Help
I do not agree that odds are correct to correct to 2H over 2D. While a 5-4 and a 4-2 are almost as likely, there is a 34 % chance of a 4-4. This is a significant amount. I expect a 4-4 to play much better than a 4-3 on this hand. When we have only 4-3's, it is not clear to me that there will always be a difference. Often both 2D and 2M will go down 1.
Another doubtful situation...
#22 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2006-January-10, 10:08
btw if I were to raise a major it would be HEARTS, not spades. I think a simulation would back that up *cough*.
#23
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,725
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2006-January-10, 10:13
Jlall, on Jan 10 2006, 07:08 PM, said:
btw if I were to raise a major it would be HEARTS, not spades. I think a simulation would back that up *cough*.
I readily admit that i didn't do a double dummy analysis
With this said and done, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning
Alderaan delenda est
#24 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2006-January-10, 10:31
Not sure if I have any reasoning lol. Just intuitively feels like this is a better dummy for hearts than spades. Trying to logically think of some reasons for this feeling, if partner has KQJx of spades, his spade jack is wasted. If he has KQJx of hearts, his jack is not wasted. If partner has Kx of spades and we are in hearts, that's better than Kx of hearts if we are in spades. If partner has Qxx of a side suit and some trump holding, I'd rather that side suit be spades than hearts. If we have to ruff clubs, I'd rather ruff with hearts and then take finesses in that suit rather than having to ruff with spades after which finesses opposite something like J9xx or QJxx will be impossible unless its Hx onside. Again, I didn't really analyze it either but my gut feels pretty strongly about this. It has been wrong before though.
#25
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 89
- Joined: 2004-March-18
- Location:Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Posted 2006-January-10, 10:33
hrothgar, on Jan 10 2006, 04:33 PM, said:
Echognome, on Jan 10 2006, 05:18 PM, said:
I don't understand those that bid 2♥ over 2♦. Yes, we may end up in a 4-2, but we also run the risk of choosing a 4-3 over a 5-4! Partner may be (23)53.
Two comments about passing 2♦
First: Passing 2♦ leaves you in a 5-4 fit 13.6% of the time. However this also leaves you in a 4-2 fit 11.6% of the time. The decision to pass fails catastrophically nearly as often as it succeeds.
Second: This is matchpoints. Nuff said
Is your calculation correct?
I come to:
5-4 fit in 23,35%
and 4-2 in 7,8%
taking into account the 4m333, 44m32, 5m332 distributions
freedom to use any bidding system
is vital to the development of bidding theory
Lukasz Slawinski, 1978
is vital to the development of bidding theory
Lukasz Slawinski, 1978
#26 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2006-January-10, 10:39
possible distributions when it goes 1N p 2C p 2D are:
2335
2344
2353
3235
3244
3253
3325
3334
3343
3352
I did not include possible 6 card minors in this. So it seems like there are 2 shapes with 5 diamonds and only 1 with 2 diamonnds that are equally likely not given our hand. Given our hand the shape with 2 diamonds is more likely, however I think the simulation numbers may be off.
2335
2344
2353
3235
3244
3253
3325
3334
3343
3352
I did not include possible 6 card minors in this. So it seems like there are 2 shapes with 5 diamonds and only 1 with 2 diamonnds that are equally likely not given our hand. Given our hand the shape with 2 diamonds is more likely, however I think the simulation numbers may be off.
#27
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,178
- Joined: 2004-November-14
- Location:England
- Interests:Mathematics;<br>20th century classical music;<br>Composing.
Posted 2006-January-10, 11:25
I agree with Richard's numbers. You have to take into account the fact that you have 4=4=4=1 shape, and this really does make a significant difference to the percentages.
#28
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,725
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2006-January-10, 11:53
MarceldB, on Jan 10 2006, 07:33 PM, said:
hrothgar, on Jan 10 2006, 04:33 PM, said:
Echognome, on Jan 10 2006, 05:18 PM, said:
I don't understand those that bid 2♥ over 2♦. Yes, we may end up in a 4-2, but we also run the risk of choosing a 4-3 over a 5-4! Partner may be (23)53.
Two comments about passing 2♦
First: Passing 2♦ leaves you in a 5-4 fit 13.6% of the time. However this also leaves you in a 4-2 fit 11.6% of the time. The decision to pass fails catastrophically nearly as often as it succeeds.
Second: This is matchpoints. Nuff said
Is your calculation correct?
I come to:
5-4 fit in 23,35%
and 4-2 in 7,8%
taking into account the 4m333, 44m32, 5m332 distributions
Did you take the conditional probabilities into account?
Please recall that the 2♣ bidder is known to have 4=4=4=1 shape AND
the 1NT opener has denied a 4 card major
when I set up the sim using dealer I set the following conditions
shape(north, any 4432, any 5332, any 4333) and
spades(north) <=3 and
hearts(north) <=3 and
shape(south, 4441)
Alderaan delenda est
#29 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2006-January-10, 11:56
simulations can always be surprising, the conditional probabilities seem to change things a LOT more than I would have guessed in this case.
#30
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2006-January-10, 12:48
My partner deviated from our system and opened 1NT with a 2-3-2-6, I think it was KQ-AJx-xx-QJT9xx. Normally he should open 3♣ showing 12-13(14)hcp and a singlesuiter ♣, but I understand why he didn't. I choose to bid 2♣ and pass anything I got back. We played in the 4-2 fit, and on a magical way partner went only -1, but it was still a poor score.
Afterwards, we concluded that it's probably acceptable to open 1NT, but that he should pass my 2♣ bid! He didn't open 3♣ because it might be too high, now he gets the opportunity to play 2♣, and there's no game available for us in like 90% of the time...
Afterwards, we concluded that it's probably acceptable to open 1NT, but that he should pass my 2♣ bid! He didn't open 3♣ because it might be too high, now he gets the opportunity to play 2♣, and there's no game available for us in like 90% of the time...
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#31
- Group: Members
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 2005-December-26
Posted 2006-January-10, 14:18
4-card NT ranges very troublesome in a system. In fact, even 3-card ranges should be minimized to the extent possible in system design. However, in 4th seat they are perfectly playable in many systems.
I agree with the original poster's follow-up response re: Drury (no need for it in the context of many systems). There are also several good reasons to include a 5-cd M in your opening NT. If you do not have a fit, you have disclosed less about your hand. If playing strong NT, you might stop in 1NT instead of 2NT when a strong hand with a 5-card M would open 1M and then raise 1NT to 2. There are other advantages, and I have found that they outweigh the disadvantages.
I agree with the original poster's follow-up response re: Drury (no need for it in the context of many systems). There are also several good reasons to include a 5-cd M in your opening NT. If you do not have a fit, you have disclosed less about your hand. If playing strong NT, you might stop in 1NT instead of 2NT when a strong hand with a 5-card M would open 1M and then raise 1NT to 2. There are other advantages, and I have found that they outweigh the disadvantages.
#32
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2006-January-10, 15:33
What's a 4-card NT range? And a 3-card NT range? Do you mean 4-point and 3-point range? 
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#33
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-January-10, 15:57
Free, on Jan 10 2006, 04:33 PM, said:
What's a 4-card NT range? And a 3-card NT range? Do you mean 4-point and 3-point range?
Newbie nerves....
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#34
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 839
- Joined: 2005-October-20
Posted 2006-January-10, 17:36
hrothgar, on Jan 10 2006, 09:33 AM, said:
Echognome, on Jan 10 2006, 05:18 PM, said:
I don't understand those that bid 2♥ over 2♦. Yes, we may end up in a 4-2, but we also run the risk of choosing a 4-3 over a 5-4! Partner may be (23)53.
Two comments about passing 2♦
First: Passing 2♦ leaves you in a 5-4 fit 13.6% of the time. However this also leaves you in a 4-2 fit 11.6% of the time. The decision to pass fails catastrophically nearly as often as it succeeds.
Second: This is matchpoints. Nuff said
I did not run a simulation, but I was another of the (minority) 2♥ rebidders.
At MP, obviously; at IMP, pass 2♦ (or maybe pass 1N too)
#35
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,156
- Joined: 2003-July-03
- Location:Portland, Oregon
Posted 2006-January-10, 18:20
Wow. I'm really in the minority but here is my whacky view. I will bid 2♣ and then raise any 2M to 4M. Oddly, I believe I will also pass a 2♦ response with this hand though as my hand only has game values in a major. Two undervalued aces and lots of ruffing potential tell me to just bid the game here.
Todd
Todd
#36 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2006-January-10, 19:12
I don't consider the ace of clubs undervalued, I consider if you are counting it as an ace and a stiff and upgrading according that it is overvalued. If it was in a red suit I'd like my hand's potential much more.
#37
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 2005-May-05
- Location:Oxford
- Interests:mathematics, science fiction, Tolkien, go, fencing, word games, board games, bad puns, juggling, Mornington Crescent, philosophy, Tom Lehrer, rock climbing, jootsing, drinking tea, plotting to take over the world, croquet . . . and most other things, really.
Posted 2006-January-11, 06:35
Free said:
Afterwards, we concluded that it's probably acceptable to open 1NT, but that he should pass my 2♣ bid! He didn't open 3♣ because it might be too high, now he gets the opportunity to play 2♣, and there's no game available for us in like 90% of the time...
I've done that before (opened 1NT (weak) in 3rd/4th and passed 2♣ with a 6 card suit), and had good results from it.
#38
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,156
- Joined: 2003-July-03
- Location:Portland, Oregon
Posted 2006-January-11, 13:03
Jlall, on Jan 10 2006, 05:12 PM, said:
I don't consider the ace of clubs undervalued, I consider if you are counting it as an ace and a stiff and upgrading according that it is overvalued. If it was in a red suit I'd like my hand's potential much more.
When I said undervalued aces, I meant that most people look at this hand and think 2 aces = 8 points. In a major suit trump game, I think the two aces are worth 9 and the singleton worth around 3. So, with 12 points opposite 13 I'm going to game. I still think the aces are worth 9 in NT but no value for the singleton and I devalue the whole hand due to a likely misfit and that is why I don't even invite in NT. On the odd occasion, we'll play a 4-2 diamond fit here but then the singleton club ace still has some extra value then.
Todd
#39
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,291
- Joined: 2004-August-04
- Location:Work in the South Bronx, NYC, USA
- Interests:My personal interests are my family and my friends. I am extremely concerned about the lives and futures of the kids (and their families) that I work with. I care about the friends I have made on BBO. Also, I am extremely concerned about the environment/ ecology/ wildlife/ the little planet that we call Earth. How much more of the world's habitat and food supply for animals do we plan on destroying. How many more wetlands are we going to drain, fill, and build on? How many more sand dunes are we going to knock down in the interests of high-rise hotels or luxury homes?
Posted 2006-January-11, 14:09
[quote name='foo' date='Jan 9 2006, 07:40 PM'] [quote name='Free' date='Jan 9 2006, 06:51 PM'] You hold:
1st thing: 4HCP 1N openings are too wide ranging. play 13-15 or 14-16, but not 13-16. [/quote]
a simple request:
at matchpoints: Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.
Yes, it takes some getting used to and, yes, you might miss an occasional close game (that then goed down because of bad splits or card location.)
and 13-16 NT is a lot of fun.
DHL
Scoring: MP
1st thing: 4HCP 1N openings are too wide ranging. play 13-15 or 14-16, but not 13-16. [/quote]
a simple request:
at matchpoints: Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.
Yes, it takes some getting used to and, yes, you might miss an occasional close game (that then goed down because of bad splits or card location.)
and 13-16 NT is a lot of fun.
DHL
"That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!"
#40
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,074
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-January-11, 14:47
[quote name='Double !' date='Jan 11 2006, 03:09 PM'] [quote name='foo' date='Jan 9 2006, 07:40 PM'] [quote name='Free' date='Jan 9 2006, 06:51 PM'] You hold:
1st thing: 4HCP 1N openings are too wide ranging. play 13-15 or 14-16, but not 13-16. [/QUOTE]
a simple request:
at matchpoints: Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.
Yes, it takes some getting used to and, yes, you might miss an occasional close game (that then goed down because of bad splits or card location.)
and 13-16 NT is a lot of fun.
DHL [/QUOTE]
I guess 15+ to 18 meets this 4 pt range standard?
But no one mentioned it
Scoring: MP
1st thing: 4HCP 1N openings are too wide ranging. play 13-15 or 14-16, but not 13-16. [/QUOTE]
a simple request:
at matchpoints: Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.
Yes, it takes some getting used to and, yes, you might miss an occasional close game (that then goed down because of bad splits or card location.)
and 13-16 NT is a lot of fun.
DHL [/QUOTE]
I guess 15+ to 18 meets this 4 pt range standard?
But no one mentioned it