[gnasher]

NickRW, on May 28 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

Quote

I reproduced your conditions using Thomas Andrew's excellent Deal program,

I'm currently using the freebie download dealer that is on Richard Pavlicek's site - it is moderately sophisticated, but really tedious to make truly complex filtering criteria. Perhaps I'll look at alternatives.

Thomas Andrews's program doesn't do double-dummy analysis unless you also have a copy of GIB. Bo Haglund's Bridge Deals Simulator uses Thomas Andrews's dealer and its own double-dummy analyser, but it's not particularly sophisticated or easy to use.

What do you using for the anaylsis? As I understand it, Pavlicek's program is only a dealer.

Quote

Anway, if I'm going to get the third degree doing unpaid analyses for you lot, frankly I don't feel much disposed to sharing information with you - you clearly don't want it.

I wouldn't look for gratitude from an internet bridge forum. Anyway, it was mostly constructive torture, wasn't it?

[NickRW]

gnasher, on May 28 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

Thomas Andrews's program doesn't do double-dummy analysis unless you also have a copy of GIB.  Bo Haglund's Bridge Deals Simulator uses Thomas Andrews's dealer and its own double-dummy analyser, but it's not particularly sophisticated or easy to use.

What do you using for the anaylsis?  As I understand it, Pavlicek's program is only a dealer.

You can get a copy of GIB off the net. Richard's program outputs "RBN" files, and he also has a utility to convert to PBN. And there is another utility, pbntopar, made by a Kiwi I think, that will feed a PBN file into GIB.

Quote

I wouldn't look for gratitude from an internet bridge forum.  Anyway, it was mostly constructive torture, wasn't it?

Well - no - I didn't find it that way. The OP posted a question. In the manner of typical bridge questions the problem is not formally stated - no definition of what system you or the opponents are playing etc. Then various people, many of whom may be quite expert and all, no doubt, well meaning, write in and say, "I'd bid this" and someone else says, "I'd bid that", largely without any justification for their choices. And when someone comes along and at least tries to apply a bit of method to coming up with an answer, the method comes in for scrutiny. Why? Why aren't posters attacking each other's frequently unjustified opinions and demanding how those answers were derived?

And then there are other threads moaning about how simulations are rubbish blah blah blah, unscientific, more blah blah blah. I mean, gimme a break, "accumulated wisdom" is someway better how?

Nick

[mike777]

Nick ty for your posts.

Yes I am very interested in the comments and reasons why people are making the bids they are making. The thought process they post is very interesting to me.

As the title hopefully implies this is a Bridge World problem BW-A so pls assume Bridge World Standard or something close, assume your opp are WC players and again they are playing BWS, again ty for posting.

[gnasher]

NickRW, on May 28 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

Then various people, many of whom may be quite expert and all, no doubt, well meaning, write in and say, "I'd bid this" and someone else says, "I'd bid that", largely without any justification for their choices.

Whilst that's sometimes true, I don't think it's so in this thread: most of the respondents gave reasons for their choice.

Quote

And when someone comes along and at least tries to apply a bit of method to coming up with an answer, the method comes in for scrutiny.  Why?  Why aren't posters attacking each other's frequently unjustified opinions and demanding how those answers were derived?

If you offer what appear to be scientific results, people will expect a scientific approach. That is, they'll expect you to publish not just your results but also how they were obtained, and then they'll expect the right to comment on both the method and the results.

Imagine the alternative: someone posts a problem; Frances says "My simulation says you should bid 3♦"; Josh says that his simulation recommends 3NT; Justin says his simulation is laughing so much at their simulations that it can't compute a result. No one tells anyone else what parameters they used, and we are no further forward than when we started.

Quote

And then there are other threads moaning about how simulations are rubbish blah blah blah, unscientific, more blah blah blah.

I don't think that's fair either. The thread that 655321 linked to contained criticism of one specific simulation, not of simulations in general. That some of the exchanges were rather ill-tempered doesn't make the criticism any less legitimate.

Simulations are a useful tool for improving one's judgement, but the value of a given simulation depends on how closely it represents a real game of bridge. If I published the details of a simulation, I'd welcome other people's criticism of it. How could I reduce the flaws in my method if I didn't know about them?

[awm]

A couple points about simulation parameters:

(1) I think a lot of people will overcall 1♠ on five good spades and 8-9 hcp. The given parameters seem to assume spades+hcp >= 15, which forbids an overcall on these hands and has the effect of making opener passing look better (because the opposing side guarantees more values).

(2) It seems weird to bid a non-forcing 2♦ holding even three spades. The given parameters assume that 2♦ bidder won't have four spades, but permit three. With a suit headed by at most the queen, it's normal to raise partner's major with 3 trumps rather than naming diamonds.