[P_Marlowe]

Liversidge, on 2016-March-14, 17:54, said:

<snip>
Our ops said my hand qualified on the rule of 20, ...
<snip>

My first comment would be, that your ops should go back and reread the rule of 20.
The rule of 20 is ok, but using it to justify opening the given hand is the reason,
the rule is sometimes considered ill advice.

With respect to opening the hand: I think this is touch and go, and the only opinion
that really matters, is the opinion of your partner.
If you / your partner regular opens light, Acol favoring light openings, than pass
becomes more attractive.

And finally: Just because someone made somehow 4H does not mean, you want to be there.
Ask yourself how good is the contract, before you try to construct an auction, that
gets you to this specific making contract, but will lead to stupid contracts, when the
layout is slightly different.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Phil]

I'd pass but I'm comforted by knowing my partner would open hands like AKJxx xx Kxx xxx in 2nd seat or even worse.

[billw55]

bridgepali, on 2016-March-25, 13:05, said:

Depending upon the point count method used, your hand had 12 to 14 pts.

Really? K&R is 10.60, which supports the forum consensus to pass.

But you will notice that nobody point-counted it. They used judgment, recognizing negative features such as short suit honors, an awful long suit, and lack of spades in 4th seat.

[mikestar13]

What did partner pass with in second seat? It could be that the mistake was his, if there were any.

[billw55]

Liversidge, on 2016-March-14, 17:54, said:

Should I have opened? Some others did so this evening and made 4 hearts, which makes it hard to defend passing.

I overlooked this at first. This reasoning is totally wrong, the very definition of resulting. Bridge is a game of percentages. There will always be cases where an inferior action gains, or a superior action loses. It is not even rare, probably happening every session. And sometimes, one or more players will have taken the inferior action.

Say your 4♠ contract is on a simple finesse for the trump king, missing four trumps. You take it, but it loses to a stiff king. It turns out that a couple of beginners who have not yet learned to finesse made their contract by laying down the ace. Would you say that this result makes it hard to defend the finesse? Of course not. You would not even take such a claim seriously. Well, your statement above is not really much different, just on a higher level.

The result on the current deal alone does not tell us whether the action chosen was good or bad.

[BillPatch]

Ran a sim using Jack5. sample size 50. of South hand from original post. 30 plus and 20 minus scores resulted from letting Jack bid hands with a fourth hand opening of 1 ♥. 9 successful heart games were made. Opponents made 2 games and found 2 500 point penalties. Perhaps the hand is a fourth hand reopener despite the warts.

[BillPatch]

Ran another sim. on Jack5. Instead of attempting to use British Acol with weak NT, the wrong range for opening the 5 card major I set the system to 2/1 with correct range to rebid one no trump over the response of 1 ♠ to 1♥. Opening one heart using these more standard methods produced disaster. 30 negative scores and 20 positive, and only three heart games. Jack attempted over a dozen 3NT contracts without success. The warts seem worse in Standard, K/S or 2/1.

[nige1]

Liversidge, on 2016-March-14, 17:54, said:

Should I have opened? Some others did so this evening and made 4 hearts, which makes it hard to defend passing. Our ops said my hand qualified on the rule of 20, my singleton ace was valuable and I was in fourth seat, so I should have opened. I explained that almost all of my points were in my short suits, over a 1NT response I could only bid 2 clubs, and we were at adverse vulnerability. Don't think it is relevant but we play Acol and weak NT.

---

BillPatch, on 2016-April-26, 11:25, said:

Ran a sim using Jack5. sample size 50. of South hand from original post. 30 plus and 20 minus scores resulted from letting Jack bid hands with a fourth hand opening of 1 ♥. 9 successful heart games were made. Opponents made 2 games and found 2 500 point penalties. Perhaps the hand is a fourth hand reopener despite the warts.

BillPatch, on 2016-April-26, 20:38, said:

Ran another sim. on Jack5. Instead of attempting to use British Acol with weak NT, the wrong range for opening the 5 card major I set the system to 2/1 with correct range to rebid one no trump over the response of 1 ♠ to 1♥. Opening one heart using these more standard methods produced disaster. 30 negative scores and 20 positive, and only three heart games. Jack attempted over a dozen 3NT contracts without success. The warts seem worse in Standard, K/S or 2/1.

Interesting that Billpatch's 2 sims disagree. Dissent from the consensus view: playing Acol, I rank

• 1♥ = NAT. Poor suit. Honours in short suits. But 2.5 quick tricks. And a singleton ♠ means a bad split for opponents. Over 1♠, you can rebid 2♣. You can pass most other replies (so game is unlikely).
• 1N = BAL. 12-14. If partner replies 2♥ (transfer) then you can pass.
• Pass = NAT. Less risky, so advisable If you're doing well

[rhm]

WesleyC, on 2016-March-14, 20:47, said:

I think it's a clear pass because the opponents control the spade suit and will usually be able to win the auction.

One popular idea for evaluating a 4th seat opening bid is "Pearson Points". You add your HCP to your spade length and open with 15+.

While following this rule blindly is obviously a mistake, with a weak heart suit, and only 12 PP I would pass this hand against all but the weakest/tightest opponents.

While it may backfire, passing an opening bid hand you do so at your own peril.
Pearson points are good for borderline hands. This hand is not borderline.
I am not surprised that 4♥ was on, given that you hold aces and a 5431 distribution.
Any downgrades are misguided.
The value of this hand in a suit contract is about 14 points. (K&R is clearly wrong here)
Sure I would prefer the ♥A instead of the ♠A, but even singleton aces are no reason for downgrades. (Aces in longer suits are a reason for upgrades)

Silly advise here.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

BillPatch, on 2016-April-26, 11:25, said:

Ran a sim using Jack5. sample size 50. of South hand from original post. 30 plus and 20 minus scores resulted from letting Jack bid hands with a fourth hand opening of 1 ♥. 9 successful heart games were made. Opponents made 2 games and found 2 500 point penalties. Perhaps the hand is a fourth hand reopener despite the warts.

How likely is a game in hearts?
Of course partner will need heart support for that.
Assume partner has at least 4 hearts.

I ran a simulation with Dealmaster Pro.

I assumed no passed hand had more than 11 HCP or 10 HCP, if unbalanced.
So each passed hand had between 7-11 HCP, 11 only if balanced.
No one had 6 spades (weak two) or a seven card minor.
Partner had 4 or more hearts (more than 4 hearts was rare)

Sample size 1000 random deals under those specification.

4♥ made double dummy on 521 deals (52%)
Average number of tricks per deal was 9.6

It shows the potential of this hand.
K&R is clearly wrong here.

Rainer Herrmann

[mcphee]

I think opening these hands not so wise and is a likely loser over time. I would be sick if the opps bid a spade game making on a H lead who only cause greater pain.

[NickRW]

rhm, on 2016-April-27, 03:49, said:

How likely is a game in hearts?...

Partner had 4 or more hearts (more than 4 hearts was rare)

Sample size 1000 random deals under those specification.

4♥ made double dummy on 521 deals (52%)
Average number of tricks per deal was 9.6

It shows the potential of this hand.
K&R is clearly wrong here.

Rainer Herrmann

So you ran a better sample in the sense of larger, but fixed things so that partner always had 4 hearts and found that game was still only about a 50/50 bet in a 9+ card fit. What percentage of deals got rejected because partner did not have 4 hearts? And what percentage of those had opps making 2♠ or similar part scores.

While I agree that the hand is quite borderline, I think you make an inflated case for opening.

Nick

[rhm]

NickRW, on 2016-April-27, 07:31, said:

So you ran a better sample in the sense of larger, but fixed things so that partner always had 4 hearts and found that game was still only about a 50/50 bet in a 9+ card fit. What percentage of deals got rejected because partner did not have 4 hearts? And what percentage of those had opps making 2♠ or similar part scores.

While I agree that the hand is quite borderline, I think you make an inflated case for opening.

Nick

I do not make an inflated case.
Of course there will be no heart game unless we have a heart fit.
If I just need a nine card or better heart fit to have a better than even chance to make game it must be worthwhile opening this hand.
Since there are 8 heart cards outstanding I realize that on average partner will have less cards in hearts more often.

Rainer Herrmann

[Stephen Tu]

I ran some more sims with random amount of heart fit, seem to support opening. If you have heart fit, it seems you can go plus in hearts (take > tricks than their spades, and >= tricks than their minor), about 61% of the time or so. If they have spade fit, you don't have heart fit, you can still successfully outbid them in a minor about 60%. Of course this doesn't take into account errors in judging how high to compete, e.g. you may compete to 3H down when the right course of action was to pass 2s and beat it. Then again they might misdefend against your 3 and let you make it when they were supposed to set you ...

[Wackojack]

On average you will have 1 and a bit more points than the opps.
With 8 hearts out you are most likely to have an 8 card heart fit and the opps an 8 card spade fit. This means you will be lucky to out bid the opps and make.

If you are blessed with a 9 card heart fit then the opps are more likely to have a 9 card spade fit. So again you will be out bid. The same goes for a 10 card heart fit.

The LAW says do not open.

[rhm]

Wackojack, on 2016-April-28, 14:59, said:

On average you will have 1 and a bit more points than the opps.
With 8 hearts out you are most likely to have an 8 card heart fit and the opps an 8 card spade fit. This means you will be lucky to out bid the opps and make.

If you are blessed with a 9 card heart fit then the opps are more likely to have a 9 card spade fit. So again you will be out bid. The same goes for a 10 card heart fit.

The LAW says do not open.

Sorry the Law does not say anything and your conclusions are all wrong.
I do not open this hand because I expect that our side will have "on average 1 and a bit more point than the opponents"

I open this hand because I have a 5431 distribution with 2 aces and a well positioned diamond queen.
I already said that this hand is worth more. Holding aces is very important in this game.
If I held 2♠=5♥=3♦=3♣ throwing in this deal would be much more understandable even though opponents will hold one spade less.

The law makes only claims about total tricks and total trumps.
Assume your opponents hold a spade fit and we hold a heart fit does this really mean we will be outbid?
Yes I do know spades rank higher.
The law makes a prediction about total tricks, it does not say how these total tricks will be distributed between both sides.
My point is and was we will make on average one trick more than our opponents and this means all your arguments are good for the waste basket and it will be a mistake to pass the deal out.

To prove my point I reran my simulations, but with a twist:

I kept the following assumptions:

No passed hand had more than 11 HCP or 10 HCP, if unbalanced.
So each passed hand had between 7-11 HCP, 11 only if balanced.
No one had 6 spades (weak two) or a seven card minor.

I assumed at least an 8 card heart fit, but the number of hearts in partners hand could vary according to the following rule:

If partner held 3 cards in heart he had to have exactly 4 cards in spades (both sides have an 8 card fit in the majors)
If partner held 4 cards in heart he had to have exactly 3 cards in spades (both sides have an 9 card fit in the majors)
If partner held 5 cards in heart he had to have exactly 2 cards in spades (both sides have an 10 card fit in the majors. This last case is unlikely in practice, not because partner could not have 5 hearts. Both opponents must hold exactly 5 spades and both must have passed with that)

I then looked how many tricks there was for South in hearts and for West in spades on the same deals

1000 random deals:

Result:

South made on average per deal 8.6 tricks with hearts as trumps
West made on average per deal 7.6 tricks with spades as trumps

The breakdown of tricks in hearts for South was as follows:

>7 - 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 11 12 tricks
36 144 257 340 174 39 10 deals

The breakdown of tricks in spades for West was as follows:

>7 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 - 10 11 12 tricks
169 313 314 161 39 4 0 deals

Note, how few times East West could make a high level spade contract. Even though having at least an 8 card spade fit East West could not make anything beyond the one-level in almsot half the deals.
Of course there was the odd deal where East West could make even more tricks in spades than South in hearts.
But those deals were few and far between. There were of course many more where South made more tricks.
For example in only 17% of the 340 deals where South could make 9 tricks in a heart contract, West could make 9 tricks or more in a spade contract.
In only 2% of the 174 deals where we could make game East West could also make game.

Stephen Tu, on 2016-April-28, 13:22, said:

I ran some more sims with random amount of heart fit, seem to support opening. If you have heart fit, it seems you can go plus in hearts (take > tricks than their spades, and >= tricks than their minor), about 61% of the time or so. If they have spade fit, you don't have heart fit, you can still successfully outbid them in a minor about 60%. Of course this doesn't take into account errors in judging how high to compete, e.g. you may compete to 3H down when the right course of action was to pass 2s and beat it. Then again they might misdefend against your 3 and let you make it when they were supposed to set you ...

Exactly.
Rule of thumbs, like HCP, Pearson Points, Rule of twenty, the Law are useful, but there are many exceptions and they are no substitute for evaluating your hand properly and using your brain.
Otherwise you will not get anywhere in this game

Rainer Herrmann

[manudude03]

Typing this again since it didn't go through the first time.

I'm not sure why you are limiting the opps fit at all. Why is it not possible that we have a 8 card fit and the opps have a 9 card spade fit? Also, if we should be outbidding them in a minor, we might not find our fit after 1H-(1S)-X-(3S) or even the same auction with a 2S advance. Also, we are w/r meaning that the opps are bidding r/w, so we can't even rule out one of them having 6 spades.

I said in my initial reply that I would pass, but thought it was close. I don't mind being proven wrong by sims, but the sims being posted don't seem particularly relevant.

[rhm]

In my first simulation I was interested how good our chance with the South hand was making game in hearts, which is what apparently happened when the deal was played.
I was not convinced that this is such a "borderline" hand.
So I assumed South would find at least 4 cards in hearts in dummy. Simulation showed that under those conditions your chances are better than even that you could make game.

My second simulation was in response to

Wackojack, on 2016-April-28, 14:59, said:

With 8 hearts out you are most likely to have an 8 card heart fit and the opps an 8 card spade fit. This means you will be lucky to out bid the opps and make.

If you are blessed with a 9 card heart fit then the opps are more likely to have a 9 card spade fit. So again you will be out bid. The same goes for a 10 card heart fit.

The LAW says do not open.

I considered this all wrong. So in response I made a second simulations where each side had the same combined number of trumps in spades and hearts.
The result was that it was highly likely that North South would be able to outbid East West, not the other way round.

Now you claim:

manudude03, on 2016-April-29, 10:41, said:

I'm not sure why you are limiting the opps fit at all. Why is it not possible that we have a 8 card fit and the opps have a 9 card spade fit? Also, if we should be outbidding them in a minor, we might not find our fit after 1H-(1S)-X-(3S) or even the same auction with a 2S advance. Also, we are w/r meaning that the opps are bidding r/w, so we can't even rule out one of them having 6 spades.

If opponents bid like that South could make a responsive double or could bid 3♣ over 2♠.
Whatever the simulations do not show that there are no deals where East West can not outbid us, only that they are much less common than the ones were we can outbid them.
Bridge is essentially a game of probabilities. Here the probabilities are stacked in favor of North South and that should induce South to open.

I have no problem changing any of the assumptions I made. I do not care.
I know from many simulations that small changes in assumptions do not lead to big changes of results. The results are fairly robust.
Of course it is entirely possible that opponents have a 9 card fit while we have only an 8 card fit. But the opposite is also possible.
I think it is fairly unlikely that either opponent has 6 spades, but of course it is not impossible. Even if we allow it in the sims there will be very few deals, since they are created randomly, and they will not affect much the result.
To satisfy your curiosity I tried the following assumptions: To keep things simple, let's assume that both sides have at least an 8 card major suit fit. If we do not have such a fit, chances are we can compete in a minor. So this is not much of an assumption.
So let us give North between 3 and 5 hearts and between 2 and 4 spades randomly.
Again I simulated 1000 random deals

Result:

South made on average per deal 8.9 tricks with hearts as trumps
West made on average per deal 7.8 tricks with spades as trumps on the same deals.

The breakdown of tricks in hearts for South was as follows:

>7 - 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 11 12 tricks
15 101 259 315 241 59 10 deals

The breakdown of tricks in spades for West was as follows:

>7 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 10 11 12 tricks
98 313 349 187 47 6 0 deals

So North South still have on average an advantage of 1.1 tricks per deal over East West
We have only made the assumption that North South have at least an 8 card fit in hearts and game in hearts makes on 310 deals or in 31% of all deals.
East- West also have at least an 8 card fit in spades, but can make game only on 53 deals or in 5.3% of all deals.
But they can not make anything beyond the one level on over 40% of all deals.

Quote

I said in my initial reply that I would pass, but thought it was close. I don't mind being proven wrong by sims, but the sims being posted don't seem particularly relevant.

I do not believe you. It is the other way round.
The sims contradict your original assessment, so the assumptions of the sims must be wrong.
This is very human, but it is not rational. Anyway I can modiy the assumptions to your liking and you will find out it does not matter significantly..
It is not close and you and others are simply underestimating the South hand.
Spades are not everything and a singleton ace is still an ace.
That was the reason why I did the simulations. My assessment of the South hand was different and I wanted to check whether I was wrong or not.

Rainer Herrmann

[manudude03]

rhm, on 2016-April-29, 15:34, said:

If opponents bid like that South could make a responsive double or could bid 3♣ over 2♠.
Whatever the simulations do not show that there are no deals where East West can not outbid us, only that they are much less common than the ones were we can outbid them.
Bridge is essentially a game of probabilities. Here the probabilities are stacked in favor of North South and that should induce South to open.

What I had posted there was to do with real life practicality. Maybe your partners appreciate bidding 3C on both this and a 5-5 16 count. My partners do not.

rhm, on 2016-April-29, 15:34, said:

I have no problem changing any of the assumptions I made. I do not care.
I know from many simulations that small changes in assumptions do not lead to big changes of results. The results are fairly robust.
Of course it is entirely possible that opponents have a 9 card fit while we have only an 8 card fit. But the opposite is also possible.
I think it is fairly unlikely that either opponent has 6 spades, but of course it is not impossible. Even if we allow it in the sims there will be very few deals, since they are created randomly, and they will not affect much the result.
To satisfy your curiosity I tried the following assumptions: To keep things simple, let's assume that both sides have at least an 8 card major suit fit. If we do not have such a fit, chances are we can compete in a minor. So this is not much of an assumption.
So let us give North between 3 and 5 hearts and between 2 and 4 spades randomly.
Again I simulated 1000 random deals

Result:

South made on average per deal 8.9 tricks with hearts as trumps
West made on average per deal 7.8 tricks with spades as trumps on the same deals.

The breakdown of tricks in hearts for South was as follows:

>7 - 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 11 12 tricks
15 101 259 315 241 59 10 deals

The breakdown of tricks in spades for West was as follows:

>7 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 10 11 12 tricks
98 313 349 187 47 6 0 deals

So North South still have on average an advantage of 1.1 tricks per deal over East West
We have only made the assumption that North South have at least an 8 card fit in hearts and game in hearts makes on 310 deals or in 31% of all deals.
East- West also have at least an 8 card fit in spades, but can make game only on 53 deals or in 5.3% of all deals.
But they can not make anything beyond the one level on over 40% of all deals.

While this is a more convincing simulation, there are 2 issues still:
1. You are still assuming you have a heart fit. While you will likely have a fit there, it's not like pass promises hearts.
2. You are showing the number of boards where you have x tricks. The relevant point in MPs is whether or not you are going to be positive more often than not. Now the results do suggest that it probably is, but it isn't a perfect correlation.

rhm, on 2016-April-29, 15:34, said:

I do not believe you. It is the other way round.
The sims contradict your original assessment, so the assumptions of the sims must be wrong.
This is very human, but it is not rational. Anyway I can modiy the assumptions to your liking and you will find out it does not matter significantly..
It is not close and you and others are simply underestimating the South hand.
Spades are not everything and a singleton ace is still an ace.
That was the reason why I did the simulations. My assessment of the South hand was different and I wanted to check whether I was wrong or not.

Rainer Herrmann

I'm not really sure what you mean by "It is the other way round". When I play the game, I bid and play the boards first and then consult outside later. I don't consult others/computers first and then make my decision.

[rhm]

manudude03, on 2016-April-29, 18:29, said:

I'm not really sure what you mean by "It is the other way round".

What I mean is simple.

People claim if they are given evidence contrary to their assessment they will reconsider their opinion.
But this is not what is happening and people are not as open minded as they claim.

manudude03, on 2016-April-29, 10:41, said:

I don't mind being proven wrong by sims, but the sims being posted don't seem particularly relevant.

Nobody likes to be proven wrong.
If the facts do not support their assessment, they will rather question the facts (or claim they are not "relevant") than change their mindset.

Rainer Herrmann

.