT62, DAKJ9642, CQT
condition hearts(south) > 7 
or (hearts (south) == 7 and (clubs (south) > 3 or diamonds (south) > 3)) 
produce 1000
action 
frequency "W makes 5D" (tricks (west, diamonds) > 11, 0, 1),
frequency "E makes 4S" (tricks (east, spades) > 9, 0, 1),
frequency "S makes 4H" (tricks (south, hearts) > 9, 0, 1)

Frequency W makes 5D:
   0         827
   1         173
Frequency E makes 4S:
   0         513
   1         487
Frequency S makes 4H:
   0         367
   1         633
Generated 47501 hands
Produced 1000 hands
Initial random seed 1620829163
Time needed  120.043 sec

[nullve]

One of us doesn’t remotely understand the other. I point out that a simulation based on specifying that partner has 4 spades is of no relevance to our decision over 4H, since most of us don’t know partner’s shape at that point, and your response is to run even more simulations specifying that partner has 4 spades. What, if anything, does that ‘prove’?

Well, I thought you made such a simulation relevant with your first reply:

 

I was trying to post earlier, but my phone died. Anyway, I think double of 4H is nuts, and not because Cyber was laying a trap, lol. We have negative defence and double gets passed far too often, and when it doesn’t it often leads to a poor 4-4 spade fit. AKJxxxx spells trump. 5D is clear, imo