[eyhung]

Got home and ran a sim for 100000 deals each.

Giving opener AKQxxxx (1327 shape)

Average club length of responder = 2.00035
void = 7051
stiff = 26174
xx = 23771
Jx or at least 3 = 43004
running for no losers : 68% opposite any stiff + 90% opposite xx + 100% auto-run = 82395

---------------------------------------

Giving opener AKJTxxxx (1318 shape)

Average club length of responder = 1.66837
void = 11311
x = 26996
xx = 21234
CQ or 3+ clubs = 40459
running for no losers = 52.5% * (26996) + 89% [assuming can reach responder to take marked finesse on 0-3 break] * (21234) + 100% * 40459 = 73530

---------------------------------

Conclusion :
AKQxxxx plays for no losers 82.4%
AKJTxxxx plays for no losers 73.5%

So the difference is around 9% in favor of the 7-card suit, not 5 or 15.

Note that the comparison is strictly between AKQ-seventh and AKJT-eighth, with no chance of opener holding the jack or ten of clubs in the 7-card case. If opener could have the jack or ten of clubs, then it's even more likely that the 7-card suit will run.

[billw55]

Maybe this is just wrong, but:

If the eight card suit runs it's one more trick. What about layouts where there is one side trick but not two? I don't have a simulator but this does not strike me as a rare occurrence. So I would expect the percentage of making 3NT (when not set off the top) is equal or perhaps higher for AKJTxxxx.

[ArtK78]

While all of the foregoing is very informative, it pretty much misses the point.

What does partner expect for a 3NT opening bid? A minor suit which rates to run for 7 tricks.

What does partner expect for a vulnerable 4♣ opening preempt? A suit which will produce about 7 winners but expects a loser (often the ace) and very little, if any, defense.

Which of these descriptions best describes this hand? In my opinion, it is the 3NT call. And opening 3NT has the advantage of allowing you to play in 3NT when it is right. Whatever you may say about 4♣, it is certainly true that you can't play in 3NT after opening 4♣.

Admittedly not perfect, but if forced to choose between the two, that is my choice.

The other possibilities: 1♣, 3♣, 5♣, pass, have bigger flaws than the two main choices.

[eyhung]

billw55, on Mar 10 2010, 06:29 AM, said:

Maybe this is just wrong, but:

If the eight card suit runs it's one more trick.  What about layouts where there is one side trick but not two?  I don't have a simulator but this does not strike me as a rare occurrence.  So I would expect the percentage of making 3NT (when not set off the top) is equal or perhaps higher for AKJTxxxx.

If partner has one side trick, say just one ace and nothing else, he is not passing 3NT, since the gambling 3NT promises no controls on the side. If you think partner will be passing 3NT with exactly one side trick and hope to run 8 tricks from your expected 7-card suit and nothing on the side, think again. The 8th club winner will never help us make the 9th trick in 3NT.

[ArtK78]

eyhung, on Mar 10 2010, 01:20 PM, said:

billw55, on Mar 10 2010, 06:29 AM, said:

Maybe this is just wrong, but:

If the eight card suit runs it's one more trick.  What about layouts where there is one side trick but not two?  I don't have a simulator but this does not strike me as a rare occurrence.  So I would expect the percentage of making 3NT (when not set off the top) is equal or perhaps higher for AKJTxxxx.

If partner has one side trick, say just one ace and nothing else, he is not passing 3NT, since the gambling 3NT promises no controls on the side. If you think partner will be passing 3NT with exactly one side trick and hope to run 8 tricks from your expected 7-card suit and nothing on the side, think again. The 8th club winner will never help us make the 9th trick in 3NT.

---

Never say never.

[eyhung]

ArtK78, on Mar 10 2010, 06:43 AM, said:

What does partner expect for a vulnerable 4♣ opening preempt? A suit which will produce about 7 winners but expects a loser (often the ace) and very little, if any, defense.

You clearly have a different style -- when I open a 4-level preempt vulnerable, I am usually within 2 tricks of my bid, not 3. Preempting style is getting lighter and lighter, but I think my style is more standard than yours -- the 4-level is serious since it forecloses 3NT. My results show that the chance of 3NT making is at least 9% worse with AKJT-eighth and out than AKQ-seventh. So the question is how much of a gambler you are. Apparently, Justin and I have little gamble in us.

[eyhung]

ArtK78, on Mar 10 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

---

Never say never.

Meanwhile, when partner has the expected AKQ-seventh and out:

---

you look very silly passing 3NT.

[ArtK78]

Deleted due to system problems while editing the post.

See below for a reproduced and edited version.

[eyhung]

You are down 1 in 3NT on any lead, not just a spade. Even if the opponents lead a red suit, they will find the spade switch since they can see that you have 7 clubs, the spade ace (but not the king), and no red-suit side winners.

4♣ does not make either, and will often go down more than 3NT, but I don't find this be particularly especially meaningful because if they unwisely choose to defend in a scenario when clubs goes down more, they are sometimes missing a game in 4♠. Yes, there are layouts where nothing makes. But this hand doesn't detract from my point that opening 3NT with 8 clubs and expecting the 8th card to matter for making the contract is not a good idea.

[jdonn]

eyhung, on Mar 10 2010, 01:44 PM, said:

But this hand doesn't detract from my point that opening 3NT with 8 clubs and expecting the 8th card to matter for making the contract is not a good idea.

In what way does a perfectly valid counter-example not detract from your point?

Anyway how about a hand where the 9th trick is a finesse (like add the spade queen to the example) but now you no longer have to take it?

[ArtK78]

eyhung, on Mar 10 2010, 01:31 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Mar 10 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

---

you look very silly passing 3NT.

Reprinted and edited due to system problems while editing my prior post.

I am down one assuming that the opponents don't screw up royally and give me a red trick prior to playing a spade.

How do you do in 4♣?

0

• Back to top of the page up there ^

[eyhung]

jdonn, on Mar 10 2010, 11:47 AM, said:

Anyway how about a hand where the 9th trick is a finesse (like add the spade queen to the example) but now you no longer have to take it?

All right, that one is good -- now I can see partner passing with this hand, since the QJs should have enough annoyance value to give us a chance to get in and try a spade finesse for a roughly 50% game (sometimes clubs don't break). So the 8th club doesn't "never" help, but it's "unlikely" to help. OK?

[ArtK78]

eyhung, on Mar 10 2010, 01:59 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 10 2010, 11:47 AM, said:

Anyway how about a hand where the 9th trick is a finesse (like add the spade queen to the example) but now you no longer have to take it?

All right, that one is good -- now I can see partner passing with this hand, since the QJs should have enough annoyance value to give us a chance to get in and try a spade finesse for a roughly 50% game (sometimes clubs don't break). So the 8th club doesn't "never" help, but it's "unlikely" to help. OK?

You can say "unlikely," just not never.

[pooltuna]

eyhung, on Mar 10 2010, 01:44 PM, said:

You are down 1 in 3NT on any lead, not just a spade. Even if the opponents lead a red suit, they will find the spade switch since they can see that you have 7 clubs, the spade ace (but not the king), and no red-suit side winners.

4♣ does not make either, and will often go down more than 3NT, but I don't find this be particularly especially meaningful because if they unwisely choose to defend in a scenario when clubs goes down more, they are sometimes missing a game in 4♠. Yes, there are layouts where nothing makes. But this hand doesn't detract from my point that opening 3NT with 8 clubs and expecting the 8th card to matter for making the contract is not a good idea.

So if I understand this correctly, you only want to play 3NT (regardless of how you get there) with the 7 card ♣ suit headed by the AKQ and never play 3NT with the 8 card ♣ suit headed by the AKJT? Are you chiding us for wanting to play 3NT with both?

[aguahombre]

Nigel-K trumped all susequent discussion of the relative value of AKJT 8th vs. AKQ 7th, and it seemingly went unnoticed. He won't pass 3NT with XXX in diamonds and the stiff club Queen. Indeed, you will be converting diamonds to clubs at a higher level, maybe even six diamonds to seven clubs with AKXXX AKX XXXX Q

[ArtK78]

eyhung, on Mar 10 2010, 01:44 PM, said:

But this hand doesn't detract from my point that opening 3NT with 8 clubs and expecting the 8th card to matter for making the contract is not a good idea.

I don't believe anyone ever stated that they bid 3NT because of the eighth club, expecting the presence of the 8th club mattered in whether 3NT made or did not make.

In my opinion, the question is whether the hand with AKJTxxxx and out is essentially equivalent to a hand with AKQxxxx and out for purposes of opening a gambling 3NT. I think it is. Others disagree.

Some say that the question is different than the one I set forth above, choosing to open 4♣ because they believe it is a better description of the hand and acknowledging that they are deliberately giving up their chance to bid and make 3NT.

[eyhung]

pooltuna, on Mar 10 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

So if I understand this correctly, you only want to play 3NT (regardless of how you get there) with the 7 card ♣ suit headed by the AKQ and never play 3NT with the 8 card ♣ suit headed by the AKJT? Are you chiding us for wanting to play 3NT with both?

Pooltuna, you do not understand me correctly. Please reread what I wrote in my first post to this thread for my position. I simulated to quantify how much AKJT-eighth is worse than AKQ-seventh from a pure suit standpoint. Whether that lower percentage is enough to not open 3NT is up to you. For me, the lower percentage, PLUS the other factors (such as misdescribing club length for other contracts) cause me to now prefer 4♣. I'm not saying 3NT is a horrible call with no upside. I'm saying I prefer to bid 4♣.

And ArtK, my point about the 8th club trick was directed to billw. He was saying that the 8th club influences things. My answer to that is, not very much. In general responder is not playing you for 8 club tricks but 7, so the 8th club trick is unlikely to be relevant (as the 9th trick).

[jdonn]

I agree the 8th club being the 9th trick in 3NT is possible but unlikely. Just like a hand that makes 5♣ where partner will bid it over 4♣ but not over 3NT is possible (let's say) but unlikely. Any one factor probably won't make much difference so examining it to death may not help much, although it's still interesting.