[el mister]

---

Picked up this yarb recently and steamed in to game with it - pard doubled their spade game, which seems a wretched bid to me but let me know what you think, so I felt compelled to take it out. Result was -4 for -12 imps. Cue verbal from pard on my 4♥ bid. Pard was more of a cardplayer than a bidder, so I turn to wiser heads for advice - At these colours should you make the 4♥ bid?

[Acol being played with a pickup p]

[gwnn]

yes you should.

chances are partner has a strong NT with 4 hearts, and to me it's clear that you want to be in game with 7 card support.

also pulling to 5♥ is good too. his double was bad. and it is probably better to open a weak NT with that hand.

[nigel_k]

Your partner's double was awful.

I think 3♥ was probably enough with your hand and would not have pulled the double, but they probably make an overtrick for a 6 imp loss or more if they send it back.

[ahydra]

Depends on what methods you're playing. If you play 2NT/similar to show a good raise, then 4H is fine. If you don't then there's a risk partner thinks you have an "actual" 4H bid based on HCPs rather than a feckload of hearts and/or some distribution. My guess is that's what happened here and partner doubled because he thought you had some HCPs. But even with that assumption it's a terrible X because he only has maybe 2 defensive tricks (and that's optimistic). Best to pass and leave the decision to you (but you should pass at these colours, not 5H, if partner doesn't double - if he does, you can't be blamed for pulling it).

gwnn - the North hand has 15 pts and some good intermediates, so I think opening it a 12-14 1NT is just a touch pessimistic?

ahydra

[BunnyGo]

ahydra, on 2011-March-26, 16:11, said:

gwnn - the North hand has 15 pts and some good intermediates, so I think opening it a 12-14 1NT is just a touch pessimistic?

I agree completely with the sentiments already stated (4♥ is fine, X is terrible, 5♥ is iffy but better than the double) but I wanted to say that I don't hate downgrading this 15 points when 3 of the points are QJ tight of spades. It's of course better than xx of spades, but not 3 points better.

[gwnn]

we have 63% of the quacks of the deck and I've always had a personal problem with QJ tight. I don't like downgrading but sometimes I like to show off how open-minded I am.

[the hog]

Playing 4 card Majors, I would not bid 4H with your hand. Your distribution is sterile and the vulnerability is totally wrong. I consider 4H to be a poor bid as you know it will prompt 4S.
Your partner's double was not a good call, but perhaps partner took your bid seriously. I would assign 50% of the blame to each of you.
You should of course pass the double of 4S.

[ahydra]

BunnyGo, on 2011-March-26, 16:46, said:

I agree completely with the sentiments already stated (4♥ is fine, X is terrible, 5♥ is iffy but better than the double) but I wanted to say that I don't hate downgrading this 15 points when 3 of the points are QJ tight of spades. It's of course better than xx of spades, but not 3 points better.

It's 8 points better than xx when partner has AKxx Or we could say there's:
1/9 chance partner has AK so it's worth 8 points,
2/9 chance partner has A but not K so it's worth 4 points,
2/9 chance K but not A where it's worth 6 points (compared to K alone which makes half a trick, KQJ guarantees 2), and
4/9 chance partner has neither when it's worth 0

for an expected value of 28/9 = 3.1 points. Of course this is a very basic analysis and ignores things like the auction, the ten of the suit, whether partner has enough small cards, etc. The point is don't discount honours until the bidding tells you to because a lot of the time they'll fit with partner's hand.

ahydra

[gwnn]

And what is QJx worth then? 4.5?

[manudude03]

Generally "tricks" are counted as 3 points (40/13 = 3.0769...), so your expected value with your figures is 21/9 or 2.333. That's an optimistic figure though as there are other holdings like you've said.

[ahydra]

So I can expect my aces to take 1.3 tricks? Maybe my dad's "strategy" of winning a trick with the Ace then leading the same Ace to the next trick isn't dead yet!

Of course the only real way we're gonna find out the value of QJ is by doing a simulation. But I get pretty good results from only downgrading when the auction tells me to, and upgrading when I have some features like touching honours, intermediates, key cards in partner's suit etc. Gwnn may well get good results from downgrading hands like the one in the OP, I don't know. After all, without different decisions on the same hand, every teams match would be a draw, which would be rather boring wouldn't it?

Though the corresponding pairs result, everyone gets 50%, would be fun the first time it occurred!

ahydra

[gwnn]

ahydra, I don't remember downgrading a hand in ages. I once downgraded a hand on BBO as a joke a year ago. I downgraded a hand into 1NT four years ago. I don't remember anything else.

You still didn't answer my question: if QJ is worth 3.1 points, how much is QJx worth? and QJxx?

[manudude03]

ahydra, on 2011-March-28, 13:32, said:

So I can expect my aces to take 1.3 tricks?

Yes, aces are huge cards, especially in trump contracts. Clearly an ace opposite nothing is only 1 trick, but think about the same combinations you listed (replacing those with the ace with similar):

1/9 partner has KQx (1.5 tricks difference)
2/9 partner has K but not Q (1.5 tricks difference)
2/9 partner has Q but not K (1.25 tricks difference at least!)
4/9 partner has neither (1 trick difference)

This gives you a "trick expectation" of 11/9 or 1.22 tricks.
If you use Zar points, an ace is worth 6 points and there is 52 Zar HCP in the deck which by the same logic says an ace is worth 1.5 tricks. Of course, counting tricks like that is a bit simplistic, but the point is that aces are underrated.

Differences mentioned are compared to you having xxx.

[ahydra]

Quote

...the point is that aces are underrated.

There was a hand on the "Beat the experts" section of English Bridge recently where West had KJ109xx xx KQJ9 x and East had 4414, all four aces but nothing else. David Bird who writes the column stated that East's hand is "massive in support of spades" but when the hand was actually played East undervalued his aces and stopped in 4S. Perfect demonstration of your point!

Briefly analysing QJx using the same crap methods as above:

opposite AKxx (or longer): 2 tricks - but only 1 AKx - so say 1.5
opposite A: 1 trick (We assume the defence cover the Q/J with the K)
opposite K: 1.5 tricks
opposite neither: 0.5 tricks

total expected tricks = (1.5+2+3+2)/9 = 8.5/9 so just under 1 trick, or just under 3 points. Of course if partner's bid that suit then the valuation goes up to over a whole trick. QJxx would be worth 1 trick or 3 points.

ahydra

[gwnn]

Wait, did you change the weight from 4 points/trick to 3 points/trick now? or are you saying that QJ is worth 3.1 points and QJx is under 3 points?

[ahydra]

I changed to 3 points a trick following manudude03's post, sorry.

ahydra

[manudude03]

ahydra, on 2011-April-02, 08:44, said:

There was a hand on the "Beat the experts" section of English Bridge recently where West had KJ109xx xx KQJ9 x and East had 4414, all four aces but nothing else. David Bird who writes the column stated that East's hand is "massive in support of spades" but when the hand was actually played East undervalued his aces and stopped in 4S. Perfect demonstration of your point!

Reminds me of a hand I posted on BBF a couple of years back.

[NickRW]

Playing 4 card majors and wk NT, I personally would downgrade the North hand to a 1NT opener. Yes the ♣10 is a good card as is, to some extent, the ♥9. But all those quacks - and the ♠QJ bare especially. Not the sort of thing I'm going to be particularly proud of as a dummy if the bidding goes 1H-1S-1NT-4S or something similar.

4♥ is an overbid at these colours. Indeed 3♥ is arguably brave - this is the sort of hand to sac with - but the colours say keep your mouth shut.

The double is awful - how many defensive tricks does North think he's got?

If partner's doubling tendencies can be trusted, pulling is arguably wrong. Given that partner's doubling tendencies can't be trusted, pulling was in practice a pragmatic option.