[kgr]

Your partner opens 2D in 4th hand.
2D is multi and most probably weak 2 major, but a very good one in 4th hand.
You have : AQxx=xxx=Axx=xxx
If I forced you to play game, do you prefer that your partner has a 6c♥ or a 6c♠?

[Phil]

Hearts are better.

If pard has spades, the ♠Q is a duplicated value.

If pard has hearts, pard's average spade length is a little over 2, so the ♠Q works harder.

[kgr]

Phil, on Nov 18 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

Hearts are better.

If pard has spades, the ♠Q is a duplicated value.

If pard has hearts, pard's average spade length is a little over 2, so the ♠Q works harder.

Exactly what me partner told me, I agreed with him, but it felt too counter intuitive (...is this English?) to accept.
He said that without ruffing values in my hand it is better to have a 6cH opposite.

[jdonn]

Rather partner has hearts? What? I would rather partner has spades, we would then have 10 spades instead of 9 hearts!

Bridge is getting too tough for me lately.

[hanp]

I did a simulation. 4S made 48 times out of 1000, 4H made 37 times out of 1000.

The average number of tricks in spades was 8.036.

The average number of tricks in hearts was 7.883.

I assumed exactly a 6-card major, 5-9 HCP, no 5-card side suit and not 4 cards in the other major.

[miguelm]

humm...

Lets try an average (more or less) holding for each suit:
- pd holds 6 spades to the King > we have 6 tricks (over 90% of the times)
- pd holds 6 Hearts to the KIng > we might have 5 (49%), 4 (18%) or even 3 (well, do the math...)

Moreover, if we hold 6 spades, pd is more favorite to be short in Hearts, which has the potential do diminish our losers in that suit. If he holds 6 hearts, he is more favorite to be short in spades potentially diminishing our holding in that suit.

[miguelm]

hanp, on Nov 18 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

I did a simulation. 4S made 48 times out of 1000, 4H made 37 times out of 1000.

The average number of tricks in spades was 8.036.

The average number of tricks in hearts was 7.883.

I assumed exactly a 6-card major, 5-9 HCP, no 5-card side suit and not 4 cards in the other major.

Ah, nice
I wish I knew how to work with that simulator.... still, I was under the impression that the gap would be greater....

[kgr]

hanp, on Nov 18 2009, 07:09 PM, said:

I did a simulation. 4S made 48 times out of 1000, 4H made 37 times out of 1000.

The average number of tricks in spades was 8.036.

The average number of tricks in hearts was 7.883.

I assumed exactly a 6-card major, 5-9 HCP, no 5-card side suit and not 4 cards in the other major.

Thanks for the simulation.
You can assume 10-12 HCP for the 4th hand opening. That will increase the chance of S duplicates?
(It would surprise me if this would make H the better contract).
You are doing the simulation with 6cH and same hand with 6cS opposite?

[jdonn]

hanp, on Nov 18 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

I did a simulation. 4S made 48 times out of 1000, 4H made 37 times out of 1000.

The average number of tricks in spades was 8.036.

The average number of tricks in hearts was 7.883.

I assumed exactly a 6-card major, 5-9 HCP, no 5-card side suit and not 4 cards in the other major.

It was 4th seat so the range would be higher, but I'm sure you will still get a similar comparison.

[billw55]

kgr, on Nov 18 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

2D is multi and most probably weak 2 major, but a very good one in 4th hand.

... so partner cannot really have 6 hearts to the K, must be KQ at least.

In fact ♠KJxxxx is borderline "very good" weak 2, partner almost must have hearts.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Nov 18 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

Rather partner has hearts? What? I would rather partner has spades, we would then have 10 spades instead of 9 hearts!

Bridge is getting too tough for me lately.

lol I'm with you dude

[hanp]

Just to test Phil's queen theory, I gave us AQxx xxxx Axx xx. This time spades makes 8.472 tricks on average (and 4S makes 14% of the time), while hearts makes 8.603 tricks on average (and 4H makes 17% of the time). So although the issue seems considerably less important to the size of our fit, it doesn't seem to be complete nonsense.

These numbers are for 4000 hands each.

[Phil]

Interesting. Thanks Han.

[ron]

kgr, on Nov 18 2009, 03:41 PM, said:

Your partner opens 2D in 4th hand.
2D is multi and most probably weak 2 major, but a very good one in 4th hand.
You have : AQxx=xxx=Axx=xxx
If I forced you to play game, do you prefer that your partner has a 6c♥ or a 6c♠?

It was not specified that we had to play 4M. 3N probably makes more often when partner has hearts than when partner has spades. It also probably makes more often than 4M in that case... although it will often go down more when it fails. I'd be interested in seeing what a sim suggests about all this, if anyone is willing.

[hanp]

When partner has hearts, 3NT makes 4% of the time and scores 4.986 tricks on average. When partner has spades, 3NT makes 1% of the time and scores 4.86 tricks on average. So you were partly correct but still, 4S seems to be the best game (makes most often and goes down the least).

Same constraints, 4000 hands.

[gwnn]

hanp did I miss anything or are you still doing it with 5-9? we have been told that the range us more like 10-12.

[hanp]

Ah ok, I was doing it with 5-9. I can rerun, maybe the answers are very different.

[gwnn]

well the success rate will be higher and probably 3NT will approach 4M I think. I don't think it will surpass it of course.

[phil_20686]

Phil, on Nov 18 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

Hearts are better.

If pard has spades, the ♠Q is a duplicated value.

If pard has hearts, pard's average spade length is a little over 2, so the ♠Q works harder.

I expect that the extra chance of a dummmy reversal is pretty significant in spades. Any time the weak two opener has 3 or less minor suit cards you get a free trick from the tenth spade.

I wonder if giving dummy ruffing values will wash out this effect.

[hanp]

Csaba, when I use 10-12 HCP I get the following numbers:

with 6 hearts 3NT makes 19% of the time and 4H makes 32% of the time.

with 6 spades 3NT makes 14% of the time and 4S makes 27% of the time.

Way to go Phil!