[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

---

A complaint about the scoring of this hand has already been lodged. If "west" (at the table) had 6S=4H, then spade Ace and a spade would defeat 5 clubs (presumably Ace would likely be from AQ of spades). If West is 5-4 in the majors, then the hand is essentially cold fo 5 clubs. As a concession to the potential spade ruff if West had six of them, I lowered teh score for 5C from 11 to 10, but since I still think 5C is a great favorite to make, my scoring is....

5C=10, 3HEx=7, 4C=5, 2NT=4, 3HE=3, 2D=2, 3N/3D=1, 2HE=0

(remember, these hands were NS in the contest)

5CS hrothgar/Free
5CN mbodell - javabean
5CN tylere / bid_em_up
3H-XE East4Evil/sohcahtoa
3CN elianna/awm
4CN Flycycle/Wackojack
4CN jdonn/gib
4CN jlall/hanp
4CS kfay/jchiu
3CN olegru - driver733
4CN peachy/lg62
4CN rogerClee/cherdano
3CN sallyally/joylson
4CS Siegmund/MSchmahl
1NN bluecalm/redds
3HE kristen33/jillybean
2DS tlgoodwin/timg
3NN ant590 - crayzeejim
3DS gnasher/catch22
3NN karlson/threenobob
3NN lobowolf/bkjswan

[shyams]

Ben, the script for E/W actions is missing. Can you pls add it? Thanks

[bluecalm]

Yeah 5♣ is clearly the top spot here.
We have another hand here when only few pairs get a chance to double 3♥. For example our "opponents" didn't compete even to 2♥ after:

1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT passes

but it seems at other tables they were willing to find hearts. No complaints really but I think scripts should take into account more methods/sequences and just say something like:
"W overcalls with spades then bids hearts if it's below 2♠" etc.
There was similar hand in previous set too.

[rogerclee]

I still don't get why 5C deserves the top score. West drove to the 3 level unfavorable at matchpoints into an unlimited auction where partner did not promise a fit. He does not rate to be 5431 at all, his most likely shapes are 64(21), 6430, and 5440. In the first two cases you are instantly down (Ben seems to think the hand is rotated, but the player with short spades is on lead), and in the third case you can always pick up diamonds if you are looking at the opponents' hands, but you can only ruff diamonds twice in your hand due to the 3-0 trump break, so you have to choose to play west for ONE of KJxx, Kxxx, or Jxxx (I think Ben mistakenly analyzed it double dummy, where you can pick up all three of these holdings). So overall I think 5C should actually be below average, by my estimates it would go down much more than half the time if we couldn't see the opponents' hands.

I also don't get how 3Hx could get such a high score, I would expect it to usually make on the CA lead, and making 4 is not even that unlikely.

[Fluffy]

I am also surprised by the high score for 3♥ X. I dunno the auction so can't rate the rest of what roger says.

[rogerclee]

Fluffy, on Aug 23 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

I am also surprised by the high score for 3♥ X. I dunno the auction so can't rate the rest of what roger says.

The auction at most (standard) tables started this way:

1D 1S 2C P
3C X

[bluecalm]

I wasn't aware that opponents bid that way when saying 5C is clearly top spot.
They somehow turned into lambs when playing at our table

[awm]

I'd like to see the script for this one too.

My recollection was that the auction at our table started P-P-1♠-2♣-P-2♠-X. This double is often used to show a spade rebid (since opener usually gets the lead of his suit anyway, just saying "please lead my suit" is a bit redundant), which would already imply that spades are 6-1...

It may be worth noting that any 3-0 club break probably beats 5♣ (the onside 3-0 gives you trouble disposing of your spade losers), as well as the 6-1 spade break beating you off the top. Obviously a priori neither of these things are all that likely, but if it sounds from the bidding like east has extra shape (which it seems that it did) I wouldn't be so convinced.

[TimG]

Quote

West bids 1♠ (either open or overcalls) unless South
opens precisely 1♣ in which case west doubles. In 2nd
round of the auction, west will double if EW have bid 2 or
3♣'s for takeout and east will respond only if ♣'x is passed
back to him, in which case he will bid the cheapest number
of ♥s, but never beyond 3♥s. West will not bid beyond
the 2nd round.

Doubling 2♠ seems a mistake.

[JLOGIC]

On the bidding at our table clubs 3-0 and spades 6-1 are both pretty likely. Also, 3H X seems pretty bad (because both 3-0 clubs and 6-1 spades are pretty likely!).

It's not just 6-1 spades to worry about.

[kayin801]

Yeah, even I think I was smoking something when I Xed 3♥

(Guess I'm still on it if I can't keep my mouth shut )

[jdonn]

I really agree with the objections, I'm not sure 5♣ is better than 4♣ at all on this auction (in fact I'm pretty sure it's not) and there's no way it's this much better.

[cherdanno]

Ben, a 10 for 5♣ is really off the mark. I would say it's a 3 or 4.

[Mbodell]

It sounds like this is another board where the E/W hands shown in some (many?) people's auction is different than what E/W actually has and may show in some auctions. If Tim's post shows the script then since W will double 1♣ but overcall 1♠ otherwise and is supposed to double ♣ for takeout after opening or overcalling 1♠ then it does seem like the most likely hand type is 5440 with either 5431 or a bad 6 card spade suit with 6430 or 6421 also possible.

That might be a very different layout than you'd expect on the awm auction or some of the other auctions. But should that count against people if the script suggests 5440 even if that isn't what is shown on your auction? I think the consensus on the other hands was, yeah it should, and that is just a systemic fix.

[Free]

We opened 1♠ with the South hand, showing 9-14 unbal with 4+♦ (may have longer ♣). I guess the script didn't foresee this because West passed in the first round so we could show the minor 2-suiter easily.

Perhaps a thought for further boards, to have a defense against MOSCITO in the script

[inquiry]

Free, on Aug 24 2010, 01:37 AM, said:

We opened 1♠ with the South hand, showing 9-14 unbal with 4+♦ (may have longer ♣). I guess the script didn't foresee this because West passed in the first round so we could show the minor 2-suiter easily.

Perhaps a thought for further boards, to have a defense against MOSCITO in the script

I am not going to lose sleep over building defense to MOSCITO in the script since you guys are bidding in this for "fun".

As far as doubling 2♠ goes, that was not in the script, the double was to be of clubs only. I could have worded it better I guess.

[hanp]

FWIW I also thought that 5C was bad here, surprised to see the scores.

[inquiry]

hanp, on Aug 24 2010, 10:55 AM, said:

FWIW I also thought that 5C was bad here, surprised to see the scores.

On all the hands, the opponents possible hands are controlled by the "script". In another thread there was a complaint that the two suited overcall didn't happen at a table (because of the auction), and therefore, should the simulations for that table not take into account that EW hands are two suited.

The answer to that "inquiry" is of course, no. The two suited hands remain two suited despite the absences of the call at that table.

The same logic applies to this hand. The script called for a 1♠ overcall, unless the opening bid was 1♣, in which case there is a takeout double. Later in the hand, the overcaller doubles only if the opponents last bid was 2 or 3 clubs, and this double is for takeout (i altered it as such at the tables where I made it).

This bidding is not consistent with Overcalling having, for instance a singleton diamond, nor for that matter a doubleton diamond. At least in my mind. I also don't think it is all that consistent for 6-4 in the majors, but ok, I will allow as 6-4 might be vaguely possible. It is also probably not consistent with any hand were WEST is lacking the Diamond king, since he could force the bidding to the three level. Anyway, when running simulations and looking at possible EW hands, I have to take into account the full script that helps decided the EW hands.

Within the confines of the bidding script, what do you think 5♣'s should be graded out at?

[awm]

inquiry, on Aug 24 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

Within the confines of the bidding script, what do you think 5♣'s should be graded out at?

That the bidding script seemed not to be followed at my table is perhaps a separate issue.

The script seems consistent with 5431, 5440, and 6430 shapes. However, doubling at the three-level would require pretty substantial extras if 5431, and doubling at the one-level would be strange on 6430 unless holding pretty substantial extras. Thus 5440 seems like the most common shape.

A 5♣ contract seems pretty difficult to make on this distribution. After two rounds of spades (which is in many ways a helpful -- though likely -- lead, since it removes the need for a dummy entry to take the spade finesse) a natural line of play proceeds:

(1) Cash the diamond ace
(2) Club to the ace in case they break
(3) Ruff a diamond
(4) Jack of clubs ducked around
(5) Club to king
(6) Ruff a diamond...

Note that we don't have the entries to ruff a third diamond. So on these diamond plays, we need to guess whether opener started with ♦K+J (where we need to be taking ruffing finesses at each round) or ♦K only (we need to let the queen ride at some point to smother the jack) or ♦J only (we need to ruff low diamonds each round so the queen sets up). Of course, double-dummy play always gets this right but at the table it seems extremely easy to go wrong. I'd put the odds at maybe 40% here (the ♦K will usually but not always be onside based on points, but the jack seems like a pure two-way guess).

Of course, 5♣ always makes when opponent is 5431 and never makes when he's 6430 (both with the necessary extra values).

Seems like around a 50/50 shot.

[gnasher]

awm, on Aug 24 2010, 06:19 PM, said:

A 5♣ contract seems pretty difficult to make on this distribution. After two rounds of spades (which is in many ways a helpful -- though likely -- lead, since it removes the need for a dummy entry to take the spade finesse) a natural line of play proceeds:

(1) Cash the diamond ace
(2) Club to the ace in case they break
(3) Ruff a diamond
(4) Jack of clubs ducked around
(5) Club to king
(6) Ruff a diamond...

Note that we don't have the entries to ruff a third diamond. So on these diamond plays, we need to guess whether opener started with ♦K+J (where we need to be taking ruffing finesses at each round) or ♦K only (we need to let the queen ride at some point to smother the jack) or ♦J only (we need to ruff low diamonds each round so the queen sets up). Of course, double-dummy play always gets this right but at the table it seems extremely easy to go wrong. I'd put the odds at maybe 40% here (the ♦K will usually but not always be onside based on points, but the jack seems like a pure two-way guess).

How about leading ♥K after ♦A? Then if they take it we have an extra entry for setting up the long diamond, and if they don't we can take an immediate ruffing finesse, throwing the last heart.

I'd be quite pleased with myself if I'd thought of that at the table.