[hotShot]

I think the decision is closer than one might think:

East restrictions: HCP: 5-11, 6- loser, shape: ♠0-3, ♥0-3, ♦ 0-4, ♣7+
South hand set to: A9 AJ853 T43 A42

Looking at 1000 simulated deals:
4+♥ makes: 377 times
3♥ makes: 203 times
2♥ makes: 177 times
opps 3♣ only makes: 468 times
Failing in 3♥ while 3♣ won't make: 159

So pass will give you a positive score about 53% of the time (and if partner has a good hand, he will reopen).

If you manage to bid 3♥ and partner will only bid more with good cards, you will score positive about 57% of the time.
Down 1 even dbled is still better than 3♣=.

Only in about 16% you will go down, while opps won't make.

Since this is MP, it does not matter much if you score -300 or -1400 as both will be (close to ) zero. So if my agreements include such a hand over a 3 level preempt, I'll bid 3♥, knowing my partner will not go wild with a weak hand.
At IMPs big numbers can hurt your overall result much more, so I would probably pass.

[hotShot]

Just rerun the simulation allowing opener to have only 6♣ and this changes a lot.

Now opps only make their 3♣ (or better) 42% of the time, so in 58% of the cases you are better off passing.
You can only make 3♥ or better in 52% of the boards and both sides going down goes up to 23%.
This makes bidding a lot less attractive.

[whereagles]

Oh, I didn't think the person in case could open on a 6 card suit, but he did. In any case 6 cards certainly are the exception rather than the rule. Especially since people who open red on 6 cards usually have a pretty good suit and extra shape, e.g. 6-4.

[Fluffy]

What did you lead Nuno?, diamond doesn't look best

[whereagles]

I led the ♠A and played another spade.

[wclass___]

"I have observed many bridge players and came to the conclusion that many of them, including some very good players are very conservative when it comes to overcalls, but they are extremely aggressive once their partners make an overcall.'' - Melih Ozdil

This is a hand with many positive and negative factors to consider, therefore i think that hand simulation with analyses is right path to go.

I have no clear preference, so i will bid 3♥

(knowing opponent style is important, but i think i know how looks 1st seat vulnerable 3♣)

[jdonn]

hotShot, on May 5 2009, 04:53 AM, said:

I think the decision is closer than one might think:

East restrictions: HCP: 5-11, 6- loser, shape: ♠0-3, ♥0-3, ♦ 0-4, ♣7+
South hand set to: A9 AJ853 T43 A42

Looking at 1000 simulated deals:
4+♥ makes: 377 times
3♥ makes:  203 times
2♥ makes: 177 times
opps 3♣ only makes: 468 times
Failing in 3♥ while 3♣ won't make: 159

So pass will give you a positive score about 53% of the time (and if partner has a good hand, he will reopen).

That part in parentheses in the last sentence is really important! Also "So pass will give you a positive score about 53% of the time" can not be concluded from your results at all.

[hotShot]

jdonn, on May 5 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

hotShot, on May 5 2009, 04:53 AM, said:

I think the decision is closer than one might think:

East restrictions: HCP: 5-11, 6- loser, shape: ♠0-3, ♥0-3, ♦ 0-4, ♣7+
South hand set to: A9 AJ853 T43 A42

Looking at 1000 simulated deals:
4+♥ makes: 377 times
3♥ makes:  203 times
2♥ makes: 177 times
opps 3♣ only makes: 468 times
Failing in 3♥ while 3♣ won't make: 159

So pass will give you a positive score about 53% of the time (and if partner has a good hand, he will reopen).

That part in parentheses in the last sentence is really important! Also "So pass will give you a positive score about 53% of the time" can not be concluded from your results at all.

If opps make 3♣ 468 times of 1000 simulations, they go down in 532 of 1000.
If they go down I get a positive score.
532 of 1000 is about 53%.

I think that is a valid logical conclusion from my data.

[Echognome]

hotShot, on May 5 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 5 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

hotShot, on May 5 2009, 04:53 AM, said:

I think the decision is closer than one might think:

East restrictions: HCP: 5-11, 6- loser, shape: ♠0-3, ♥0-3, ♦ 0-4, ♣7+
South hand set to: A9 AJ853 T43 A42

Looking at 1000 simulated deals:
4+♥ makes: 377 times
3♥ makes:  203 times
2♥ makes: 177 times
opps 3♣ only makes: 468 times
Failing in 3♥ while 3♣ won't make: 159

So pass will give you a positive score about 53% of the time (and if partner has a good hand, he will reopen).

That part in parentheses in the last sentence is really important! Also "So pass will give you a positive score about 53% of the time" can not be concluded from your results at all.

If opps make 3♣ 468 times of 1000 simulations, they go down in 532 of 1000.
If they go down I get a positive score.
532 of 1000 is about 53%.

I think that is a valid logical conclusion from my data.

Without considering any other conclusion, if you write "3♣ only makes" then that would imply the opponents can make exactly 9 tricks with clubs as trumps. The key word being only. If you had written 3♣ or more makes, then we'd start to get there.

However, you are missing one key point. When we pass, it is not going to always go P-P-P. Sometimes LHO will raise and they will go down. Sometimes LHO will bid a new suit and they will find an alternative contract that may or may not make. Sometimes partner will take an action. Etc. etc.

So no, I do not think you have made a "valid logical conclusion."

No offense of course!

[jdonn]

hotShot, on May 5 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 5 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

hotShot, on May 5 2009, 04:53 AM, said:

I think the decision is closer than one might think:

East restrictions: HCP: 5-11, 6- loser, shape: ♠0-3, ♥0-3, ♦ 0-4, ♣7+
South hand set to: A9 AJ853 T43 A42

Looking at 1000 simulated deals:
4+♥ makes: 377 times
3♥ makes:  203 times
2♥ makes: 177 times
opps 3♣ only makes: 468 times
Failing in 3♥ while 3♣ won't make: 159

So pass will give you a positive score about 53% of the time (and if partner has a good hand, he will reopen).

That part in parentheses in the last sentence is really important! Also "So pass will give you a positive score about 53% of the time" can not be concluded from your results at all.

If opps make 3♣ 468 times of 1000 simulations, they go down in 532 of 1000.
If they go down I get a positive score.
532 of 1000 is about 53%.

I think that is a valid logical conclusion from my data.

If we pass, that doesn't mean partner will pass.

[hanp]

I think this calls for an offense Mat.

[hotShot]

Echognome, on May 5 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

Without considering any other conclusion, if you write "3♣ only makes" then that would imply the opponents can make exactly 9 tricks with clubs as trumps. The key word being only. If you had written 3♣ or more makes, then we'd start to get there.

However, you are missing one key point. When we pass, it is not going to always go P-P-P. Sometimes LHO will raise and they will go down. Sometimes LHO will bid a new suit and they will find an alternative contract that may or may not make. Sometimes partner will take an action. Etc. etc.

If you are nitpicking like that, you should not forget to mention the possibility of misplay.

But seriously partners behavior depends on our agreements. We know about our 13 HCP and estimate that opener holds about 5-11 HCP. That leaves the other 2 players with 22-16 HCP. So we assume partner to hold about half of that.
From the simulation of Tjolpe Flodqvist we know partners average shape is:

Quote

North: ♠=4,4 ♥=3,1 ♦=3,9 ♣=1,7

I don't think that partner will (or should) enter the auction with 8-11 HCP and a 4342 or 5341 shape.

If you would tell me what kind of strength or shape partner should have to act, I could modify my simulation to consider that.

LHO's shape is:

Quote

West: ♠=4,6 ♥=3,2 ♦=4,0 ♣=1,2

What do you expect him to bid with a 5341 or a 4342 shape and 8-11 HCP?

Of cause there is no guarantee that LHO and partner will pass, but it's very likely.

[awm]

The problem with HotShot's numbers is:

(1) If opponents can make 4♣ and we can make 3♥, then bidding won't normally cause us to go plus. LHO will just compete to 4♣ and we may get the same -130 we would've gotten passing. Yet his numbers indicate that we would go plus.

(2) If we can make 3♥ and opponents can't make 4♣, we still might not go plus, because partner will raise to 4♥ failing on some non-trivial number of those hands (expecting more from our overcall).

Combining these, it's not clear that we go plus by bidding every time we can make 3♥.

Similarly, just because opponents can make 3♣ does not mean we will go minus by passing. Sometimes LHO will raise to 4♣ failing or bid 3NT failing. Sometimes partner will balance over 3♣-P-P and we will get to game that way.

So I expect pass is actually better (and bidding actually worse) than his statistics indicate.

[xcurt]

hotShot, on May 5 2009, 05:13 AM, said:

Just rerun the simulation allowing opener to have only 6♣ and this changes a lot.

Now opps only make their 3♣ (or better) 42% of the time, so in 58% of the cases you are better off passing.
You can only make 3♥ or better in 52% of the boards and both sides going down goes up to 23%.
This makes bidding a lot less attractive.

Yes this makes a huge difference. Six card suits are much more common than 7 card suits. If the opponents are going to bid 3m any time they have a weak two in a minor and 2m in conventional, what you know about the preemptors hand a posteriori 3m-doesn't-promise-7 is very different than what you know posteriori 3m-promises-7.

[Phil]

I would not expect a six card suit when the opponents are vulnerable versus not.

Ever.