[Cascade]

mikeh, on Mar 6 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 5 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

Here are my results from a similar simulation to Mike's.

The similation is double dummy.

The constraints were partner has any 5♠-3-3-2 hand and fifteen or sixteen hcp.

Like Mike it seems clear to accept and offer hearts - hearts was the most likely best strain.

Frequency spades:
 [space] [space]0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1
 [space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3
 [space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] 15
 [space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space]112
 [space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]311
 [space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]341
 [space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space]217
Frequency no trumps:
 [space] [space]0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]8
 [space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space] 66
 [space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]260
 [space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]445
 [space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space]221
Frequency hearts:
 [space] [space]0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]0
 [space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2
 [space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space] 63
 [space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]246
 [space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]425
 [space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space]264

Sorry Wayne, but I don't like double-dummy simulations in support of bidding propositions.

They over-estimate the success of aggressive bidding.

Take a simple but relevant extrapolation of the actual heart suit: assume A108xx opposite KJ9.

The correct percentage play for no losers is to cash the K and lead the J. We lose whenever the Q is in front of the KJ9, unless it is stiff. We should assess contracts on that basis.. double-dummy, you will pick up the suit on all 3-2 or 4-1 breaks... significantly increasing the percentage of hands on which bidding slam works.

While double-dummy analysis will occasionally result in the failure of a real-life contract, because the defence finds a double-dummy defence, most of the edge goes to the side with the greater resources... i.e. declarer.

I understand fully.

I will try and do a single-dummy simulation here and see what the difference is. It might have to be after the weekend.

On another recent problem with a control rich invite to game the double dummy and single dummy results were similar. At a higher level I would expect or at least I have been told double dummy is more likely to favour declarer.

This would be a reason why my numbers are slightly more favourable for the slam.

[skjaeran]

Our agreements here is to answer to RKCB at 5-level and bid natural with a good 5c-suit at 6-level to suggest another strain when accepting.

I'd accept with this hand.

The hearts aren't strong enough to suggest 6♥ and I'd not show my number of KC, since that suggest 3c support. I'd thus try 5NT - pick a slam. If partner suggest a minor suit I'm correcting to 6♠, which partner then passes or recorrects to 6NT. If partner suggest 6♥ I'm obviously passing.

[jdonn]

skaeran, on Mar 6 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

Our agreements here is to answer to RKCB at 5-level and bid natural with a good 5c-suit at 6-level to suggest another strain when accepting.

I'd accept with this hand.

The hearts aren't strong enough to suggest 6♥ and I'd not show my number of KC, since that suggest 3c support. I'd thus try 5NT - pick a slam. If partner suggest a minor suit I'm correcting to 6♠, which partner then passes or recorrects to 6NT. If partner suggest 6♥ I'm obviously passing.

If partner bids a minor with these methods why not bid 6♥? He will know they aren't better since you didn't bid it over 4NT, and if he doesn't like hearts he can always suggest spades himself on the way to 6NT. That must be a better strategy.

[han]

Harald, I would rather pass than move to slam if I knew I couldn't play hearts.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Mar 6 2008, 09:38 PM, said:

skaeran, on Mar 6 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

Our agreements here is to answer to RKCB at 5-level and bid natural with a good 5c-suit at 6-level to suggest another strain when accepting.

I'd accept with this hand.

The hearts aren't strong enough to suggest 6♥ and I'd not show my number of KC, since that suggest 3c support. I'd thus try 5NT - pick a slam. If partner suggest a minor suit I'm correcting to 6♠, which partner then passes or recorrects to 6NT. If partner suggest 6♥ I'm obviously passing.

If partner bids a minor with these methods why not bid 6♥? He will know they aren't better since you didn't bid it over 4NT, and if he doesn't like hearts he can always suggest spades himself on the way to 6NT. That must be a better strategy.

Agree Josh. You should rebid 6♥ over 6m. Obviously a little too tired. Soon getting to bed.

[skjaeran]

han, on Mar 6 2008, 09:41 PM, said:

Harald, I would rather pass than move to slam if I knew I couldn't play hearts.

Since you'd declare 6♥ yourself, I can't understand that sentiment Han.

[Cascade]

A small sample - 100 hands.

Double dummy tricks compared with single dummy tricks.

I limited the simulation to the hand in the opening post opposite 15-16 hcp with five spades and three hearts and three-two or two-three in the minors.

Tr    DD    SD
13    25    18
12    43    51
11    28    21
10     4     9
 9      0     1

mean  11.89 11.76

[han]

skaeran, on Mar 6 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

han, on Mar 6 2008, 09:41 PM, said:

Harald, I would rather pass than move to slam if I knew I couldn't play hearts.

Since you'd declare 6♥ yourself, I can't understand that sentiment Han.

Huh? Wait...


Wayne, mikeh's simulation didn't assume that responder had 3 hearts. Of course, if we knew responder had 3 hearts then we'd obviously bid on.

[Cascade]

I know the purpose of this simulation was just to determine the difference between DD and SD tricks.

I thought that comparison might be skewed if you forced GIB to declare a non-fit 6♥.

The earlier simulation that I did did not make this assumption.

[han]

Ah, ok!