[SimonFa]

EDIT: Fixed opening bid to 1♥

Playing against one of the strongest, if not strongest, pairs last night an interesting point came up. I dealt, MPs both vul.

P (P) P 1[♥]
3♣ (P) P (3♠)
P (4♥) all pass

Dummy had 4/4 in majors and 3 points (K♠ IIRC)and contract was -1 when we made 3♦ and 1♣. The 9-card Spade fit was cold.

In the post mortem* declarer asked partner why they selected the 9-card fit over the 8-card fit knowing he had a monster and wanted to play in game**? That way he would have somewhere to park a loser?

I know I, and I suspect many other B/Iers, would have selected the 9-card fit so when the dust had settled I asked about this idea of selecting the 8-card fit and he said it was fairly standard bridge practice. I don't for one second doubt him but I have not come across this thinking (despite reading rather a lot of books and internet articles in the past year) but when I thought about it it did make sense if you are confident trumps are strong and not breaking badly.

Are there any guidelines about when to select the 8-card fit over the 9-card? Does anyone have any links to a discussion on this point?

Thanks in advance,

Simon

* I love listening to their post mortems, they are always entertaining and educational as they are both quite tetchy with each other but always extremely courteous and helpful with opps.

**Apparently by not doubling me and giving partner the option of playing for penalties it made the hand a bit stronger than a standard reverse.

[Antrax]

Do you mean opener balanced 3♥? Otherwise the 3♠ balancer is the dummy.

[SimonFa]

 Antrax, on 2011-September-27, 03:58, said:

Do you mean opener balanced 3♥? Otherwise the 3♠ balancer is the dummy.

Sry, fixed opening bid to 1♥

[Cyberyeti]

This is an awkward area.

It matters if you need pitches as well as ruffs, if just ruffs, it doesn't matter so much.

KQJxx
KQJx
Ax
xx

A10xx
A109x
xx
xxx

for example is 10 tricks in spades, but 11 in hearts if the hearts break as you can pitch a diamond on the 5th spade then ruff one.

Whereas:

KQJxx
KQJx
xxx
x


A10xx
A109x
x
xxxx

is 11 tricks in either. The 5-4 fit may be safer if you don't have all the intermediates you have here.

Another thing to look at is solidity of trumps. I put a hand up on the boards a while back: something like

KQJ10xx
J10xx
x
Ax

Ax
AKxx
Jxx
KQJx

12 easy tricks in spades, not so in hearts.

[JLOGIC]

Usually the 9 card fit is better. There are hands where the 8 card fit is better, but as a b/i I wouldn't worry about it, especially for game. 4-4 fits often have problems with 4-1 trumps.

[manudude03]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-September-27, 06:09, said:

Usually the 9 card fit is better. There are hands where the 8 card fit is better, but as a b/i I wouldn't worry about it, especially for game. 4-4 fits often have problems with 4-1 trumps.

This post pretty much said it all. There's an infamous hand on the forums here where a 8 card fit played better than a solid 10 card fit.

[Cyberyeti]

 manudude03, on 2011-September-27, 06:39, said:

This post pretty much said it all. There's an infamous hand on the forums here where a 8 card fit played better than a solid 10 card fit.

It's not that uncommon, but they can be difficult to recognise, one we had:

KQxxxx, xx, x, Kxxx

AJxx, Ax, Axx, AQJx

2♠-2N-4♣-4N (keycard in ♠)-5♦(1)-5♥(Q♠?)-6♣(yes and K♣)-7♣. We play very wide ranging and possibly short weak 2s so 4♣ is automatic on this hand to get the extra shape and maximum across.

[pio_magic]

 SimonFa, on 2011-September-27, 03:26, said:

In the post mortem* declarer asked partner why they selected the 9-card fit over the 8-card fit

After experiencing losing a slam in a 5/4 ♦ suit where the slam in 4/4 ♣ would have been cold, I tend to select the 4/4 fit if in doubt, which has not proven wrong - so far

Peter

[JLOGIC]

 pio_magic, on 2011-September-28, 05:49, said:

After experiencing losing a slam in a 5/4 ♦ suit where the slam in 4/4 ♣ would have been cold, I tend to select the 4/4 fit if in doubt, which has not proven wrong - so far

Peter

This seems similar to saying "After playing pocket aces once and losing a big pot, I decided to fold them, which so far has not proven wrong." Basing your whole philosophy off of a sample size of 1 hand is incredibly unwise.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-September-28, 06:01, said:

This seems similar to saying "After playing pocket aces once and losing a big pot, I decided to fold them, which so far has not proven wrong." Basing your whole philosophy off of a sample size of 1 hand is incredibly unwise.

Tell that to Phil Helmuth.
He had pocket Aces against Tom Dwan in the first round of a Heads-Up Championship a number of years ago .
Tom had pocket 10's and got a 3rd on the River.... vs. nothing more for poor Phil.

Tom was a "nobody" until that match... but as they say, the rest is history.

[Antrax]

20% shots should never pay off, it's simple statistics

[VM1973]

The value of the 5-4 fit is that you get a pitch. The value of this pitch increases the more aces you have. If, for example, your only losers are three aces, having abundant pitches is worthless to you.

As for the comment about the "sample size of one" there's nothing wrong with Peter's method. He experienced a bad board, drew a conclusion from it which so far has not been proved wrong. Claiming that this is a sample size of one is a gross mischaracterization of the situation.

[JLOGIC]

 VM1973, on 2011-September-28, 07:52, said:

The value of the 5-4 fit is that you get a pitch. The value of this pitch increases the more aces you have. If, for example, your only losers are three aces, having abundant pitches is worthless to you.

As for the comment about the "sample size of one" there's nothing wrong with Peter's method. He experienced a bad board, drew a conclusion from it which so far has not been proved wrong. Claiming that this is a sample size of one is a gross mischaracterization of the situation.

lol

[JLOGIC]

 TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-September-28, 06:21, said:

Tom was a "nobody" until that match... but as they say, the rest is history.

lol

[wyman]

In a double fit situation, it's often better to play in the less disparate (say 5-3) fit to take advantage of pitches from the more disparate (say, 6-2). The moral of the story, however, is that most people will agree that 9-card trump fits tend to play better than 8-card fits. One reason you might imagine is that 8-card fits are more susceptible to bad breaks. When a side suit breaks badly, you can often take advantage of other chances (ruffing out a loser to establish the suit, for example), but a bad trump break is worse.

[vuroth]

4-1 splits happen 3x as often as 4-0 splits (not to mention 5-0s). Basically, the difference in likelihood is around 20%, or 1 in 5. If I'm reading that right, it means that 1 in 5 times you choose a 4-4 over a 9 card fit, you've given yourself a trump split problem you didn't previously have.

Does needing a pitch as your only hope really come up that often.

Quote

There are hands where the 8 card fit is better, but as a b/i I wouldn't worry about it,

...seems like good advice to me.

[vuroth]

 VM1973, on 2011-September-28, 07:52, said:

As for the comment about the "sample size of one" there's nothing wrong with Peter's method. He experienced a bad board, drew a conclusion from it which so far has not been proved wrong. Claiming that this is a sample size of one is a gross mischaracterization of the situation.

I'll grant that the sample size probably isn't one anymore, but does the method really seem sound?

[pio_magic]

 vuroth, on 2011-September-28, 10:41, said:

I'll grant that the sample size probably isn't one anymore, but does the method really seem sound?

Right, it isn't one anymore by far, and I surely am not following this empiricism blindly...

Peter

[pio_magic]

 vuroth, on 2011-September-28, 10:38, said:

4-1 splits happen 3x as often as 4-0 splits (not to mention 5-0s)
....
Does needing a pitch as your only hope really come up that often.

Can we "measure" the likelyhood of the latter and compare to the more easily calculable split probabilities? Would really be interesting....

Peter

[gwnn]

it's just not the same without caps...