[Phil]

Jlall, on Oct 14 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

hanp, on Oct 14 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

I went with TTTKK 999Q6 888. It turned out my 999Q6 lost but 99988 would have lost as well so this ended up being the best play.

You play chinese? ROFL.

? I thought this was a Pai Gow problem

[Jlall]

Phil, on Oct 14 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 14 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

hanp, on Oct 14 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

I went with TTTKK 999Q6 888. It turned out my 999Q6 lost but 99988 would have lost as well so this ended up being the best play.

You play chinese? ROFL.

? I thought this was a Pai Gow problem

Assumed it was Chinese:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Chinese_poker

but have no idea how pai gow is played

[jdonn]

I really really hate bidding notrump. We belong in hearts very often too! "We belong in notrump a lot" and "we should bid notrump now" are very far from being equivalent statements.

[Jlall]

I hate 2N but 3H precludes NT way more than 2N precludes hearts.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Oct 14 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

I hate 2N but 3H precludes NT way more than 2N precludes hearts.

That's why I bid 2♠. I know I'm overbidding, but it's a lot easier to get to notrump after 2♠ than 3♥. I refuse to not raise hearts though, I can easily be talked into 3♥ but nothing else.

[skjaeran]

Close between 2♠ and 3♥ for me, but I'm landing on 3♥.

[billw55]

eyhung, on Oct 14 2009, 11:27 AM, said:

I don't think it's wise to double and bid with a hand such as xx AJxxxx Kx AKx, but [...] game is percentage.

True. But that hand is very close to the line for double and bid; and it is also an improbably good construction (♣AK opposite doubleton). Also partner need not have 6 hearts. I have read somewhere, don't play partner for perfect cards.

Oh well I am obviously in the minority. Maybe I need to loosen up my bidding ...

[hanp]

On this hand partner has QJ Axxxxx x AKxx, both 3NT and 4H make.

[jjbrr]

Chinese Poker in this thread.

888 should be up top obv. you get 5 for the royalty instead of 4 in the middle for the boat. ez game.

[eyhung]

billw55, on Oct 14 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

eyhung, on Oct 14 2009, 11:27 AM, said:

I don't think it's wise to double and bid with a hand such as xx AJxxxx Kx AKx, but [...] game is percentage.

True. But that hand is very close to the line for double and bid; and it is also an improbably good construction (♣AK opposite doubleton). Also partner need not have 6 hearts. I have read somewhere, don't play partner for perfect cards.

Oh well I am obviously in the minority. Maybe I need to loosen up my bidding ...

That was a very good-fitting hand, no question about it, but that was in response to a poster who overcalls 2H on weaker hands than the standard.

For a standard overcaller, there are many types of hands in the overcall range where game is good:

Qx AQxxx KJx Kxx
x AQxxxx Kx Axxx
AJx QJTxx AJx xx

Granted, as my sim shows, the majority of the time, you do not have game in hearts -- so yes, the hands I have shown are by definition well-fitting. But the majority of time you invite and _partner accepts_, I expect to win IMPs, while I do not expect inviting to lose IMPs. Passing is unilaterally deciding that your side simply doesn't have game, and I don't think the IMP odds are on your side.

[billw55]

Actually, that's an excellent and understandable explanation. I may have learned something this thread

[Fluffy]

oh please, don't overcall 2♥ on AJx QJ10xx AJx xx. Its so sick that it probably kills a kitty everytime you do it.

[eyhung]

Fluffy, on Oct 14 2009, 03:21 PM, said:

oh please, don't overcall 2♥ on AJx QJ10xx AJx xx. Its so sick that it probably kills a kitty everytime you do it.

I've made better overcalls but 2♥ on AJx QJTxx AJx xx is hardly comparable to felinicide. It seems clear to me, even opposite a passed hand. Have you forgotten that we are favorable? The opponents are unlikely to go headhunting at these colors with at most 2 trump honors and 2 aces. And if you don't overcall, good luck pushing them up or finding a nice distributional game (x Kxxx KTxxx xxx, QTx Kxxx x xxxxx). It even has lead-directing and obstructive value. It's not perfect, but I would much rather bid 2♥ than pass here.

[Hanoi5]

hanp, on Oct 14 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

I went with TTTKK 999Q6 888. It turned out my 999Q6 lost but 99988 would have lost as well so this ended up being the best play.

Can someone explain this post?

[pooltuna]

eyhung, on Oct 14 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Oct 14 2009, 03:21 PM, said:

oh please, don't overcall 2♥ on AJx QJ10xx AJx xx. Its so sick that it probably kills a kitty everytime you do it.

I've made better overcalls but 2♥ on AJx QJTxx AJx xx is hardly comparable to felinicide. It seems clear to me, even opposite a passed hand. Have you forgotten that we are favorable? The opponents are unlikely to go headhunting at these colors with at most 2 trump honors and 2 aces. And if you don't overcall, good luck pushing them up or finding a nice distributional game (x Kxxx KTxxx xxx, QTx Kxxx x xxxxx). It even has lead-directing and obstructive value. It's not perfect, but I would much rather bid 2♥ than pass here.

Overcall 2♥ on ♠AJx ♥QJTxx ♦AJx ♣xx!! GASP!!! Next you will be overcalling 2♥ with ♠K4 ♥JT874 ♦J92 ♣AQ5!!

[cherdanno]

Hanoi5, on Oct 14 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

hanp, on Oct 14 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

I went with TTTKK 999Q6 888. It turned out my 999Q6 lost but 99988 would have lost as well so this ended up being the best play.

Can someone explain this post?

Yes. In fact, someone already did.

[Jlall]

eyhung, on Oct 14 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Oct 14 2009, 03:21 PM, said:

oh please, don't overcall 2♥ on AJx QJ10xx AJx xx. Its so sick that it probably kills a kitty everytime you do it.

I've made better overcalls but 2♥ on AJx QJTxx AJx xx is hardly comparable to felinicide. It seems clear to me, even opposite a passed hand. Have you forgotten that we are favorable? The opponents are unlikely to go headhunting at these colors with at most 2 trump honors and 2 aces. And if you don't overcall, good luck pushing them up or finding a nice distributional game (x Kxxx KTxxx xxx, QTx Kxxx x xxxxx). It even has lead-directing and obstructive value. It's not perfect, but I would much rather bid 2♥ than pass here.

heh you don't know fluffy very well. Opposite fluffy this might be a 4H bid.

[eyhung]

pooltuna, on Oct 14 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

Overcall 2♥ on ♠AJx ♥QJTxx ♦AJx ♣xx!! GASP!!! Next you will be overcalling 2♥ with ♠K4 ♥JT874 ♦J92 ♣AQ5!!

Now that I'm home, I decided to see just how different these two hands are. I ran a sim on the trick-taking potential of AJx QJTxx AJx xx with hearts trump after a standard 1S opening:

7.77 tricks on average
7 tricks 20%
8 tricks 22%
9 tricks 15%
10+ tricks 18%
0-6 tricks [potential for disaster] 25%

And to repeat my results on K4 JT874 J92 AQ5 :

7.0 tricks on average
7 tricks 16%
8 tricks 17%
9 tricks 16%
10+ tricks 9%
0-6 tricks 42%

Finally, a third hand that I imagine would feel better for some players
-- xxx AKJxx Axx xx :

7.5 tricks on average
7 tricks 22%
8 tricks 23%
9 tricks 14%
10+ tricks 12%
0-6 tricks 28.5%

The QJTxx hand with two side aces plays better than the AKJxx hand with a side ace. Also factor in that the second hand has just one keycard, making an enemy double much more likely. To me hands 1 and 2 are simply not comparable.

[rhm]

eyhung, on Oct 14 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

I thought the question was between 3H and 2NT -- passing seems way too conservative at IMPs unless partner has ridiculous standards for his 2H overcall.  From experience, I know 2NT on 8 HCP doesn't work, but I admit my experience is biased in this case because I normally don't hold so many good intermediates.

Out of curiosity, I ran a 1000-hand sim, giving LHO a 1S opening in my style, and partner a 2H overcall in my style (both defensively sound). 

In hearts, we average 9 tricks : we make game 37.9% of the time, 9 tricks 30% of the time, and 8 tricks 21.3% of the time.  (Of course, down 1 is usually ok because that means it's likely they can make something).  So passing seems needlessly pessimistic.

In notrump, on the same dataset, we average 7.4 tricks : we make game (9+ tricks) 25.2% of the time, make 8 tricks 22.6% of the time, and make 7 tricks 23.3% of the time. 

My conclusion is that 2NT is not a good bid -- because it unilaterally directs us towards a strain that on average tends to play 1.6 tricks worse, shooting for a target that is 1 trick lower.  This simulation says nothing about the raise vs. the cue-bid, though -- if partner can use his judgement to discern hands where notrump outperforms hearts, then the cuebid could be right.  Unfortunately, I have no idea how to automate that.

To me 2N looked attractive on this hand.

My question to you :
What were your specifications for the simulation.

Assume this hand bids 2N:

Is it still possible to end up in ♥, when ♥ would be better?

I think the answer is clearly yes, but it is not clear how often you would end up in notrump, where you should end up in ♥ or you end up in 3 ♥ where a ♥ raise might put you in game. (But the opposite may also be true, game goes down and after 2N you stop in 3 ♥.

Assume this hand bids 3♥.

Is it still possible to end up in 3N, when 3N would be best?

It seems to me the answer is almost always No.

Another interesting question:

3N might be down more often with the right opening lead.
But how often will it make on a ♠ lead?

Rainer Herrmann

[eyhung]

rhm, on Oct 15 2009, 05:12 AM, said:

My question to you :
What were your specifications for the simulation.

Assume this hand bids 2N:

Is it still possible to end up in ♥, when ♥ would be better?

I think the answer is clearly yes, but it is not clear how often you would end up in notrump, where you should end up in ♥ or you end up in 3 ♥ where a ♥ raise might put you in game. (But the opposite may also be true, game goes down and after 2N you stop in 3 ♥.

Assume this hand bids 3♥.

Is it still possible to end up in 3N, when 3N would be best?

It seems to me the answer is almost always No.

Another interesting question:

3N might be down more often with the right opening lead.
But how often will it make on a ♠ lead?

Rainer Herrmann

Good questions.

I had to rerun the sim because I forgot to specify that RHO did not have a hand that could act over 2H. This is true for the majority of hands, but there are a few hands which greatly distorted the results against NT. The results have therefore changed.

New results:

Average tricks in suit = 8.652
Deviation = 1.2435603895438436
0-6 tricks in suit = 32
Makes 1 of suit = 145
Makes 2 of suit = 283
Makes 3 of suit = 287
Makes 4 of suit = 253

Average tricks in notrump = 7.409
Deviation = 1.6668825685984885
0-6 tricks in notrump = 289
Makes 1NT = 234
Makes 2NT = 216
Makes game in NT = 261

Notrump is still 1.2 tricks worse because when it goes down, it goes down big.
Game chances appear similar in both strains, though.

The simulation parameters:

LHO has 5+ spades, at most 21 HCP, will not have 5[332] with 15-17 HCP, 2+ quick tricks, and a hand that satisfies to the rule of 20 (two longest suits + HCP = 20).

Partner has 5+ hearts, 1+ quick trick, at least one heart honor (ten or higher), does not have a side 5-card minor, and has a hand that satisfies to the rule of 20.

RHO has at most 9 HCP, does not have a hand that satisfies the rule of 18, and does not have a spade raise (could have 4 spades without a singleton with <6 support points).

As Justin mentioned, it is more possible to end up in hearts after 2NT than notrump after 3H. I do not have an algorithm to determine rebids, that becomes very complicated and uses more judgement. I could throw out hands where partner has a spade void and 6 hearts, for example, but such hands tend to be uncommon. RHO's average spade length on this auction is below 3, so partner tends to hold a spade and will be less inclined to pull to hearts.

I do not know how to do the double-dummy analysis forcing a spade lead, but given that LHO has most of the high cards and 5+ spades while RHO is frequently balanced and/or weak, a spade lead is often the best defensive start. Sometimes, LHO has a side suit in clubs which is a better start (and which a human player would also find), so I am reluctant to force a spade.