[rhm]

Since so many seem to be fascinated in a possible better ♥ contract I refined my simulation:

I ran again a simulation with the North hand, specifying for South 18-19 balanced with the following distributions possible for South:

3♠=4♥=3♦=3♣
3♠=4♥=2♦=4♣
2♠=4♥=3♦=4♣

The heart suit had to be either ♥AQxx, ♥KQxx or ♥AKQx

I generated 1000 random deals.

double dummy result:

Average number of tricks available in ♥: 11.8
Average number of tricks available in ♠: 11.8

6♥ makes on 703 deals (70%), including deals where 13 tricks are available
6♠ makes on 727 deals (73%), including deals where 13 tricks are available.

As can be expected a grand slam will make on more deals in ♥

7♥ makes on 162 deals (16%)
7♠ makes on 86 deals (9%)

So for every case where ♥ may be superior as a trump contract, there are at least as many deals where ♠ will be superior.
So what is the point in looking for a ♥ contract, if this does not improve your overall chances for slam, even if the most favorable conditions for a ♥ contract you may find out in the bidding are present?

An exercise in futility in my opinion.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on 2011-July-20, 02:09, said:

Since so many seem to be fascinated in a possible better ♥ contract I refined my simulation:

I ran again a simulation with the North hand, specifying for South 18-19 balanced with the following distributions possible for South:

3♠=4♥=3♦=3♣
3♠=4♥=2♦=4♣
2♠=4♥=3♦=4♣

The heart suit had to be either ♥AQxx, ♥KQxx or ♥AKQx

I generated 1000 random deals.

double dummy result:

Average number of tricks available in ♥: 11.8
Average number of tricks available in ♠: 11.8

6♥ makes on 703 deals (70%), including deals where 13 tricks are available
6♠ makes on 727 deals (73%), including deals where 13 tricks are available.

As can be expected a grand slam will make on more deals in ♥

7♥ makes on 162 deals (16%)
7♠ makes on 86 deals (9%)

So for every case where ♥ may be superior as a trump contract, there are at least as many deals where ♠ will be superior.
So what is the point in looking for a ♥ contract, if this does not improve your overall chances for slam, even if the most favorable conditions for a ♥ contract you may find out in the bidding are present?

An exercise in futility in my opinion.

Rainer Herrmann

Helps if you run the right simulation, in my original auction, the info I should have known was decent 17-bad 19 and known 2434. Also you may IF you can determine the right information be able to tell which is better. So breaking the simulation by Q♥/without would also tell if this is the information you need.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-20, 02:18, said:

Helps if you run the right simulation, in my original auction, the info I should have known was decent 17-bad 19 and known 2434. Also you may IF you can determine the right information be able to tell which is better. So breaking the simulation by Q♥/without would also tell if this is the information you need.

In your second post in this thread, you said you wanted to know "how other people bid this hand". Various people told you how they would bid the hand, and you commented that some of the sequences suggested would not find 6♥ when opener has ♥AKQx and three club losers. I think Rainer's simulation was intended to address this comment, rather than the question of how to bid the hands in Extrasensory Acol.

[rhm]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-20, 02:18, said:

Helps if you run the right simulation, in my original auction, the info I should have known was decent 17-bad 19 and known 2434. Also you may IF you can determine the right information be able to tell which is better. So breaking the simulation by Q♥/without would also tell if this is the information you need.

Please confirm what you would like me to simulate.
I am very convinced that if I allow for weaker hearts the result will be more in favor of ♠, not less. I can easily do a simulation. My assumption was in deed that the ♥Q, was crucial for a positive outcome for a heart contract.

I used 18-19, because that is in line what you usually know, playing a 15-17 notrump.

I can not easily specify what a bad 19 means, unless you can specify that in maximum number of controls, but changing the lower limit to 17 is of course easy.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on 2011-July-20, 03:12, said:

Please confirm what you would like me to simulate.
I am very convinced that if I allow for weaker hearts the result will be more in favor of ♠, not less. I can easily do a simulation. My assumption was in deed that the ♥Q, was crucial for a positive outcome for a heart contract.

I used 18-19, because that is in line what you usually know, playing a 15-17 notrump.

I can not easily specify what a bad 19 means, unless you can specify that in maximum number of controls, but changing the lower limit to 17 is of course easy.

Rainer Herrmann

Probably most accurate (which is relatively easy to simulate) is to go 18-19 (to be useful to the strong NT guys, 17-18 would be more useful to me), but precisely 2434 and then split the answers as to the ones with/without the Q♥. There is no reason at all why you can't agree hearts then just bid 6♠ on the end of the auction when you find out Q♥ is missing, I'd be interested to see if this is in fact the right strategy. You would also need to check for not missing 2 keycards.

If you want to go a little more complicated, many of these auctions are able to determine the diamond suit is missing AK, so again that restriction could be played with.

[rhm]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-20, 03:49, said:

Probably most accurate (which is relatively easy to simulate) is to go 18-19 (to be useful to the strong NT guys, 17-18 would be more useful to me), but precisely 2434 and then split the answers as to the ones with/without the Q♥. There is no reason at all why you can't agree hearts then just bid 6♠ on the end of the auction when you find out Q♥ is missing, I'd be interested to see if this is in fact the right strategy. You would also need to check for not missing 2 keycards.

If you want to go a little more complicated, many of these auctions are able to determine the diamond suit is missing AK, so again that restriction could be played with.

Two simulations (1000 random deals each) with and without ♥Q

With ♥Q:

South 2♠=4♥=3♦=4♣, 17-18, since I can not easily specify keycards I ensured ♥KQxx, or ♥AQxx or ♥AKQx and at least 6 controls in the South hand.

result:

Average tricks in ♥: 11.93
Average tricks in ♠: 11.85

6♥ makes on 773 deals (77%), including 13 tricks
6♠ makes on 749 deals (75%), including 13 tricks

7♥ makes double dummy on 179 deals (18%)
7♠ makes double dummy on 109 deals (11%)

Without the ♥Q:

♥ suit at least ♥Axxx or ♥Kxxx or ♥AKxx, 17-18, at least 6 controls

result:

Average tricks in ♥: 11.59
Average tricks in ♠: 11.75

6♥ makes on 570 deals (57%), including 13 tricks
6♠ makes on 719 deals (72%), including 13 tricks

7♥ makes double dummy on 134 deals (13%)
7♠ makes double dummy on 57 deals (6%)

My conclusion: Much better to fix ♠ as trumps and splinter in ♦ to let opener decide on value duplication rather than wasting bidding space to make complex but futile decisions between the majors.
♠ will be the better trump suit most of the time, sometimes much better, and is never far behind ♥. The chance that the extra trick from a 4-4 ♥ fit is required in a small slam is low and compensated by other risks, like a bad ♥ break.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

Thanks for that, trying to get my head round how much difference there is for single/double dummy between the two contracts.

My suspicion is that the opening lead might be more critical in 6♥ as you might have to take the ♦ ruff before drawing trumps when they're 4-1 and the ace you're missing is in ♦, so a ♣ lead will defeat you if you're missing the KQ, but you also have a guess to make when missing the K but possessing the Q as to whether trumps will break or the lead is from the K which you always get right double dummy. For the second reason 6♥N is better than 6♥S as if a club is led you just play the Q and you're fine if you have the J, and have the chance of an essentially free try of the Q if you don't.

The results are also slightly skewed, in that if S holds Ax, AKQx, Axx, xxxx it is easy for N to find out that 7♥ depends on no more than hearts not 5-0 if you agree hearts and he uses keycard, but if you force spade agreement I suspect you will only be in 6♠.

I think given this the strategy of agreeing ♥ and bidding 6♠ if you're missing one keycard and the Q♥ has a lot to commend it.

Edit: Of course double dummy, you flawlessly pick up Qx♥ offside, so 6♥ is not worth bidding without it when you're missing another key card, what I'm not sure about is whether 6♠ is definitely worth bidding in this situation, as (as in this case) some of the time you don't need to find the Q♥.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Phil, on 2011-July-19, 18:49, said:

Don's version of Wolff is unlike anything I have ever seen.

Sry, I should have said Wolff Relay .... 3C!-always, which asks for 4 cards Hts ( 3D! by Responder is natural, GF ) and is different than the more common predecessor, Wolff Sign-off, which asks for 3 cards in Responder's Major .

1m - 1M
2NT - 3C!
3D! ( = no 4 cards Hts )

[xxhong]

One problem is that even when partner holds wastage in D, you still may like to bid 6S or 6H sometimes.
For example: Ax AKQx Kxx Kxxx, Both 6H or 6S are cold, Ax AKxx KQx Kxxx, chance for 6S is excellent. So really, I don't think 4D is a necessary bid to find the right slam.

gnasher, on 2011-July-18, 08:38, said:

I think you should start

1♣-1♠
2NT-4♦ (self-splinter)

and now opener will drive slam. I would do it via Inclusion Keycard - opener raises the splinter to ask for keycards, but with a diamond void to be treated as an ace.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Phil, on 2011-July-19, 18:49, said:

Don's version of Wolff is unlike anything I have ever seen.

From 2 months ago... reply #26:

http://www.bridgebas...rd/page__st__20

[gnasher]

xxhong, on 2011-July-20, 10:57, said:

One problem is that even when partner holds wastage in D, you still may like to bid 6S or 6H sometimes.
For example: Ax AKQx Kxx Kxxx, Both 6H or 6S are cold, Ax AKxx KQx Kxxx, chance for 6S is excellent.

I think that with those hands opener should make one effort below game, by bidding 4♥. The excellent controls make up for the wastage in diamonds.

Quote

So really, I don't think 4D is a necessary bid to find the right slam.

I didn't say that this was he only way to reach slam on these cards - there may well be other methods that allow you to bid this slam with confidence. I just think that 4♦ is the obvious way to bid responder's hand.

[xxhong]

Well, it's difficult to move for the second hand I think. The responder's hand really looks quite good. So the slam would be good if partner holds good hearts (AQxx or KQxx or AKQx) or good heart controls (HAK or HA, SA and a lot of tricks in C or D) and some tricks in D or C to pitch those hearts. In that sense, heart holdings from the opener are still the key to determine whether the spade(hearts) slam is a good one. So really, I still think that naturally showing 6 spades and 4 hearts can be good. The major failures of most sequences that failed to find 6S are that most hands just assume H is the best spot and you have to play in H, which is no good when opener holds only good H controls but no HQ. So in this sequence, responder really should show both 4H and 6S and make both options open. That's actually a typical problem of RKC, which has to set up one trump suit and stick with that.

gnasher, on 2011-July-20, 16:08, said:

I think that with those hands opener should make one effort below game, by bidding 4♥. The excellent controls make up for the wastage in diamonds.


I didn't say that this was he only way to reach slam on these cards - there may well be other methods that allow you to bid this slam with confidence. I just think that 4♦ is the obvious way to bid responder's hand.

[VM1973]

1NT (16-18) - 2♣ (Stayman)
2♥

At this point responder's hand looks gigantic - 6 losers.
... - 4♠ (kickback)
4NT (0,3) - 5♣ (Got the queen?)
5♥ (No).

Then you either languish in 5♥ or bid 6♠

Really, though, I'm surprised that the downgrading group wouldn't open that 18 1NT (15-17). It has no 10s after all.

[Cyberyeti]

VM1973, on 2011-July-21, 12:10, said:

1NT (16-18) - 2♣ (Stayman)
2♥

At this point responder's hand looks gigantic - 6 losers.
... - 4♠ (kickback)
4NT (0,3) - 5♣ (Got the queen?)
5♥ (No).

Then you either languish in 5♥ or bid 6♠

Really, though, I'm surprised that the downgrading group wouldn't open that 18 1NT (15-17). It has no 10s after all.

It's a pretty big 18, wouldn't even consider downgrading. KQJ > 6, AK > 7 and an ace, I'd consider it 18 without the JD and too good for a 15-17 NT (not that I play one).

[TWO4BRIDGE]

rhm, on 2011-July-19, 04:08, said:

With regard to the 4♦ auto splinter option, a better hand could hardly be constructed and what else should 4♦ mean, say after

1♣-1♠
2NT - ??

What bothers me about 4D! being a splinter is that you can't splinter in all of the suits.
4H! could be a splinter because 3H ( over 2NT ) should show a 5/5, GF.
But 4C! ( over 2NT ) is often times reserved for Gerber ( except for "Gerber haters " ) .

And then take the case of the 1H Response:
1C - 1H
2NT - ?? How do you show a Sp splinter ?

That said, I think the arguments are compelling enough for the Sp suit to be trump for this Responder holding.

[VM1973]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-21, 14:51, said:

It's a pretty big 18, wouldn't even consider downgrading. KQJ > 6, AK > 7 and an ace, I'd consider it 18 without the JD and too good for a 15-17 NT (not that I play one).

How do you figure it's such a big 18? The ♦J is unlikely to do much. It has no 10s so like a good 17 (17½ HCPs).

Rule of 20: 26 so like 2 King's over a minimum bid (18 points).

Losing Trick Count: 6 losers, which is like a King over a minimum bid so like 15 HCPs.

New Losing Trick Count: 12 half-losers, which is like a KQ over a minimum bid, or approximately 17 HCPs.

Zar Points: 33 which puts it like mid-range strong NT (16½ HCPs).

Averaging them out we get: 17

Standard HCP: 18
Downgrades: 17½
Rule of 20: 18
LTC: 15
NLTC: 17
Zar Points: 16½

I think you're upgrading it because you know it's opposite a very good hand and not for any objective factor.

[Cyberyeti]

VM1973, on 2011-July-23, 09:17, said:

How do you figure it's such a big 18? The ♦J is unlikely to do much. It has no 10s so like a good 17 (17½ HCPs).

I think you're upgrading it because you know it's opposite a very good hand and not for any objective factor.

Lrn2play, touching honours are huge, aces are huge, I was ignoring J♦, I wouldn't open a 15-17 no trump on that hand without the J♦, KQJ, AK, A with the honour sequences in long suits is a vast set of honour holdings, is effectively KKK, AA, A (although the point count system takes some of this into account) I'd treat that as 18 without the J♦, 18.5 with it. Game is possible (but not good) opposite as little as xxxx, Qxxx, x, xxxx on the likely diamond lead, now add some more cards to give enough that it will be bid.

I'm upgrading because I can see 5 fast tricks (more than a lot of 18s, compare AQx x3, xxxx) and a lot of potential, plus I'm not a B/I who's a slave to the point count. I don't use any of the other methods you used, I on many years experience gauge what the whole hand's worth, and trust me this one is worth all of 18 and maybe a bit more.

Opening a 15-17 is out of the question, 16-18 I'm still thinking about.

[VM1973]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-23, 15:20, said:

Lrn2play, touching honours are huge, aces are huge, I was ignoring J♦, I wouldn't open a 15-17 no trump on that hand without the J♦, KQJ, AK, A with the honour sequences in long suits is a vast set of honour holdings, is effectively KKK, AA, A (although the point count system takes some of this into account) I'd treat that as 18 without the J♦, 18.5 with it. Game is possible (but not good) opposite as little as xxxx, Qxxx, x, xxxx on the likely diamond lead, now add some more cards to give enough that it will be bid.

I'm upgrading because I can see 5 fast tricks (more than a lot of 18s, compare AQx x3, xxxx) and a lot of potential, plus I'm not a B/I who's a slave to the point count. I don't use any of the other methods you used, I on many years experience gauge what the whole hand's worth, and trust me this one is worth all of 18 and maybe a bit more.

Opening a 15-17 is out of the question, 16-18 I'm still thinking about.

So basically in your world:

AKQJ
xx
xxxx
xxx

is as good as

AKxx
xx
AKxx
xxx

and as good as

Axxx
Ax
Axxx
Axx

because all have 4 fast winners?

[Cyberyeti]

VM1973, on 2011-July-25, 07:24, said:

So basically in your world:

AKQJ
xx
xxxx
xxx

is as good as

AKxx
xx
AKxx
xxx

and as good as

Axxx
Ax
Axxx
Axx

because all have 4 fast winners?

No of course I'm not, which is why I didn't say it was worth the full KKK, AA, A, but AKQJ, xxx, xxx, xxx is a lot better than Axx, Kxxx, Qxx, Jxx and that's the point I'm making.

[VM1973]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-25, 08:38, said:

No of course I'm not, which is why I didn't say it was worth the full KKK, AA, A, but AKQJ, xxx, xxx, xxx is a lot better than Axx, Kxxx, Qxx, Jxx and that's the point I'm making.

So if partner opens 1NT (15-17) NV IMPs and you hold:

AKQJ
xxx
xxx
xxx

What do you bid as opposed to:

Axxx
Kxx
Qxx
Jxx