6-6 politics

[pescetom]

MP

[hv=pc=n&s=sh8dkqjt63ck85432&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p2s(NAT%20weak)?]160|240[/hv]

 

Intriguing to count 6-6 (even if it looks like 7-6 on BBO), but the vulnerability and clubs quality are causes for concern.

This was polled on that other site, with an even split between those who would bid 3♦ and those who would bid 4NT/4♠ for both minors.

I was curious to hear what people here have to say and how they evaluate the situation.

 

For those who prefer 3♦, what is your reasoning and are you happy to play it out if LHO bids 4♠?

 

For those (DavidKok) who use 4♠ instead of a more traditional 4NT to show both minors, what would 4NT be instead? What meaning do you assign to an advance of 4NT over 4♠? What call do you use to show this hand over 2♥ rather than 2♠?

[DavidKok]

I use 4♥ over 2♥ to show this hand type. With Leaping Michaels I have both two-suited hands with a major covered. Using the cheaper call of 4NT and 4M for the two-minors hand allows partner to make a positive slam try without going past 5m. On the auction (2♠)-4♠*-(P)-4NT advancer is showing a generic desire for slam, suit to be determined. If the opponents opened hearts instead we have coded positive responses - (2♥)-4♥*-(P)-? and now 4♠ is a try for 6♣ while 4NT is a try for 6♦. There is even room for overcaller to make a last train bid over these positive tries! The structure somewhat resembles our slam tries over 2NT-(P)-4M*, which we use as coded slam tries in the minors.

 

(2♥)-4NT and (2♠)-4NT are not in use in my system. Arguably it should show this hand: a shapely 6-5 or longer in the minors with absolutely no desire for slam. There is no room for further investigation, so this should show a weaker hand. I didn't want to vote for it in the poll since I've never discussed it with partner, though I think he'd understand it if I chose to bid it anyway.

 

P.S.: It is worth noting that strong hands can bid slowly, either doubling or bidding one suit first and counting on the auction not to die out at the 3-level with this shape. So all of these jump bids are not constructive.

[LBengtsson]

I am surprised that opposite a passed partner there is not a "Pass" option at red/white. That second suit ♣ is rags The hand could be a total misfit. I know, I know, it is 66 hand, better than a 65 come alive hand. It has virtually no defensive feature and bidding 3♦, imo, gives my partner the impression of strength: he's going to X 4♠ and then we will be in a fix as the opps. will be able to X any 5m contract more easily.

 

You don't need much from partner to make 6m, but he has passed so there is less chance he has the right cards for 6m to make.

 

Either you shut up and hope the opps. get too high, or you bid once, either 4♠/4NT showing minors and shut up after that. Just because it is 66 means you have to bid.

[jillybean]

0166 great hand!

 

I don't want to bid 4N/4S and push to 5m opposite a passed partner R/W.

If I had a method to show both minors at the 3 level I'd use that, I don't so I will pass.

[thepossum]

I will be honest and say I would have pre-empted with 4NT but I felt I was overestimating the number of tricks

Then I read the thread and I thought pass and see what happens was a good option

Then I realised I would likely bid 3NT (unusual) over 3S and gamble on 5D or 4NT (I think) over 4S anyway

Then I ran a sim and who knows but chance of it staying in 2S are slim

With a hand like that it seems terribly sad not to compete a little

Its a shame 3NT over 2M isn't unusual

How about a gambling 4 diamonds (scrub that its strong) - if I bid diamonds in my system it has to be 5 which brings us back to 4NT

[pescetom]

I don't want to bid 4N/4S and push to 5m opposite a passed partner R/W.

That's interesting, because I do :) Hence the post, at least in part, I want to check if that was an error of judgement (even if the poll suggests not).

It would be interesting to Sim the odds of 4♠ making and 5♣/5♦ going 2 down, I agree.

 

 

I am surprised that opposite a passed partner there is not a "Pass" option at red/white. That second suit ♣ is rags The hand could be a total misfit.

About 10% of people in that poll did pass, so I guess "Pass" is an LA or at least respectable, although not on my radar screen I confess (if anything, I expected someone to propose 3♣, which did cross my mind at the time and has some merits I think).

"The second suit is rags" unless partner has A or QJ, which is still quite possible, the first suit is 5 sure tricks even opposite xx.

Slam is not impossible even opposite a passed hand, although we aren't going to find it.

I figured we have a decent chance of 5m-1, although I certainly do want to minimise the probability of double, which impacts choice of bid.

This is also F2F, so 'table feel' has its weight too whatever we think about that.

[jillybean]

That's interesting, because I do :) Hence the post, at least in part, I want to check if that was an error of judgement (even if the poll suggests not).

It would be interesting to Sim the odds of 4♠ making and 5♣/5♦ going 2 down, I agree.

I've been known to bid too much/too little before , pass could be horribly wrong. :)

Change the vulnerability and I'll take a bid.

 

By the way, what is the scoring?

 

Tempo is a horrible problem on this hand.

[thepossum]

It would be interesting etc

 

I ran a basic one

75 percent chance of 4spades

49 percent chance of 2 or more down

Approximately :)

 

From memory. Note. that is just a crude Sim based on N,E, and S hands and doesn't take account of different bidding sequences to get to 4 - its likely less than that - a more sophisticated Sim with all the possible sequences would be interesting

 

Suggests maybe a pass then act later if needed

 

I find the hand evaluation on that hand difficult. Some hand evaluation rates it very high with 9 tricks

 

Which brings it back to possible 3D then see what happens

[pescetom]

I ran a basic one

75 percent chance of 4spades

49 percent chance of 2 or more down

Approximately :)

 

Thanks.

Do you mean 2 or more down whichever minor we play (looks excessive to me)?

If not, what were the chances of 2 or more down for clubs and diamonds respectively (and for the better of the two)?

 

FWIW, on the actual layout 4♠ made +1, 5♣ made -1 and 5♦ in misfit made -2.

[pescetom]

I've been known to bid too much/too little before , pass could be horribly wrong. :)

Change the vulnerability and I'll take a bid.

 

By the way, what is the scoring?

 

Tempo is a horrible problem on this hand.

 

MP, it says.

Many of my partners would pass.

[pescetom]

I use 4♥ over 2♥ to show this hand type. With Leaping Michaels I have both two-suited hands with a major covered. Using the cheaper call of 4NT and 4M for the two-minors hand allows partner to make a positive slam try without going past 5m. On the auction (2♠)-4♠*-(P)-4NT advancer is showing a generic desire for slam, suit to be determined. If the opponents opened hearts instead we have coded positive responses - (2♥)-4♥*-(P)-? and now 4♠ is a try for 6♣ while 4NT is a try for 6♦. There is even room for overcaller to make a last train bid over these positive tries! The structure somewhat resembles our slam tries over 2NT-(P)-4M*, which we use as coded slam tries in the minors.

 

(2♥)-4NT and (2♠)-4NT are not in use in my system. Arguably it should show this hand: a shapely 6-5 or longer in the minors with absolutely no desire for slam. There is no room for further investigation, so this should show a weaker hand. I didn't want to vote for it in the poll since I've never discussed it with partner, though I think he'd understand it if I chose to bid it anyway.

 

P.S.: It is worth noting that strong hands can bid slowly, either doubling or bidding one suit first and counting on the auction not to die out at the 3-level with this shape. So all of these jump bids are not constructive.

 

Thanks, much as expected and very logical.

I agree that a direct 4NT should be the weaker hand and 4NT over 4♠ should invite slam in some way.

[thepossum]

Thanks.

Do you mean 2 or more down in both minors (looks excessive to me)?

If not, what were the chances of 2 or more down for clubs and diamonds respectively (and for the better of the two if available)?

 

FWIW, on the actual layout 4♠ made +1, 5♣ made -1 and 5♦ in misfit made -2.

 

 

As I said it was very basic and thrown together and probably needed more tweaking to take account of the issue you raise

It was approx 49% more than 2 down in diamonds

It was approx 49% more than 2 down in clubs

It was approx 75% 4 spades

 

Like that :)

If I do anything more sophisticated I will let you know :)

So yes it should be less taking account of hoping to find a good fit in one or the other

And nothing at all fancy like different bidding sequences and whether West doubles or anything

 

My cursory playing with BBO and dealer is suggesting that 4NT could be the best bid but I have no stats to back it up at all :)

I've been sitting generating hundreds of hands - for a about 1/3 I bid 4NT, about 1/3 I bid 3D, about 1/3 I passed

But GiB didn't double that often via 4NT :)

 

EDIT Quick update I have around 39% both minors

EDIT Quick update 2. I have around 23% for 2 or more down both minors and game spades

Still very crude constraints and no account of whether the contracts could be bid. Probably even smaller chance of game

Constraints are N<12 points and E with 5-10 and exactly 6 spades

I could do something more accurate and give you the output if you like but its very basic at the moment

Scrub some of that until I get back to you - trying to tweak and respond at the same time is not wise - conditions are getting mixed up

The chance of going two or more down in both minors when game *doesn't* make is very small

 

Note also I am running my mini sim in BDeal not Dealer

 

What are the parameters for that auction so far :)

[thepossum]

Updated figures

Basic constraints N<12 and E between 6 and 10 with exactly 6 spades and less than 4 hearts

 

Clubs: 9137 / 1000 = 9.137 Ań 0.108555 (95% conf.) min: 3 max: 12 sdev: 1.74935

Diamonds: 9496 / 1000 = 9.496 Ań 0.100482 (95% conf.) min: 5 max: 12 sdev: 1.61925

Spades: 10127 / 1000 = 10.127 Ań 0.0837824 (95% conf.) min: 4 max: 13 sdev: 1.35014

chance of 3C: 665 / 1000 = 0.665 Ań 0.0292892 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.47199

chance of 3D: 743 / 1000 = 0.743 Ań 0.0271166 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.436979

chance of 4S: 664 / 1000 = 0.664 Ań 0.0293108 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.472339

chance of <4C: 515 / 1000 = 0.515 Ań 0.0310134 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.499775

chance of <4D: 442 / 1000 = 0.442 Ań 0.0308179 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.496625

chance of <4 both minor: 343 / 1000 = 0.343 Ań 0.0294581 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.474711

chance of <4 both minors and 4s making: 246 / 1000 = 0.246 Ań 0.0267256 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.430679

chance of <4 both minors and 4s not making: 97 / 1000 = 0.097 Ań 0.0183656 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.295958

Number of hands dealt: 57888. CPU time usage [sec]: 18.28 (x8 threads).

 

 

Raw output sorry. Getting anxious trying to respond accurately and fix things at the same time :) Ań I think is +/-SE*1.96 (guess)

There are of course rather large variances :)

ALso masses of other disclaimers such as the chances of 4S being bid and made versus double dummy etc

 

If you can work out how to bid from that good luck to you but I am happy with 4NT :)

 

I can also tell you that GiB's preferred bid is 3 diamonds :)

[pescetom]

Updated figures

Basic constraints N<12 and E between 6 and 10 with exactly 6 spades and less than 4 hearts

 

Clubs: 9137 / 1000 = 9.137 Ań 0.108555 (95% conf.) min: 3 max: 12 sdev: 1.74935

Diamonds: 9496 / 1000 = 9.496 Ań 0.100482 (95% conf.) min: 5 max: 12 sdev: 1.61925

Spades: 10127 / 1000 = 10.127 Ań 0.0837824 (95% conf.) min: 4 max: 13 sdev: 1.35014

chance of 3C: 665 / 1000 = 0.665 Ań 0.0292892 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.47199

chance of 3D: 743 / 1000 = 0.743 Ań 0.0271166 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.436979

chance of 4S: 664 / 1000 = 0.664 Ań 0.0293108 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.472339

chance of <4C: 515 / 1000 = 0.515 Ań 0.0310134 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.499775

chance of <4D: 442 / 1000 = 0.442 Ań 0.0308179 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.496625

chance of <4 both minor: 343 / 1000 = 0.343 Ań 0.0294581 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.474711

chance of <4 both minors and 4s making: 246 / 1000 = 0.246 Ań 0.0267256 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.430679

chance of <4 both minors and 4s not making: 97 / 1000 = 0.097 Ań 0.0183656 (95% conf.) min: 0 max: 1 sdev: 0.295958

Number of hands dealt: 57888. CPU time usage [sec]: 18.28 (x8 threads).

 

 

Raw output sorry. Getting anxious trying to respond accurately and fix things at the same time :) Ań I think is +/-SE*1.96 (guess)

There are of course rather large variances :)

ALso masses of other disclaimers such as the chances of 4S being bid and made versus double dummy etc

 

If you can work out how to bid from that good luck to you but I am happy with 4NT :)

 

I can also tell you that GiB's preferred bid is 3 diamonds :)

 

Thanks.

Not that far in the end from the odds I guessed at the table, namely about 65% for 4H= + 15% for 5H=, about 30% for better 5m down 2 doubled more often than not.

[mikeh]

Late to the thread

 

I’m conflicted

 

On the one hand, I’m tempted to pass to see what west does. For example, I’m expecting a spade raise of some fashion, perhaps preceded by an artificial 2N. If west doesn’t raise spades,mtgsts very bad news for us since partner will hold 5 spades much of the time. Add to that our stiff heart and (unless west shows long hearts) the chances of buying a useful hand opposite are remote

 

Otoh, even though 5m may be a terrible mp spot, the opps don’t always guess to do the right thing. Maybe west has big majors and at least one short minor and will be worried about 200 v 450 or even -750. Plus, of course, there is always the (slim) prospect of partner holding something like QJ10x Q10xx x Axxx and they can’t make anything while we’re cold for 5C.

 

If I were to pass, I greatly reduce the odds of west going wrong if I later bid 4N, and there are many hands on which I’m going to be faced with that issue on one of the next two rounds. If I bid now, I create maximal pressure but eliminate the possibility of going quietly, which a slow auction might warn me to do.

 

At the table I have a tendency to talk myself into being conservative, and regret it more often than not. So given that we’re operating in a virtual environment and, other than being shown to have guessed wrong, there are no consequences, I’m doing what I think is best: 4N.

 

As for the distinction between 4S and 4N, few partnerships will have discussed this so I’m not getting involved (although serious partnerships should have rules for these situations, absent express agreement).