[Old York]

Psych 1♠ then support Clubs?

It is quite possible that oppo have 6M while we have 6m

Tony

[Cascade]

Old York, on May 15 2009, 12:35 AM, said:

Psych 1♠ then support Clubs?

It is quite possible that oppo have 6M while we have 6m

Tony

Possible but very unlikely even with this freak.

My simulations suggest 12+ tricks are available to both sides less than 1% of the time.

Some other statistics:

We have an average of 9.9 clubs;

They have an average of 9.8 cards in their longest combined major;

The median total trumps (clubs + their longest major) is 20;

We have a double dummy slam over 60% of the time;

They have a double dummy slam less than 5% of the time;

Around 75% of the time we have a slam they have a paying sacrifice;

When we have a game (around 30%) half of that time the opponents have a paying sacrifice.

My first thoughts on seeing this hand was to make it difficult for the opponents to bid a major.

So I suggested bidding a lot of clubs.

A splinter to 3♥ might work too especially if it shows a void which is what I normally do.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on May 14 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

We have a double dummy slam over 60% of the time;

...

Around 75% of the time we have a slam they have a paying sacrifice;

These figures, together with the fact that sometimes we'll have a slam that's down double-dummy but making on the wrong lead, suggests a direct raise to 6♣. I did consider that, but rejected because I thought we'd miss a grand slam too often.

Probably a stupid question, but did your simulation take into account that RHO didn't bid over 1♣?

[Cascade]

gnasher, on May 15 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

Cascade, on May 14 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

We have a double dummy slam over 60% of the time;

...

Around 75% of the time we have a slam they have a paying sacrifice;

These figures, together with the fact that sometimes we'll have a slam that's down double-dummy but making on the wrong lead, suggests a direct raise to 6♣. I did consider that, but rejected because I thought we'd miss a grand slam too often.

Probably a stupid question, but did your simulation take into account that RHO didn't bid over 1♣?

I usually do something fairly crude unless I want a very accurate result or I think it is going to make a lot of difference.

For this simulation I hadn't done very much to constrain the opponents' cards.

I put in some fairly basic contraints on RHO and repeated the simulations so that now RHO was constrained:

1. No 6-9 HCP with a 6+ suit

2. No 8-15 HCP with a 5+ suit

3. No 11-15 HCP with close to classic Takeout double shapes

4. No 16+ HCP

The numbers then became over 1000 deals double dummy:

Our average clubs 9.8 (slightly down)

Their average in best major 9.7 (slightly down)

Median total trumps 20 (same as before)

Our slam 64% about the same as before I just quoted 60+ last time and can't remember the number but it was between 60 and 65

Their slam just over 1% (down a bit)

Paying sacrifice over our slam just over 70% (down a bit)

We have game a little under 30% (down a little)

They have paying sacrifice over our game 45% (down a little).

When I was given the hand my thought was to bid 6♣ immediately.

When I gave the hand to my partner she thought 3♥ showing a void would be best since we have the method. I am not convinced but I am not convinced that it is wrong.

1♦ seems to be a sure way of getting a small plus (or minus if they judge later correctly not to dive).

[Old York]

I never psych (well, hardly ever) but a very similar hand came up in a goulash tourney, and opp also had slam, so I bid their suit and it worked. It will probably be another 10 years before I consider doing it again

Tony

b.t.w Happy Birthday for yesterday, Wayne

[jdonn]

I don't think your results particularly convince me to just blast 6♣ right now or something like that. On the a little more than half of the hands where they have a good sacrifice, even if I go slowly they will miss some good one and take some bad ones. 30% of the time I will just give away a game. You don't say what % of the time we have a grand, but I'm almost guaranteed to miss those. There is also just a very slim chance the hand belongs to them so less need to preempt on that basis. Ultimately I base it on that I don't think the opponents are nearly 100% accurate even if I go slowly. 3♥ showing a void is not unreasonable since it combines preemption with investigation, but it's not THAT preemptive and partner won't expect such a lopsided hand so I still don't favor it.

[Cascade]

Double dummy grand around 17%

[xcurt]

Do we have a forcing club raise available? All the better if it's how I play 4 cards for 1 any since the forcing raise is the cheapest jump shift. That would be my choice if possible.