[CSGibson]

Playing in the GNT superflight today, this auction came up:

Scoring: IMP

1♦-(P)-1♠-(P),
2♦-(P)-P-(X),
P-(P)-?

---

Is redouble here trying to find another playable spot?

Do you use that option, or do you just take your lumps?

[Fluffy]

I0d just pass, LHO didn't double before, he is kind of gamblimg.

[rogerclee]

I think xx is rescue here. I can't construct any hands that passed 2♦ and now really think 2♦xx is making and that they have no good save.

But on the actual hand, I think pass is automatic.

[han]

I agree with roger.

[cherdano]

SOS redoubles at the 2-level are overrated.

[gnasher]

Redouble would be SOS, but I don't think this is the hand for it. Whilst partner might be 4=5 in the reds or 6=4 in the minors, he might also be 1=3=6=3. For a redouble, I'd want something like J1098x KJx - QJ109x, where there is more hope of improving the contract.

[benlessard]

Easy pass, I like to have a void to xx.

[Free]

If you're redoubling, you might as well just bid 2♥...

[whereagles]

lol.. more simulation fodder. Without assumptions for opps hands, we get, after 614484 hands, suit lengths of:

spades: 2.34559
hearts: 2.4721
diamonds: 5.76377
clubs: 2.41854
pard hcp: 12.7792
pard hcp in diamonds: 5.44424

This hints at a 2♠ bid.... lol

[gnasher]

whereagles, on Apr 14 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

lol.. more simulation fodder. Without assumptions for opps hands, we get, after 614484 hands, suit lengths of:

spades: 2.34559
hearts: 2.4721
diamonds: 5.76377
clubs: 2.41854
pard hcp: 12.7792
pard hcp in diamonds: 5.44424

This hints at a 2♠ bid.... lol

You can prove almost anything with a simulation, as long as you get the parameters right. In this instance you seem to have assumed that with three-card support opener would frequently (or always?) rebid diamonds rather than raising to 2♠.

If I were opener, my number average number of spades would be well under 2, because with almost any minimum hand containing three-card support I would have raised. Furthermore, on the small number of hands where I'd have rebid 2♦ in spite of having three-card support, I would have very good diamonds, which is rendered unlikely by the opponents' actions.

[MFA]

whereagles, on Apr 14 2008, 06:26 AM, said:

lol.. more simulation fodder. Without assumptions for opps hands, we get, after 614484 hands, suit lengths of:

spades: 2.34559
hearts: 2.4721
diamonds: 5.76377
clubs: 2.41854
pard hcp: 12.7792
pard hcp in diamonds: 5.44424

This hints at a 2♠ bid.... lol

Something is terribly wrong with the numbers...

[mcphee]

Redble is not my thought at all, even if partner did hold 4H I doubt that would be a better spot with a trump lead. Same hand at the other table and possibly the same problem, why are we making a decision that could prove very wrong?

[gnasher]

whereagles, on Apr 14 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

hearts: 2.4721
clubs: 2.41854

There's something a bit smelly about these numbers too. Opener will often bid 2♦ with 4♥ and 5♦, but never with 4♣ and 5♦. I'd expect a much bigger difference between his average heart and club lengths.

[whereagles]

Yes, there was a bug in the code about hearts and clubs. Here're the new figures.

spades: 2.09555
hearts: 3.1117
diamonds: 5.60782
clubs: 2.18493
hcp: 12.7525
hcp in diamonds: 5.38587
Generated 10000000 hands
Produced 942490 hands

So most likely shape is now 2362 and this argues for a pass.

[ArtK78]

If this were matchpoints, you should redouble (SOS), as your opponents have told you that 2♦x is not making, so you are trying to get out of what is likely to already to be a terrible score. If you make it worse, it doesn't matter much.

At IMPs, however, the magnitude of the minus is relevant. You don't want to make the situation any worse than it already is. You were going to pass 2♦ if they didn't double, so there is no reason to run now that you are doubled.

Sit and take your lumps, and hope that your teammates duplicate the result.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Apr 14 2008, 02:26 PM, said:

lol.. more simulation fodder. Without assumptions for opps hands, we get, after 614484 hands, suit lengths of:

spades: 2.34559
hearts: 2.4721
diamonds: 5.76377
clubs: 2.41854
pard hcp: 12.7792
pard hcp in diamonds: 5.44424

This hints at a 2♠ bid.... lol

No offense, but posts like this one are a waste of pixels:

As Gnasher already commented, you can prove almost anything with a simulation.

Simulations can be quite valuable, however, if you want to start a discussion about the results of your simulation you really need to document

1. The assumptions that were used to develop your simulation
2. The code that you used to write your simulation

Both of these are much more important than your results

[whereagles]

I don't want to prove anything. And the assumptions were self-evident, which is why I didn't wrote them. Still, if this bothers you, you can read the code for yourself.

generate 10000000

predeal
        south SJ9532, HKJ9, D3, CQ943

pard2D  = hcp(north)>10 and hcp(north)<16
          and diamonds(north)>4
          and clubs(north)<4
          and spades(north)<4

condition
        pard2D

action
        average "spades" spades(north),
        average "hearts" hearts(north),
        average "diamonds" diamonds(north),
        average "clubs" clubs(north),
        average "hcp" hcp(north),
        average "hcp in diamonds" hcp(north, diamonds)

[TimG]

Fluffy, on Apr 12 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

I0d just pass, LHO didn't double before, he is kind of gamblimg.

LHO has balanced, I suppose that could be considered gambling. It's RHO who holds the diamonds and who has converted the double. It may not be fashionable these days, but trap passing can be quite effective -- looks like it has hit pay dirt here.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Apr 14 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

I don't want to prove anything. And the assumptions were self-evident, which is why I didn't wrote them. Still, if this bothers you, you can read the code for yourself.

generate 10000000

predeal
 [space] [space] [space] [space]south SJ9532, HKJ9, D3, CQ943

pard2D [space]= hcp(north)>10 and hcp(north)<16
 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]and diamonds(north)>4
 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]and clubs(north)<4
 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]and spades(north)<4

condition
 [space] [space] [space] [space]pard2D

action
 [space] [space] [space] [space]average "spades" spades(north),
 [space] [space] [space] [space]average "hearts" hearts(north),
 [space] [space] [space] [space]average "diamonds" diamonds(north),
 [space] [space] [space] [space]average "clubs" clubs(north),
 [space] [space] [space] [space]average "hcp" hcp(north),
 [space] [space] [space] [space]average "hcp in diamonds" hcp(north, diamonds)

Your assumptions were far from self evident:

For example, up until now, I didn't know that your simulation treated

♠ 9
♥ AK7342
♦ K7532
♣ 9

As a hand suitable for a 1♦ opening and a 2♦ rebid after partner's 1♠ advance.

In a similar vein, I believe that

♠ K3
♥ Q63
♦ AK732
♣ K74

Would appear to be a 1♦ opening, followed by a 2♦ rebid rather than a 1NT opening.

Oh yes, from what i can tell your simulation doesn't permit a 1♦ opening on hands like

♠ K653
♥ K73
♦ A763
♣ K8

Given the number of elementary coding mistakes that you seem to make, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask you state specifically what you are doing and then demonstrate that you are actually achieving this end.

[whereagles]

Dude, you can get as picky as you want, but it won't change the fact that the true results probably won't differ much from the bugged ones, which took like 1 minute to code and run. You probably heard of Pareto's law, no?