BBO Discussion Forums: Free's 3NT lead hypothesis - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Free's 3NT lead hypothesis

#41 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,516
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-October-12, 13:33

Cascade, on Oct 12 2006, 07:47 PM, said:

Free, on Oct 12 2006, 11:03 AM, said:

I also think this needs to be solved DD, not with BB...  The data is flawed, but it may be useful for other purposes.

There is another solution we can use single dummy results.

Somewhere I have over 100000 hands played by GIB on the auction 1NT 3NT. On each hand I forced the opening leader to lead from each suit - GIB didn't mind playing the hands four times.

I think from memory I restricted the opening leader to hands with no voids and no six-card or longer suits.

I will try and post some of the results later but I have a busy day and I am away tomorrow so it might not be before the end of the weekend.

Single Dummy is much slower than Double Dummy so is not so popular but does not suffer from some of the objections of DD and BB studies.

I agree this will be a very useful analysis, but it still has bias. How often will GIB as opening leader's partner stubbornly lead back the original suit, assuming this will be opening leader's best suit?

Arend
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#42 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2006-October-12, 13:34

How about comparing leads when the two suits are:
HMSSS vs HMSS
Where:
H is one of AKQ
M is one of JT9
S is anything smaller.

Thus here we would be comparing 5-4 hands where the two suits have roughly similar suit quality and means that neither suits has a 3 card honor sequence.

Additionally, subdivide the cases into:
a. Both suits are majors
b. both suits are minors
c. 5 card suit is a major, 4 card suit is a minor
d. 5 card suit is a minor, 4 card suit is a major

This should account for most of the reasons why people would normally lead a 4 rather than a 5.

Note: There are still additional issues. One of the gains of leading a 4 instead of a 5, is that declarer will miscount the hand, and misguess a side suit. This advantages goes away once you are known to favor leads from the 4 card suit. This is similar to the advantage you might get from using a convention/treatment but not giving full disclosure.
0

#43 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,566
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2006-October-12, 13:36

btw can everyone see these graphic inserts ok.. I have these huge monitors with crazy resolution and I had this horrible thought that they are much too big for average to small size monitors....
--Ben--

#44 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,566
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2006-October-12, 13:44

joshs, on Oct 12 2006, 02:34 PM, said:

How about comparing leads when the two suits are:
HMSSS vs HMSS
Where:
H is one of AKQ
M is one of JT9
S is anything smaller.

Thus here we would be comparing 5-4 hands where the two suits have roughly similar suit quality and means that neither suits has a 3 card honor sequence.

Additionally, subdivide the cases into:
a. Both suits are majors
b. both suits are minors
c. 5 card suit is a major, 4 card suit is a minor
d. 5 card suit is a minor, 4 card suit is a major

This should account for most of the reasons why people would normally lead a 5 rather than a 4.

Note: There are still additional issues. One of the gains of leading a 4 instead of a 5, is that declarer will miscount the hand, and misguess a side suit. This advantages goes away once you are known to favor leads from the 4 card suit. This is similar to the advantage you might get from using a convention/treatment but not giving full disclosure.

You have hit upon one weakness in Bridgebroser. The data is indexed, so it can be searched quickly, each item indexed (vul, hcp, distirubtion points, suits headed by just Ace, by just king, by Ak, etc) increases the data size and the search time tremendously. As I understand it, one trade off was to index by jus the follwoing suits...

xxxxxxx
Jxxxxxx
Qxxxxx
Kxxxxx
Axxxxx
QJxxxx
KJxxxx
AJxxxxx
KQxxxxx
AQxxxxx
AKxxxx
KQJxxxx
AQJxxxx
AKQxxxx
AKQJxxx

(and these honor combianations at all the various suit legnths). Thus, Tens and Nines are not searchable, and treated as "x"'s. I commented on this to stephen in the past, and in this thread already. funny, nowever you can search for leads by T's or 9's... from the contract page, which really works... and you can combine that with higher honors using selection criteria, but if they don't lead it, you don't see it....

You can look for AKQJT or 9 leads from either suit as part of the requirement... you can do some combined searches.. search for one setting, save as board file, search with some more criteria -- and add to the board file, then analyze the board file with only hands that match one (or more) of your different search criteria.
--Ben--

#45 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,306
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2006-October-12, 13:58

There are a number of things you might want to measure in bridge. Basically, BridgeBrowser is a good tool for measuring "what do people do on real hands." It's very clear that if you want to ask something like: "how often do people open in third seat with less than 12 hcp" bridgebrowser will give you a perfect answer based on real data.

On the other hand, if you want to ask a question like "what is the best play," bridgebrowser is somewhat less useful. The reason is, anything you try to measure will be biased by the "what people do." For example, let's take opening leads.

We'd like advice about how to lead against the auction 1NT-3NT (say). Obviously what I'd like to do is to always make the double-dummy ideal lead. If several leads are double-dummy equivalent, I'd like to make the one that maximizes declarer's chances to go wrong (i.e. don't solve a two-way guess via the lead). I think it's fairly straightforward that this is the meaning of making the best lead.

Looking at that, it's immediate that what I need to do is produce hands where the auction goes 1NT-3NT and then do a double-dummy analysis. This would be a combination of BridgeBrowser (to find 1NT-3NT auctions) and deep finesse or GIB. I can't easily use JUST DF or GIB because those tools can't tell me when people will bid 1NT-3NT. I could of course enter my own criterion for 1NT-3NT, but different people open/raise in different ways.

How come I can't just use BridgeBrowser alone? The issue is that people's leads are biased by "who they are." Suppose that everyone used a lead algorithm of:

(1) If I have a 3+ card honor sequence, I always lead from that sequence.
(2) If I don't have such a sequence, I lead 4th from longest suit.

Under these criteria, all the leads from four card suits on 5431 patterns will involve honor sequences. I'd expect that these leads look "really good." So BridgeBrowser will tell me that the four card leads are great! But that's not really helping when I don't have the honor sequence, is it?

Of course, I could control for this by restricting suit quality. Now if everyone leads as above, we'll see everyone leading the same card and BB won't help at all. But suppose that the algorithm above is used by almost all beginners/intermediates, but that experts have a more complex approach. Then we'll see that all the leads from four-card suits where there's no honor sequence happen to be by expert players. Expert players tend to get better results than beginners. So again the leads from four card suits look great!

So now I need to control for the suit quality, and the player level, and probably the level of opponent as well. Suppose that once you do all this, it's right to lead from the five card suit 90% of the time. We'd really like the answer in this case to be "lead from the five card suit is best." But suppose the expert players actually already tend to lead from the five-card suit even more than 90% of the time. And the few four-card suit leads they make are generally right. It'll still appear that the four-card suit lead is "better" because when the experts do it, it's usually right.

To try and make this clearer, my personal lead style is to almost never underlead kings against suit contracts. I believe that underleading a king (especially against a freely bid game) is much more likely to give a trick than accomplish anything. With this said, some auctions simply scream for an active lead. In those cases I will underlead a king. So if you analyze my results on opening leads, you'll find that the times I underlead a king against a suit contract I almost invariably made a good lead, whereas the times I didn't underlead a king it's more of a tossup. You could use this to conclude that "underleading kings is good" when that's exactly the exact opposite of my opening lead philosophy! So you have to be careful with these sorts of statistics...

In any case, what all this BB analysis of opening leads will tell us, is whether players on BBO (or OKB) tend to lead too often from the five card suit, too often from the four card suit, or about right. If you restrict by player skill level you can answer the same question about "expert" players. But it won't tell me what is the best lead.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

#46 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2006-October-12, 14:56

Adam raised many ofthe issues we have discussed before, as limitations of doing certain types of statistical analysis with bridgebrowser.

For instance if I wanted to know if my weak 2's should promise 6 cards and 2 of the top 3 honors, the questions I need to answer are:

a. How many imps or mps do I win when I open a weak 2 that promised 2 of the top 3 honors compared with players who opened the same hand with a looser definition?
b. How many imps or mps do I win (or lose) when I pass a hand that looser players open a weak 2.
c. Then combine these based on the relative frequencies of the two hand types.

The results from a and b have nothing what so ever to do with the results from:
d. How many imps or mps do I win/lose when I open a weak 2 with 2/3 honors
e. How many imps or mps do I win/lose when I pass a potential weak 2 that doesn't have 2 of 3 honors

Also, there is the repeated question of a biased sample. For istance, if canape leads scored better than 5 card leads when it was an auction chosen at few tables, thats a better argument for them than if they performed better when they were chosen at many tables (usually an honor sequence). Anyway, its very difficult to do a good statistical hypothesis test to answer the questions we are raising using the data thats in bridge browser....
0

#47 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,566
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2006-October-12, 15:13

joshs, on Oct 12 2006, 03:56 PM, said:

a. How many imps or mps do I win when I open a weak 2 that promised 2 of the top 3 honors compared with players who opened the same hand with a looser definition?
b. How many imps or mps do I win (or lose) when I pass a hand that looser players open a weak 2.
c. Then combine these based on the relative frequencies of the two hand types.

The results from a and b have nothing what so ever to do with the results from:
d. How many imps or mps do I win/lose when I open a weak 2 with 2/3 honors
e. How many imps or mps do I win/lose when I pass a potential weak 2 that doesn't have 2 of 3 honors

Also, there is the repeated question of a biased sample. For istance, if canape leads scored better than 5 card leads when it was an auction chosen at few tables, thats a better argument for them than if they performed better when they were chosen at many tables (usually an honor sequence). Anyway, its very difficult to do a good statistical hypothesis test to answer the questions we are raising using the data thats in bridge browser....

Well of course, bridgebrowser does not analyze partnership agreements, so you can not ask these types of questions. Richard points this out in his comments as well, as there is no way to apply negative/positive impications to the bid.

You can, if you want, ask other questions, how well does opening 2H on a five card suit do on average. This doesn't address whether there is a partnership agreement to do so, and added to the mix, even if you restrict the hand to "weak" the opening bid might be lucas or something, shoiwing five and another four card suit. So there is a lot of difficulty. Studying bids that start 1C and 16+ hcp will not tell you how precision works, because Standard players open 1C with 16+ all the time wihen 1C is the right opening bid. I dont think anyone has tried to build a bidding system using bridgebrowser data, or to support building one (an exception in a moment). This is richards complaint because he wants to study the impilcation of defined bids, which of course you don't have. You have a bid.. and a specifc time.

Of course, you could pick nunes and fulvio202 and use bridgebrowser to look at all the hands they have played on line at bbo (and if you know their nicks at okbridge). Then use bid analysis to subdivide each acution, then use plot to see the frequeny of hcp, distributions, and the like they have for every bid. So you could study systems that way, if the pair has enough hands. Or you can use bridgebrowser to find certain hand types, say a weak two on a five card suit, or discipline weak twos by how ever you define them, and then see how your system would have handled them. I used bridgebrowser to find 20,000 unique misiry hand types to use to build my misiry convention. That was too many, as I will not work much beyond a few thousand...

So study other players, get example hands to try yoru system on (download to pbn and use in partnership bidding), replay yoru hands dobule dummy, replay someone else hands where you can only see their hand, and prss the "next key" button, then see if the card you would have choosen is the card they would... great tool.... those replays are in pllayed on netbridgevu loaded from bridgebrowser and you click the hand of the player you want to play from , and decide on your card before you press "next" card button. Then there is also the option to replay the hands loaded from bridgebrowser in netbridgevu as double dummy, where you can pick the card to play (you have to be looking at all four hands to do that).

The for the maniacs, you can try the statistical stuff... the worse contact in bridge? I know you are thinknig 2NT.. but you would be wrong. The worse is 5NT, and it is not even particularily close. But then, brige logic would probably have told you that even if I hadn't found it out using bridgebrowser.
--Ben--

#48 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2006-October-12, 15:29

inquiry, on Oct 12 2006, 04:13 PM, said:

joshs, on Oct 12 2006, 03:56 PM, said:

a. How many imps or mps do I win when I open a weak 2 that promised 2 of the top 3 honors compared with players who opened the same hand with a looser definition?
b. How many imps or mps do I win (or lose) when I pass a hand that looser players open a weak 2.
c. Then combine these based on the relative frequencies of the two hand types.

The results from a and b have nothing what so ever to do with the results from:
d. How many imps or mps do I win/lose when I open a weak 2 with 2/3 honors
e. How many imps or mps do I win/lose when I pass a potential weak 2 that doesn't have 2 of 3 honors

Also, there is the repeated question of a biased sample. For istance, if canape leads scored better than 5 card leads when it was an auction chosen at few tables, thats a better argument for them than if they performed better when they were chosen at many tables (usually an honor sequence). Anyway, its very difficult to do a good statistical hypothesis test to answer the questions we are raising using the data thats in bridge browser....

Well of course, bridgebrowser does not analyze partnership agreements, so you can not ask these types of questions. Richard points this out in his comments as well, as there is no way to apply negative/positive impications to the bid.

You can, if you want, ask other questions, how well does opening 2H on a five card suit do on average. This doesn't address whether there is a partnership agreement to do so, and added to the mix, even if you restrict the hand to "weak" the opening bid might be lucas or something, shoiwing five and another four card suit. So there is a lot of difficulty. Studying bids that start 1C and 16+ hcp will not tell you how precision works, because Standard players open 1C with 16+ all the time wihen 1C is the right opening bid. I dont think anyone has tried to build a bidding system using bridgebrowser data, or to support building one (an exception in a moment). This is richards complaint because he wants to study the impilcation of defined bids, which of course you don't have. You have a bid.. and a specifc time.

Of course, you could pick nunes and fulvio202 and use bridgebrowser to look at all the hands they have played on line at bbo (and if you know their nicks at okbridge). Then use bid analysis to subdivide each acution, then use plot to see the frequeny of hcp, distributions, and the like they have for every bid. So you could study systems that way, if the pair has enough hands. Or you can use bridgebrowser to find certain hand types, say a weak two on a five card suit, or discipline weak twos by how ever you define them, and then see how your system would have handled them. I used bridgebrowser to find 20,000 unique misiry hand types to use to build my misiry convention. That was too many, as I will not work much beyond a few thousand...

So study other players, get example hands to try yoru system on (download to pbn and use in partnership bidding), replay yoru hands dobule dummy, replay someone else hands where you can only see their hand, and prss the "next key" button, then see if the card you would have choosen is the card they would... great tool.... those replays are in pllayed on netbridgevu loaded from bridgebrowser and you click the hand of the player you want to play from , and decide on your card before you press "next" card button. Then there is also the option to replay the hands loaded from bridgebrowser in netbridgevu as double dummy, where you can pick the card to play (you have to be looking at all four hands to do that).

The for the maniacs, you can try the statistical stuff... the worse contact in bridge? I know you are thinknig 2NT.. but you would be wrong. The worse is 5NT, and it is not even particularily close. But then, brige logic would probably have told you that even if I hadn't found it out using bridgebrowser.

Thats a funny observation. I average playing in 5N about 3-4 times a year, and win about 8 imps/bd on those hands (I am estimating since I haven't written down all my results anywhere). I think I have a statistical sample of 20 boards in real live bridge which isn't a huge sample. but its enough to know this isn't a fluke (I have played that contract much more since I started playing relay. It probably was only a once a year contract before that)...

They tend to fall into two categories, on most of them the contract was 6 something at the other table, usually going down with 5N making, and occasionally the contract is 3 or 4N or 5m with 5N making for a push. I actually don't ever remember playing in 5N and going down. But I guess in the rank and file, when they play 5N its either because:
a. one of the players doesn't know what the bid means, and passed for a major accident
or
b. someone had already made a major overbid prior to them getting to 5N

Probably most a, someone passed "Choice of Slams".
For instance, I expect the auction (opps silent):
1N-5N-P
or
1N-2D-2H-5N-P
To score terribly since 5N was forcing in both auctions....
0

#49 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,566
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2006-October-12, 18:41

joshs, on Oct 12 2006, 04:29 PM, said:

Probably most a, someone passed "Choice of Slams".
For instance, I expect the auction (opps silent):
1N-5N-P
or
1N-2D-2H-5N-P
To score terribly since 5N was forcing in both auctions....

Well we can quickly dismiss these two auctions as a major cause to the bad results on average for 5NT. Lets look at the data for the most recent BBO tournament/team game database....

Here is the data... this is ALL the 5NT contracts. The first chart to look at is this one.. let's get orientated to the way this display works... On the left hand side is "bids" so 5NT is the bid that we are interested in. Note the columns have headers, ----
Bid open Interv Resp Adva Rebid other CtrOs CtrNOs AvIMP #Imp AvMP #MP

Well, bid is the bid, open means opening bid. One person opened 5NT. Intervention means person behind opener bids, so one person overcalled 5NT (and played it there), REsponse if the first bid in response to opener. So 14 people responded 5NT to the opening bid, the next bid is advancer, so after an overcall, 6 advancers jumped to 5NT, the next (rebid) is openers rebid, 60 people rebid 5NT, the next is the second rebid by overcaller, or rebid by responder or advancer.

So let;s test your first two hypotheses, first the bidding when 1x-5NT and opener mistakenly passed, or the auction went 1x-2y-2/3z-5NT and responder passed.

Posted Image

We find that only 14 out of 2465 auctions went 1x-5NT-pass. That is 0.5%, we can safely ignore that for the reason why 5NT is a bad contract. But while we are here, how bad did 1x-5NT do? We find this by using the slider. I have put a red square around the slider, and slide it over the "Resp" column. When you do this the last four columns show the results for these "14" hands. First, we see that 12 of the 14 5NT responses occured at imps (the 12 in the #imps) coumn, and these averaged a minus 3.91 imps. The two matchpoint hands, however were very good (85.22%).

Now lets look at auctions that went 1x-something-something-5NT rebid by responder as his second bid. There were 180 of these, which accounts for 7.3% of the auctions, taken together the auction you mentioned that account for the "bad results" of 5nt contract was less than 8% of all such auctions. When we move the slider over, we see that average result for responders rebid of 5NT (and playing 5NT) was -3.39 imps (115 auctions) and 36.67 (65 hands).

Posted Image

So could these 8% of all 5NT bids account for the poor result of 5NT? Lets see. We can slide the slider over CtrOS (contract opener side---upper chart below) or over CtrNOS (contract non-opener side ---lower chart) and see how the 5NT averages..

Posted Image

Posted Image

Well, as we can see, the average result for 5NT by either openign side or responder side were both WORSE than the average result for the two auctions you speculated caused the poor result. If it is not your view that people totally don't know how to bid, what could it be? By right clicking on one of the numbers (in this case the 2268 in the CtrOS you can plot the data, in lots of ways. Below is a plot of tricks won when 5NT was played by the opening side. I further clicked on just the column that took 11 tricks. The results of that click (the numbers below the chart) show that of the 2268 hands, 621 hands made exactly 11 tricks. When exactly 11 tricks were made, the average result was a nice +2.26 imps or 64.25% matchpoints. Slightly better than what the average 3NT making averages and no where near you +8 imps you are so lucky to make in your average 5NT contract.

The problem is 5NT is making on the nose only 25% of the time. When 5NT goes down, (click on all the bars with less than 11 tricks, and the software will show you the number of hands and averages for those, the result is a pitiful -9.03 imps and a frightening 11.87% at matchpoints. And when it makes one or two overtricks, the averages are -2.57 imps and only 44.28% matchpoints.
Posted Image

So i wonder what this data shows? So 25% a fair result, 75% of the time a bad result. It seems to show to me that playing 5NT carries the risk of going down when 3NT or 4NT was making, thus losing game bonus and giving opponents points to boot. Thus when you make you break roughly equal to those in game at a lower level, and when you go down, you lose big to them. It also has some mild risk you stopped one level too low, when the slam is making. You think 5H/5S is no mans land, overbidding game by one level, but not reaching slam, 5NT overbid the game level by two, but still gains ZERO bonus when it makes on the nose. That is all risk, no benefit. When stopping in 5NT is "good" is when you exited a slam auction that is going down, and then it is no better than 3NT for scoring purposes.
--Ben--

#50 User is offline   hotShot 

  • Axxx Axx Axx Axx
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,976
  • Joined: 2003-August-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-October-13, 06:41

If we want to investigate Free's 3NT lead hypothesis, we have to define precisely what we are looking for.

1) Obviously opps play 3NT.
2) The player who has the opening lead holds a 54xy distribution.
3) both suits are almost equal (honor strength) or the short suit is better

His only bidding example is (his side silent):
1 - 2
2NT - 3NT

Does this mean, it is a restriction, that his side is silent and if so, what is his partnerships agreement for overcalls with 5-4 distributions.
His example implies that opps don't need to open NT.

In this example opener is also declarer, is this a restriction too?
The hand given to this example is:


Both of his suits are unbid suits, is this a restriction too?

After reading the article my impression is, additional restrictions are:

4) Defending side had been silent.
5) Both of leaders suits are unbid.

Restriction 4 is the main problem when defining the search, because it depends on the overcall structure.

So it would be best to select deals from bridgebrowser that follows this restrictions.

1) Opener is declarer
2) The final contract is 3NT.
3) Defendig side has been silent.*
4) 2nd seat has 5-4 distribution with unbid suits.
5) Honor quality of the 4 card suit is better or about equal to the 5 card suit.

*Since overcall structures can be very complex this can mean a lot of different restrictions. I think it is possible to simplify by looking at opening bids 1 and 1NT to eliminate noise of lunatic 1-level overcalls. But to be accurate one would have to investigate all 1(something)- ...... - 3NT sequences seperately.

Since we need bidding information to select the deals, a simple double dummy solver won't help us much. But is bridgebrowser capable to apply these restrictions?

If so, we can look at the result set and compare the success, depending on the lead suit, if there are enough samples for both 4 and 5 card leads, we might see a significant result.
0

#51 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,566
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2006-October-13, 14:02

To follow up on the post in response to Josh about 5NT contracts, a little more data. First, one argument sent to me was that the average BBO players really isn't that good. Well, I disagree in principle (and just because the average player is self-rated as expert or higher). But I addressed this issue in two different ways. First, I want to assure you that no matter what database you look at, 5NT on average is the worse contract (if we leave out specifically some doubled and redouble contracts).

Here is the result of a contract search in an OKBridge Tournament database, The assumption most people seem to believe is that since people pay to be a member of OKBridge, only serious players play there (it is worth noting that thousands of these serious bridge players have moved to BBO, disproving the general claim).

From the chart below, looking just at the row for 5NT when the contract is played from the opener's side, we see almost identical numbers to that found on the BBO except there is a much higher frequency of hands played at matchpoints as opposed to imps. In the bbo database, 5NT earned an average of -4.08, in okbridge it was slightly worse at -4.42. The average matchpoint result was essentially identical (36.36 versus 37.23 ).

Posted Image

I think this is beginning to demonstrate that, for other than josh, 5NT on the average is a bad spot to play. The graph above also gives you a feel for the relatively frequency of contracts from 4H to 5NT. Note that 4NT and 5NT are very rare (compare to 4H and 4S for example). The averages here, like in the earlier post, hides some of the good info you can get at. For example, you can click on 4S and see how 4S faired when opening side had at least a 9 card fit, or a 10, or you can look to see how playing with 6-5 distribution compared to playing with 5332 distribution or all other distributions. But what we are interested in, again, is why is 5NT so bad. We can click on 5NT and see how 5NT faired when it made on the noise (no overtricks, no under tricks), and compare that to the data for the bbo database both in terms of frequency and average imps and matchpoints (see chart below)

Posted Image

This chart looks sort of familiar. Look two post up to the same plot of tricks taken on BBO when playing in 5NT. On BBO, 5NT making on the noise earned 2.26 imps, on Okbridge in their tournament? 2.05 imps And on the two sites, the average MP for making were very close, 64.30 versus 64.25. How about percentage. As we can see of the 721 5NT contract on okbridge, 214 made on the noise, almost 30%.

Such data is reproducible across different databases from both sites.

So the next argument is, no doubt, that the problem is the people playing the hands were on average too poor a player. So I searched a larger okbridge database for all 5NT contacts and I FORCED declarer to have a lehman's rating of at least 55 lehman rating and a partner with at least a 52 lehman. First I looked at the result for all 5NT plays, then I looked at the results for players with the minimum requirements. Note how close the full dataset data is to that from the other two databases studied.

FULL 5NT DATA
Posted Image

Now the data with the high lehman requirement. While this data should be biased considerably, in that their average result will surely get better. To do this search, I created a board file with all the hands in which anyone played 5NT. There where 7779 such boards. Then I combined a number of searches (the blued tabs show which ones I combined... Player, where I made at least one partner have a 55 rating, the other at least 55, the contract tab, which I made 4H to 5NT so you could see how different games faired when.. NOTE these contacts are restricted to 7779 boards that someone played 5NT on, I used the view tab to be sure the averages to speed up the search, and the bid analysis tab to generate the table shown in the image....

Posted Image

So what you see that on these hands, 5NT was still the worse contract, compared to the other contracts at game but below slam. For all these contracts, the declaring side had a minimum of a 52 lehman (I used OKBRIDGE's precise ratings for these players) and the second player a min of 55. Since all the "weak" players had been weeded out, this is true of all contracts. The average is still horrible, -2.75 imps and below average, but both are better than the general population. If you examine why, you will discover that 5NT made on the noise a total of 270 times, and that is out of 728 contracts, or 37%. When it made on the noise, the average result was +2.88 imps and 66.07 MP. If you use excel to lower these to the percentage of making on the noise contract (throw out 20% of the good results), the data will overlap that when 5NT made for the general population. Thus, the reason the good players did better, on average, in 5NT is that more of them made it (up from 30 to 37%). It is worht noting that on these "good hands" on average, if the partnership stopped in anything game less than 5NT they would have done better. Thus, 5NT being the worse contract still holds.

What if we restrict both players to a lehman of 60? That search is doable, but of course you tremeddously limit the number of hand you find. As you can imagine, a rating of 60 is VERY VERY good, and catching two players together with a 60 rating is fairly rare. I think it is safe to say that players with a OKBridge Rating of 60 or more are very good players (note, using okbridge rating, those with 0 will not be shown, nor those with hiddent ratings, as I have set minimum and max ratings). There were only 41 contracts total in 5NT when 60+ played opposite 60+ out of 16,6 million contracts. 38 of which after they opened the bidding, with 13 at imps, for -0.43 and 25 at MP for average 41.77. This just shows that better players get better results in the same contract, a point that can be driven home by seeing how people with rating s from 25 to 40 faired in 5NT, but I didn't bother. THe point is, you can use soooo many differnt criteria, in choosing the population of hands. I am not sure what Josh's rating is to average 8 imps per board, but it must be something like a 300 lehman's (yes, I know it only goes to 75).
--Ben--

#52 User is offline   Free 

  • mmm Duvel
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,728
  • Joined: 2003-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Duvel, Whisky

Posted 2006-October-13, 16:31

hotShot, on Oct 13 2006, 01:41 PM, said:

His only bidding example is (his side silent):
1 - 2
2NT - 3NT

This is not my only example. I also mentioned a 6-4 and some other hands which I didn't define. We now have the hand I played with Jillybean, but as I said in my post, I don't keep a database on these hands. Tonight I had one in my local club and it didn't matter if I lead my 4- or 5-card suit: same result. But I still tested it (got a top, but that was because declarer blew his line of play, not because of the lead)...

I agree that it doesn't have to be 1NT-3NT auctions, that partner was usually silent (otherwise you get other lead directing info), both of leader's suits are unbid is probably right as well, and that the strength in both suits should be equal or better in the short suit. But not that both players had to be silent, and that both suits need to be unbid. Ofcourse, if opponents bid your short suit it's probably not such a good idea to still lead it, but if they bid your long suit it might still pay off to lead it anyway.

Don't really want to react to Ben's post, it's just ridiculous to attack me while I say the same things Justin said (and you agree with this, but not with my words), but a bit more direct. You just keep going with your BRBR, perhaps we'll get some useful info, perhaps not. Whatever you say, I still don't think this is a job for BRBR, and we both know we won't be able to convince each other to change ones mind. You don't need to explain yourself, I just don't care after such reply of yours...
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
0

#53 User is offline   sfbp 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: 2003-March-14
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-October-13, 18:19

joshs, on Oct 12 2006, 02:29 PM, said:

I average playing in 5N about 3-4 times a year, and win about 8 imps/bd on those hands (I am estimating since I haven't written down all my results anywhere). I think I have a statistical sample of 20 boards in real live bridge which isn't a huge sample. but its enough to know this isn't a fluke (I have played that contract much more since I started playing relay. It probably was only a once a year contract before that)...

How often have you** played 5NT in online bridge, Josh? How did it work out?

Stephen

**or of course, partner
Stephen Pickett
co-founder HomeBase Club, author of BRidgeBRowser
0

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users