[PhantomSac]

A friend and I had a bet recently on what color the opponents led. If they led a red card I won, if they led a black card he won.

The problem with this bet was:

1) I had an edge from picking red (obv) because we are more likely to declare a black suit (spades zomg) and they are unlikely to lead trumps.

2) The bigger problem was we realized we could manipulate the bidding, so I kept bidding black suits and he kept bidding red suits. This was not the point of the bet, and obv affected the bridge a little, (we were doing only reasonable things and not psyching else it would be unfair to the opps, but the bidding was still a bit differnet).

So we have altered the bet to even or odd, plus some honors. I proposed that evens are led more than odds since people don't lead 9's very often (1 session at a sectional, so assume standard leads and no 0/2 etc). I also proposed that the ace and king are the most likely honors to be led. So to make up for having only 6 cards, one guy gets A+K+8/6/4/2, and the other guy gets Q+J+T+9/7/5/3. Is this a reasonably fair bet? Who has the edge? Is a king more likely to be led than a queen (we don't know if they play A or K from AK, but in texas I think A from AK is more common vs suits). Could we alter this to make it more fair?

I am letting him pick since he let me pick red last time (lol fish).

[jdonn]

inquiry....

[PhantomSac]

Queens might be more likely because if we are declaring, they have KQ combos less often (since it's more HCP). Do weak players tend to lead from KQ empty, or shy away from it?

Tens are nice because they include interior sequences. Jack seems like the worst because often people lead low, and the interior sequences it has are "bad." Who leads from KJT etc?

I think A>K>Q>T>J, but could be convinced its A>Q>K>T>J. Ace is clearly the best because AK is always led when held, and they bang down aces sometimes esp in a bad field.

King gets the K from AK people, and K is the lead from most AK holdings vs NT also so meh.

Bramley thinks 8 is rarely led but I think it's better than the 9, it can be KJ98, or K98, or Q98 etc as well as second or top, and maybe someone will play 3/5th heh. I think even>odd is clearly right.

Is giving the best 2 honors + the best out of even/odd giving too much edge to the 6 card person? I think he deserves every edge, because 1 less card is a huge disadvantage.

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure how this impacts things, but I think you are undervaluing the lead of the 9 or 8 at suit contracts, because I bet you get a lot more doubleton leads than you should. Also, I think Rusinow affects Queen lead frequency, when used.

One additional factor is that I think there is probably a bubble around the four at a high point. The closer you get to absolute zero (deuce), the more likely the suit is a four-card suit. But, five-card suits will have a tendency to have the second-lowest card on the lead, which might tend toward a heavier 4 than a deuce. My gut actually tells me that the trey is the standout popular lead, though, because it seems intuitively to be the sweet spot. I'd be really curious what the ratio is between 5+3 and 2+4. I think I'd want the odds at that end of the spectrum.

[kayin801]

The 7 is led only 3/4 as frequently as you might think because people will want to hang on to the ♦7 to defensive beer.

[nigel_k]

Instead of odd/even I would suggest you each take turns picking the cards you want, i.e. you pick one, he picks two, you pick two etc. Because I would definitely want AK8642 instead of QJT9753. Maybe with my way, it would be fairer to stop after 12 cards and leave the last one unpicked.

As for the frequency, I am just guessing really but I agree with A>K>Q>T>J and if anything K is more likely than you are suggesting, not enough to beat A but easily beating Q. Also agree 9 is quite low probability, and maybe 2 is higher because people are leading the lowest card from any 3 or 4 card holding quite often.

[PhantomSac]

nigel_k, on Mar 3 2010, 06:30 PM, said:

Because I would definitely want AK8642 instead of QJT9753.

Most feedback I'm getting (from clee ofr instance) indicates that QJT9753 is better. I guess that's what makes it a good bet. If many people think one is better than the other, and many people think the other is better, it's probably pretty fair.

Roger and I were discussing something similar to ken, is the 3>2 or is the 2>3? I was thinking maybe the 3 is better, however maybe the level will be so bad that many people just lead their lowest card, in which case the 2 is very valuable. It will be a 1 session swiss, so if we win 2 matches then we will play others who have won, so I doubt it will be that bad. In fact it might increase the chance we play an entire match against a 3/5th pair, in which case the 2 is the nuts again....

Interesting.

[PhantomSac]

I might like drafting our spots though, I will run that by my friend. It might make it hard to remember who has what though lol, but we can just write the lead down.

If we draft then what order should the draft go in though is the problem. The guy with 6 should maybe get the first 2 picks? Unclear, I think we will just go with a non draft.

[Siegmund]

If your goal is to make it as close to 50-50 as possible, you might give one person red odd cards and the other person black even cards (or however else you divide them up 7-and-6) so each person has 26 runners.

I would have guessed QJT9753 was ahead of AK8642, but it really is only a guess. Really we'd need to pull some data (and I don't have any handy.)

[Lobowolf]

PhantomSac, on Mar 3 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Mar 3 2010, 06:30 PM, said:

Because I would definitely want AK8642 instead of QJT9753.

Most feedback I'm getting (from clee ofr instance) indicates that QJT9753 is better. I guess that's what makes it a good bet. If many people think one is better than the other, and many people think the other is better, it's probably pretty fair.

Roger and I were discussing something similar to ken, is the 3>2 or is the 2>3? I was thinking maybe the 3 is better, however maybe the level will be so bad that many people just lead their lowest card, in which case the 2 is very valuable. It will be a 1 session swiss, so if we win 2 matches then we will play others who have won, so I doubt it will be that bad. In fact it might increase the chance we play an entire match against a 3/5th pair, in which case the 2 is the nuts again....

Interesting.

I'd think that the 2 would be the nuts, regardless. 3/5 vs. 4th best leads affects the outcome in the 4-card and 5-card suits, mostly, with respect to the specific holdings Hx32 and Hxx32. But the 2 is always chosen, regardless, from H32. (I'm assuming no substantive difference between having one instead of the other, e.g. Hx3 vs. Hx2 has to be a wash). I think since the 2 always gets the 3-card holdings, it has to be superior regardless of whether it gets the 4-card holdings (playing 4th best) or the 5-card holdings to go along with it.

Granted, playing 3/5, the 3 picks up on Hxxx32, but that's probably compensated for by pairs that play "attitude" leads against NT and will always lead the 2 if leading low from a suit containing both.

With respect to the original division, I'd like the Acey-Deucy option.

[PhantomSac]

Siegmund, on Mar 3 2010, 06:45 PM, said:

If your goal is to make it as close to 50-50 as possible, you might give one person red odd cards and the other person black even cards (or however else you divide them up 7-and-6) so each person has 26 runners.

Then we will still be lead inhibiting sometimes if we have lots of odd reds or w/e, I don't want it to be possible to manipulate it (even though it was really funny, seemed against the spirit of the game).

[Bbradley62]

I actually think 5-6-7 are the least likely, because they're unlikely to be either the lowest of a long suit or the top of a doubleton.

[PhantomSac]

A funny auction from this game. We were playin multiplier if someone was down 5+ points (the stakes are doubled), and I was down 4 points when this hand came up...

Kxxx AQJx KQJxx ---

AQJx Kxxx Axx xx

1D 1S*
2H* 3H
3S 4D
4S 5S
6S

1S= 4-4 in the majors, but I need red suit leads, obv 1D p 1H would be a disaster, so I bypass hearts.

2H= Wants black suit leads, 4C would often get a heart lead, so he tries 2H.

After that, 4S looks like 3361 or so. I now envision a great MP contract of 6S, possibly even 7S, in the 4-3 fit if partner has Kxx AQx KQJxxx x or something for instance. I bid 5S asking for a club control (he might be 3352 and being weird with no club stopper, which would actually be money opp my actual hand).

Now my partner should bid 6C, or possibly 6H to show me his first round control, over which we easily get to 7. But he already has a club lead locked up, and he doesn't want to jeopardize it, so he just bids 6S and our cold grand is missed.

Somehow we had a 70 % like this lol.

[gwnn]

if you draft, you should let the guy who picks 6 start with 1 then 1 then 1 etc. the last 2 will go to the guy with 7. I think the edge given by the first 6 rounds where in theory the first guy will pick better cards overweighs the disadvantage of having less cards.

[PhantomSac]

gwnn, on Mar 3 2010, 07:12 PM, said:

if you draft, you should let the guy who picks 6 start with 1 then 1 then 1 etc. the last 2 will go to the guy with 7. I think the edge given by the first 6 rounds where in theory the first guy will pick better cards overweighs the disadvantage of having less cards.

The problem imo is that 6 of the cards are much better than the rest of the cards (AKQJT2). In this model the 6 card guy does better than getting the 1/3/5th best of those (arguably).

After those 6 then he would get 3/5/7 presumably, instead of 4/6/8, so he does better on the spot cards, and worse on the "big 6." How big of a difference is it? Not sure, should be pretty similar.

I am convinced the 2 is much better than the 3 after thinking about it some though.

[kenrexford]

PhantomSac, on Mar 3 2010, 07:06 PM, said:

A funny auction from this game. We were playin multiplier if someone was down 5+ points (the stakes are doubled), and I was down 4 points when this hand came up...

Kxxx AQJx KQJxx ---

AQJx Kxxx Axx xx

1D 1S*
2H* 3H
3S 4D
4S 5S
6S

1S= 4-4 in the majors, but I need red suit leads, obv 1D p 1H would be a disaster, so I bypass hearts.

2H= Wants black suit leads, 4C would often get a heart lead, so he tries 2H.

After that, 4S looks like 3361 or so. I now envision a great MP contract of 6S, possibly even 7S, in the 4-3 fit if partner has Kxx AQx KQJxxx x or something for instance. I bid 5S asking for a club control (he might be 3352 and being weird with no club stopper, which would actually be money opp my actual hand).

Now my partner should bid 6C, or possibly 6H to show me his first round control, over which we easily get to 7. But he already has a club lead locked up, and he doesn't want to jeopardize it, so he just bids 6S and our cold grand is missed.

Somehow we had a 70 % like this lol.

My first thought was that partner's concern about the club lead was a mirage -- the club lead seems to be set in regardless of whether he bids clubs late or not.

But, then I got to thinking about more important theory concerns. It seems to me that this type of sequence leads to an interesting cuebidding structure. I would imagine that a needs-based approach would have a combination of denial and showing cues. In other words, the player needing red leads makes showing cues in the black suits and denial cues in the red suits, and vice-versa. This way, any negative impact from the cue sequence would tend to be buried in the inference rather than in the definition. This of course would be somewhat complicated, but doable.

For example, suppose spade are agreed. If Opener needs red leads, then he can cue 4♣ to show a club control. 4♦ would deny a diamond control directly and inferentially deny a club control, as well. 4♥ would inferentially deny a club control and promise a diamond control, but definitionally deny a heart control.

If, however, opener needs black suit leads, then 4♣ would deny a club control. 4♦ would show a diamond control AND infer a club control. 4♥ would show a heart control, infer no diamond control, and infer no club control.

Interesting to develop.

[nigel_k]

PhantomSac, on Mar 4 2010, 12:56 PM, said:

Siegmund, on Mar 3 2010, 06:45 PM, said:

If your goal is to make it as close to 50-50 as possible, you might give one person red odd cards and the other person black even cards (or however else you divide them up 7-and-6) so each person has 26 runners.

Then we will still be lead inhibiting sometimes if we have lots of odd reds or w/e, I don't want it to be possible to manipulate it (even though it was really funny, seemed against the spirit of the game).

Can't you still manipulate odd/even? E.g. if you have odd, play in a suit when you have mostly even cards in that suit, and NT when you have mostly odd cards in that suit.

[kenrexford]

Let's see if the auction should have reached the grand slam, therefore.

Kxxx AQJx KQJxx ---

AQJx Kxxx Axx xx

1D 1S*
2H* 3H
3S 4D
4S 5S
6S

Your auction was fairly obvious through 3♥. 3♠, IMO, is a forced override call, not because Opener wants to play spades but because it enables the final decision to be a spade contract. Opener cannot bid 3♠, no matter what he has, if he wants to play hearts. So, I think that was an error on opener's part, clearly.

Instead, Opener should start cuebidding, using the denial-showing methods. Bypassing 3♠ normally shows a spade control, but it cannot because of the trump-setting negative here. So, bypassing 3♠, his proper call, simply denies you ability to convert. 3NT would be serious, though, and he's good enough for that.

Responder now cues 4♣, because he wants to avert a black card lead and has club control. Opener, likewise, cues 4♦ as a showing cue. (Hence, the 3NT serious worked well.)

Responder, with heart control, and knowing of the diamond Ace, has no obvious problem with Exclusion 5♣ at this point, because NO ONE leads into a void. Plus, it screams for a trump lead, which is good. (Edited my original analysis.)

Once Opener shows the diamond Ace, spade Ace, and heart King, Responder seems to have just enough. But, to be on the safe side, he could ask for specific Kings, Opener denying the club King in a desperate move to suggest a club lead and thereby also to infer the spade Queen (obvious contextually).

[Jlall]

Results, he picked AK8642, he clearly had the edge because the ace is just the stone cold nuts, but I ran good and won despite them leading the A so often (ship the 3s and 5s baby, skill game).

[jjbrr]

lucksack