[OleBerg]

Scoring: MP

---

Uncontested bidding:

1♦  -  1♠
1NT - 4♥
 ?

1NT was 12-14. Partner had a checkback option, so 4♥ is absolutely non-slammish. (And naturally promises at least 5-5.)

I passed thinking that diamonds might produce a number of discards, and that these discards would be more valuable in a heart contract, as spades were more likely to be a weak suit.

Is the reasoning sound?

[Jlall]

I think this is pretty legit except that partner might be 6-5. I always bid 4S in these situations but always think about passing. Basically I'm not sure, but I think 4S is right but I admire your pass

[jjbrr]

Why are spades more likely to be weak?

[Jlall]

jjbrr, on Oct 13 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

Why are spades more likely to be weak?

I think he meant our combined holdings in spades are likely to be weaker than our combined holding in hearts based on our relative strengths in those suits.

Obviously partner is slightly more likely to have better spades than hearts because we have the ace of hearts.

[jjbrr]

I would just bid 4♠ anyway since partner might have 6. I don't really agree with guessing which honors partner does and does not have in each suit. Unless I'm missing something, 2 pitches from the ♦ suit dont really help so much...

edit: ok partner might have the ace. fair enough.

[Jlall]

jjbrr, on Oct 13 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

I would just bid 4♠ anyway since partner might have 6. I don't really agree with guessing which honors partner does and does not have in each suit. Unless I'm missing something, 2 pitches from the ♦ suit dont really help so much...

edit: ok partner might have the ace. fair enough.

We also might get 3 pitches on a good day.

One problem with this is assuming a club lead, our only entry to the diamonds will be the ace of hearts. This might cause some problems. On the other hand if we need 2 heart pitches because hearts are 4-1, we won't lose our entry if we're playing in spades.

More generally we always prefer our entry to be in a side suit rather than in trumps, especially when we have short trumps in dumy.

[jdonn]

I think it's sound reasoning, but probably not enough to pass.

[Jlall]

Yeah a lot of hands I'm thinking of spades is better. For instance take a hand like

AKxxx
KQxxx
Tx
x

Where we have a clear 2 pitches. We'd rather be in spades than hearts. If hearts are 4-1 and spades 3-2 we can always just pitch 2 hearts and be fine. If spades are 4-1 and hearts 3-2 if we get 2 spade pitches in then we have gained a trick, but to do so we'll have to play KQ of hearts, then the ten of diamonds. They duck and we play another diamond. It's possible now with 5-2 diamonds they play another diamond and ruff it. This is one problem that arises when our entry is Axx of trumps in dummy.

Change the hand now to

AKxxx
KQxxx
xx
x

Now if hearts are 4-1 and spades are 3-2 its ok because we can play AK of spades and just ruff a heart. But if spades are 4-1 and hearts 3-2 and we play in hearts it's not even clear we're going to get 2 pitches in, we need the DA onside. If we get 1 pitch it doesn't help. Etc.

This is another symptom of the Axx trump problem since we can't really ruff spades in dummy when thats the position.

So it's not even clear to me if partner was always 5-5 we should be in hearts rather than spades.

[gnasher]

I'd bid 4♠. With two trump suits of equal length, it's nearly always best to play in the one that lacks top cards. Consider these carefully constructed examples:

(1) Partner has QJ109x QJ109x Ax x It's easier for them to arrange a spade ruff in 4♥ than a heart ruff in 4♠, so we want to be in spades.

(2) Partner has KJxxx KJxxx Ax x. If spades are AQ10x offside and hearts are 3-2 with the queen onside, we want to play in 4♥. If, however, hearts are Q109x offside and spades are 3-2 with either honour onside, we want to play in 4♠. Again, 4♠ is better than 4♥.

[skjaeran]

4♠ for me.

Two reasons:
Easier to keep my entry for the diamonds.
If there's a ruff out, it's normally easier for opps to take it if they hold the ace in the side suit, and I know they don't hold the heart ace.

[nigel_k]

OleBerg, on Oct 14 2009, 03:50 AM, said:

I passed thinking that diamonds might produce a number of discards, and that these discards would be more valuable in a heart contract, as spades were more likely to be a weak suit.

Is the reasoning sound?

IMO this would have more weight if your hearts were QJx instead of Axx

[pooltuna]

OleBerg, on Oct 13 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

---

Uncontested bidding:

1♦  -  1♠
1NT - 4♥
 ?

1NT was 12-14. Partner had a checkback option, so 4♥ is absolutely non-slammish. (And naturally promises at least 5-5.)

I passed thinking that diamonds might produce a number of discards, and that these discards would be more valuable in a heart contract, as spades were more likely to be a weak suit.

Is the reasoning sound?

I would correct to ♠ as number of ♠ are = or > ♥ you are only going to get 2 tricks in ♦ if partner has only 1. Setting up the non trump major will be the source of most of the non trump tricks for your side.

[OleBerg]

Thank you all fpr your replies.

I held the hand in a speedball tournament (4 boards in 13 minuttes), so I didn't consider it for a long time at the table.

I struck gold:

Scoring: MP

---

(Hearts came down for one loser, ♦A onside and spades couldn't be solved for zero losers.)

Afterwards it seemed to me, that the trick would be to play in the suit, where partner is likely to control the third round, i.e. hold some low honours. (All this assuming you are willing to discard the 6-5 hands.)

It also seemed, that partner would have to have a decent amount of HCP/Playing strength in the major-suits.

I am not so strong in probabilety, but isn't it more likely that partner will have these low honours in hearts, rather than in spades, as he cannot have the ♥A? :genuinely bewildered: (Maybe the difference is insignificant?)

[hanp]

To lazy or not to lazy?

I did a double dummy simulation. If partner is exactly 5-5 in the majors with 11-13 HCP then the difference between 4H and 4S is very small (less than 1% over 1000 hands).

[jdonn]

hanp, on Oct 14 2009, 06:34 AM, said:

To lazy or not to lazy?

I did a double dummy simulation. If partner is exactly 5-5 in the majors with 11-13 HCP then the difference between 4H and 4S is very small (less than 1% over 1000 hands).

So then clearly we should go back to spades since partner is more likely 6-5 than 5-6 unless he is Fluffy in which case it's a 100% guess.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

hanp, on Oct 14 2009, 06:34 AM, said:

To lazy or not to lazy?

I did a double dummy simulation. If partner is exactly 5-5 in the majors with 11-13 HCP then the difference between 4H and 4S is very small (less than 1% over 1000 hands).

So then clearly we should go back to spades since partner is more likely 6-5 than 5-6 unless he is Fluffy in which case it's a 100% guess.

It's tough to resist scratching behind the ears?

[hanp]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

hanp, on Oct 14 2009, 06:34 AM, said:

To lazy or not to lazy?

I did a double dummy simulation. If partner is exactly 5-5 in the majors with 11-13 HCP then the difference between 4H and 4S is very small (less than 1% over 1000 hands).

So then clearly we should go back to spades since partner is more likely 6-5 than 5-6 unless he is Fluffy in which case it's a 100% guess.

Yes that's also the conclusion I came to.

[Cascade]

hanp, on Oct 15 2009, 12:34 AM, said:

To lazy or not to lazy?

I did a double dummy simulation. If partner is exactly 5-5 in the majors with 11-13 HCP then the difference between 4H and 4S is very small (less than 1% over 1000 hands).

I did a similar simulation but with partner's range 10-14 HCP and both with a restriction on precisely 5=5 and with spades at least as long as hearts at least as long as five.

Average Tricks in Spades 10.296/10.152

Average Tricks in Hearts 10.264/10.166

The second figure is for precisely 5/5 distribution. The first allows for the possibility of 6/5.

No doubt if there is some chance of 5/6 then the first numbers would even up a little.

[Jlall]

I think there is one other factor (which I generally don't look at). "Everyone" will be playing in spades which makes it clear to play in spades, because it's quite close anyways, and our superior cardplay edge comes out more if we're in the same contract as everyone else. Also even if I didn't have a cardplay edge I'd rather get an average 100% of the time than a top 50.1 % of the time and a bottom 49.9 % of the time because it allows my superior bridge abilities to let me win the event more often anyways.

I was telling cherdano the other day that my dream is to declare a normal contract on every board in a MP event.

[OleBerg]

Jlall, on Oct 14 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

I think there is one other factor (which I generally don't look at). "Everyone" will be playing in spades which makes it clear to play in spades, because it's quite close anyways, and our superior cardplay edge comes out more if we're in the same contract as everyone else. Also even if I didn't have a cardplay edge I'd rather get an average 100% of the time than a top 50.1 % of the time and a bottom 49.9 % of the time because it allows my superior bridge abilities to let me win the event more often anyways.

I was telling cherdano the other day that my dream is to declare a normal contract on every board in a MP event.

Partner is going to be declarer!