[cherdano]

Apollo81, on Jan 8 2008, 09:36 AM, said:

a grand life master in my area suggested acting over 3♦ was "obvious"

does that sway anyone's opinion?

No.

[miguelm]

Apollo81, on Jan 8 2008, 10:36 AM, said:

a grand life master in my area suggested acting over 3♦ was "obvious"

does that sway anyone's opinion?

Are you sure he got the hand correctly..... it really surprises me... a poor 13 point count, the shape is far from ideal, and the points are concentrated in opponent's and in the singleton suit.

Anyway, this is MPs, so I guess everything is possible

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jan 8 2008, 09:54 AM, said:

LOL. I'll be taking careful note of any posts in the future advocating "assumed fit" methods or weak openings by those who are saying "Bidding here is not Bridge!"

Somehow issues like Suit Quality don't matter nearly as much to them when they are advocating their pet methods.

Foo, as usual you're missing a few crucial points:

1. I'm one of the more prominent members of the forums who advocates using assumed fit methods. When I play Frelling Two Bids I do impose suit quality requirements for 4 card suits. I also exclude defensively orient hands (4441, 5440s, and the like) I'll also note that Frelling Two Bids have the word "two" in their name. The three level is rather different...

2. Assumed fit methods are designed to describe your holding in two different suits. If you impose strict/traditional suit quality requirements - HH or better - in two different suits you'll never have an appropriate hand for the call. (If you require HH in two different suits you're doubling the number of controls that you need)

Here you're advocating a 3♠ call

Said call shuts out the Heart suit completely. Furthermore, given that you are suggesting long Spades the conditional probability that you hold decent Spade honors increases dramatically.

[benlessard]

Quote

a grand life master in my area suggested acting over 3♦ was "obvious"
does that sway anyone's opinion?

LOL

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Jan 8 2008, 10:36 AM, said:

a grand life master in my area suggested acting over 3♦ was "obvious"

does that sway anyone's opinion?

Only of masterpoints.

[Apollo81]

Said player got lucky since he found good ol pard with AQ10 Kxx Q10 xxxxx

Would anyone reopen with gop's hand?

[foo]

Apollo81, on Jan 8 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

Said player got lucky since he found good ol pard with
AQT_Kxx_QT_xxxxx

Would anyone reopen with gop's hand?

I'll note that both I and the anonymous GLM both got this one correct.

...and I highly doubt anyone being honest is going to claim that they will balance after pa-(3D)-pa-pa;?? holding the given hand.

But since no one board proves a valid statistical argument, I repeat that this is yet another situation where a well designed simulation would be of interest.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Jan 8 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

Said player got lucky since he found good ol pard with AQ10 Kxx Q10 xxxxx

Would anyone reopen with gop's hand?

No, sometimes when partner has the best hand possible on the auction with which he won't act, and a fit for my longest suit, I miss a game.

[awm]

Here are some simulation results. I specified that we have the given hand, partner has a first seat pass in a moderately sound opening style, and RHO has seven diamonds with 5-11 hcp. Here are ten random hands under those conditions:

(1)

Scoring: MP

---

(2)

Scoring: MP

---

(3)

Scoring: MP

---

(4)

Scoring: MP

---

(5)

Scoring: MP

---

(6)

Scoring: MP

---

(7)

Scoring: MP

---

(8)

Scoring: MP

---

(9)

Scoring: MP

---

(10)

Scoring: MP

---

(11)

Scoring: MP

---

[Echognome]

foo, on Jan 8 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

I'll note that both I and the anonymous GLM both got this one correct.

How does it feel to be so right on this hand? And so wrong when compared to the vast majority of expert opinions on this forum?

[awm]

I think that bidding or doubling on the south cards came out better on these hands than I would expect, although obviously there are still bad ones. Here's my evaluation:

(1) 4♠ is cold. Partner is unlikely to balance. Unless you play methods where north can show a weak 5-5 hand, north would not open. Bidding or doubling wins this one.

(2) 3♠ should make, 4♠ will not make on good defense. Partner will probably bid game if you take any call. The 3♦ contract was not making. Bidding or doubling loses this one.

(3) A tricky hand to play or defend. It seems that 3♠ should make, possibly doubled. If you double 3♦, partner will bid four clubs which is probably one off. Opponents were not making 3♦. North arguably has an opening bid on this hand. Bid > Pass > Double

(4) Here both north and east might've opened at the one-level. In any case, 4♠ should make. Partner will probably balance over 3♦ in any case. This one is not realistic

(5) Here 3♠ is an absolute disaster, doubled down many tricks. Double gets you to 3♥ which is not much better. Pass > Double > Bid

(6) Here 3♠ should make. But partner may raise to 4♠ failing. The opponents should not make 3♦. I'll score this as Double > Bid == Pass since bidding may reach 4♠.

(7) You can make 4♠ on good play, but partner has a clear balancing call anyway. Call this a wash.

(8) Opponents can beat 3♠ on good defense, but 3♦ was making and opponents may not find the double. East's hand may be unrealistically strong. Call this a wash.

(9) You're pretty cold for 4♥, but 4♠ will probably fail on the bad break. You can beat 3♦ on defense. Call this Double > Pass > Bid.

(10) Opponents can beat 4♠ or 4♥ and may find a double of the latter. Partner will balance in any case. Another Push.

(11) Bidding will be a disaster. Double might get you to the making 3♥ though. Opponents were not making 3♦. Call this Double > Pass > Bid.

Overall totals on 10 hands (ignoring the unrealistic hand 4), 20 MPs available:

Bid: 7.5 Double: 12 Pass: 10.5

[jdonn]

I think partner has a clear balance as a passed hand on hand 1 which means everything is a push, and on hand 10 east will open 1♦ so I'll make it not exist. So I score out of 18 matchpoints Bid = 6, Double = 10.5, Pass = 11.5. That is about what I would have expected I think.

[awm]

jdonn, on Jan 8 2008, 10:44 PM, said:

I think partner has a clear balance as a passed hand on hand 1 which means everything is a push, and on hand 10 east will open 1♦ so I'll make it not exist. So I score out of 18 matchpoints Bid = 6, Double = 10.5, Pass = 11.5. That is about what I would have expected I think.

If you think north has a balance on hand one and it's all a push, then this gives you:

Bid: 7 Pass: 11.5 Double 11.5

Taking away hand 10 doesn't really change anything, since it was rated a push anyway:

Bid: 6 Pass 10.5 Double 10.5

Anyways, it seems like bidding is a bad idea, but doubling is (surprising to me) breaking even with pass.

[cherdano]

On hand 11, with Q7 98763 3 KQ653 partner might jump to 4♥ opposite a double?

[foo]

awm, on Jan 8 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

Here are some simulation results. I specified that we have the given hand, partner has a first seat pass in a moderately sound opening style, and RHO has seven diamonds with 5-11 hcp. Here are ten random hands under those conditions:

Since the traditional range for a opening 3 bid is 4-9 HCP, let's prune the 10-11's?

For the same reason we should consider so 4 HCP potential 3D openings (although I perfectly understand that a 2nd chair 3D opening may not consider any 4 HCP hand as appropriate.)

I have not looked at your posted examples yet.

[foo]

Here's what I see in a quick glance at awm's 11 examples.

B1= 4S makes
B2= 3S goes -1, 3D makes
B3= 3S makes
B4= 3S makes
B5= 4D makes, any NS contract is a disaster
B6= 3D-1, 4S makes
B7= 4S makes
B8= 3S makes
B9= What is this fascination with low percentage bad trump breaks? 3S makes.
B10= 3S makes
B11= Yet Another low percentage bad S break, 3S-1, 3D makes.

EDIT: Grrr! too many d@mn boards to avoid typos! Hopefully I've got them all now.

In all 11 cases, I have a hard time believing N will balance after pa-(3D)-pa-pa.
Board 3 is the most clear cut balance by N, and bidding 4C over 4D in the
Balance seat may be difficult. OTOH, I know many who would open 1C on the B3 N cards.

To makes the results statistically valid, the examples need to be weighted to their
chances of occuring. Far more 32 and 31 ♠ breaks are going to occur than
50 or 51 ♠ breaks given the bidding and S's hand! Some of the ♥ holdings are also in need of serious weighing. The odds of NS having a 7-8 card fit are not well represented in these examples.

These examples do not make me regret advocating bidding 3S.

[foo]

Justin, please reread my post. It took me a bunch of passes to remove all the typos cause by looking at too many baords at once while low on sleep.

My conclusion however has not changed based on awm's 11 examples.

I find B1, B3, and possibly B4 as the most likely balances. Of them, I know many who would open B3 and B4 in 1st or 2nd.

[jdonn]

Foo, do your partners never raise your 3S bids to 4S?

Foo, do you understand that simulations will accurately predict the amount of times you get a bad split etc, and as the amount of trials approaches infinity the true odds are going to come out. If you are complaining about the 10 hand sample being too small then why are you trying to use it to prove your point? You cannot have it both ways.

Foo, do you understand that when the opponents preempt bad splits become much more likely than the a priori odds?

Foo, do you really believe you are an advanced/expert player who is qualified to participate in discussions with other advanced/expert players and speak with authority, risking the lesser experienced forum users thinking you actually know what you are talking about?

[helene_t]

Apollo81, on Jan 8 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

Said player got lucky since he found good ol pard with AQ10 Kxx Q10 xxxxx

Would anyone reopen with gop's hand?

I would probably not balance but it would not be absurd to do so. Bidding anything on S's hand would be absurd, IMHO.