[han]

foo, on May 22 2007, 10:58 AM, said:

To Hannie:  You want to have a discussion as to whether what I did was mathematically sound, let's do it privately.

You want to have a private discussion about mathematics? In bridge you can get away with saying stupid things and then saying to agree to disagree, but it doesn't work that way in mathematics. Once you give the right answer, there is no discussion possible.

I didn't post this just for your benefit, I know that you are doing alternative mathematics and you won't accept truth even if it hits you in the face. I didn't post to insult you either. I can't stand it when gibberish like that is posted and it is taken as correct but useless. It makes me very upset. Call it a character flaw if you wish, I have many.

[han]

FrancesHinden, on May 22 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

The one conclusion I've seen elsewhere that I now disagree srongly with is that 4S is much more likely to be right than 5D. I learnt from the simulation that this is very unlikely to be the case.

Thank you.

[foo]

I think I may see one of the sources of disagreement here.

Styles vary, but for me =in front of GOP= a hand with 2+ defensive tricks (one of which usually has to be an A) and 6 losers is a 1bid, not a preempt. I also tend strongly to avoid having anything that could be considered a 2suiter or that has support for a side Major when I preempt at the 4 or 5 level.

EDIT: I also am fairly careful to stick to the "Rule of 2 and 3" when preempting in 1st or 2nd at the Game level. The odds of a X. even a light X, hitting the table are much higher when you preempt in Game IME.

So
x.KQJTxxxx.KJT.x and ..KQTxxxxx.xx.AJx are reasonable 4H Preempts IMHO, but they are absolute maximums.

The given x.AQJTxxx.Tx.Axx is a 1H bid IMHO, not a 4H preempt.

As Frances noted, the stronger the hand is that opens 4H, the higher the odds that not passing is correct.
The reverse is also true: the weaker the 4H preempt (ask 'em if they play Namyats when in doubt!), the more careful you have to be about direct action. Particularly in front of GOP; and especially at Unfavorable. Even more so Unfavorable at IMPs.

[foo]

Hannie, on May 22 2007, 12:46 PM, said:

foo, on May 22 2007, 10:58 AM, said:

To Hannie:  You want to have a discussion as to whether what I did was mathematically sound, let's do it privately.

You want to have a private discussion about mathematics? In bridge you can get away with saying stupid things and then saying to agree to disagree, but it doesn't work that way in mathematics. Once you give the right answer, there is no discussion possible.

I didn't post this just for your benefit, I know that you are doing alternative mathematics and you won't accept truth even if it hits you in the face. I didn't post to insult you either. I can't stand it when gibberish like that is posted and it is taken as correct but useless. It makes me very upset. Call it a character flaw if you wish, I have many.

I don't give a sh*t about your character flaws or your manners or lack thereof.

I =do= care about the truth.

I 100% agree with your POV on math; and I find your comment that I don't care what the truth is infuriating and insulting.

I used different methods, not "alternative math" (whatever the h&ll that is).
If you think said methods are erroneous, please feel free to prove it.
That's the 2nd time I've made that invite.

I don't spend hours on stuff and post it just to see myself in print. I'm honestly trying to find out what the truth is here; and since the situation =is= rooted in mathematics, there =is= an objective truth to be found.

I suspect you and I have similar (in)tolerance for gibberish and stupidity. Try assuming that and simply prove my logic wrong if you disagree with it. I'll actually be quite happy to learn what I've done wrong and improve my methods.

Otherwise, <expletive deleted>

[jdonn]

foo, on May 22 2007, 01:21 PM, said:

If you think said methods are erroneous, please feel free to prove it.
That's the 2nd time I've made that invite.

HE DID!!!

See this post
[quote name='Hannie' date='May 22 2007, 02:35 AM']

[Halo]

Come on. At this vulnerability this is an 'instinct' choice.

I voted for 5♦. I would still bid that way after this thread.

But I don't care if the next post is a composite of all the world champions still alive or contactable - the alternative view to pass is valid and may well be the winning action.

[han]

It was pointed out to me that my 2:35AM post is relevant to bridge too.

It comes up like this:

Imagine having AK1092 in hand and 43 in dummy. You have to play the suit for one loser and you only have one entry to dummy. What is the best line?

3-3 splits always work, 5-1 splits or worse never work, 4 cards offside is irrelevant, so the only thing to worry about is 4 cards onside and 2 offside. And you also can ignore QJ doubleton offside. Hx offside is 4:3 times as likely as xx offside. Or equivalently, Hxxx onside is 4:3 times as likely as QJxx.

So the percentage play is to cash ace-king.

[Echognome]

Foo - We don't need anything complicated to see a flaw. If we simply change the question slightly to "What is the most likely hand for LHO?" rather than "What is the most likely hand for partner?" we see that the answers to these two questions should be the same. The fact that the once you know one of the two remaining unknown hands gives you the last unknown hand, should show you the symmetry result that Han was talking about. If not, then you have to go back and check your simulation as something is wrong.

I grant that Han was initially doing a slightly different sanity check and found that the results you gave could not be correct. Either way, I think you should go back to the drawing board.

[Fluffy]

About the simulations, I really like them, read all you said and found it kinda useful.

It looks at MPs it is a bit better to bid but close, but at IMPs I would say the low swings for changing -450 into -500 or +50 into -100 go all to the pass side, then I would guess bidding is even better at IMPs.

I supose if you have problems deciding if 5♦ should make of go 1 off it would be impossible to apply some extra math to diferentiate from the 2, 3, 4 IMP swings and the 12-15 ones.

[Apollo81]

I think the real problem with passing here is that partner is almost surely going to pass due to his heart length and probable balancedish hand. SOMEONE has to take action when the partnership's game or slam values are split.