[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 13 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

All I'm saying is in that case your argument should have been "and some of the hands where partner has a penalty pass we are going -470" instead of "and some of the hands where partner has a penalty pass we are only getting 100". You made an argument in favor of doubling.

Incorrect it only means on the subset of hands where passing results in 50 and doubling results in 100 double is better. It does not logically follow that this argument is in favour of doubling on all hands.

[jdonn]

Lol. And people say it's Americans who can't speak English.

[Cascade]

Excuse me?

[TimG]

Cascade, on Jul 12 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

♠ KJ763 ♥ Tx ♦ x ♣ AJ762 -470/+100 (we need three trump tricks to beat it) 3♣ probably makes

I gave south these cards and north the cards from the opening post. This means that EW have 25 HCP and bid P-2♠-P.

Still, I gave east something of a normal weak two: 6+ spades or 5 spades in a 55 or 54 hand (but not 5 hearts on the side) and 6-11 HCP. That means west had at most 2 spades and I also restricted west to fewer than 6 hearts.

Double dummy simulation results in 2♠ going down about 95% of the time and 3♣ making about 1% of the time.

I know that double dummy has its flaws, but this hardly seems like "3♣ probably makes".

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 12 2009, 11:51 PM, said:

Excuse me?

In your prior post you accidentally inserted the word "not", so what else could I say?

[Cascade]

TimG, on Jul 14 2009, 01:11 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 12 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

♠ KJ763 ♥ Tx ♦ x ♣ AJ762  -470/+100 (we need three trump tricks to beat it) 3♣ probably makes

I gave south these cards and north the cards from the opening post. This means that EW have 25 HCP and bid P-2♠-P.

Still, I gave east something of a normal weak two: 6+ spades or 5 spades in a 55 or 54 hand (but not 5 hearts on the side) and 6-11 HCP. That means west had at most 2 spades and I also restricted west to fewer than 6 hearts.

Double dummy simulation results in 2♠ going down about 95% of the time and 3♣ making about 1% of the time.

I know that double dummy has its flaws, but this hardly seems like "3♣ probably makes".

How many of these had five-card spade suits? The frequency of those will increase the chance of 2♠ failing.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 14 2009, 03:15 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 12 2009, 11:51 PM, said:

Excuse me?

In your prior post you accidentally inserted the word "not", so what else could I say?

LOL

There is no accidental "not".

[TimG]

Cascade, on Jul 13 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 14 2009, 01:11 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 12 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

♠ KJ763 ♥ Tx ♦ x ♣ AJ762  -470/+100 (we need three trump tricks to beat it) 3♣ probably makes

I gave south these cards and north the cards from the opening post. This means that EW have 25 HCP and bid P-2♠-P.

Still, I gave east something of a normal weak two: 6+ spades or 5 spades in a 55 or 54 hand (but not 5 hearts on the side) and 6-11 HCP. That means west had at most 2 spades and I also restricted west to fewer than 6 hearts.

Double dummy simulation results in 2♠ going down about 95% of the time and 3♣ making about 1% of the time.

I know that double dummy has its flaws, but this hardly seems like "3♣ probably makes".

How many of these had five-card spade suits? The frequency of those will increase the chance of 2♠ failing.

A quick 100 deal sample shows 81 5-card spade suits and 19 6-card spade suits.

5 of the 81 and 2 of the 19 made 8 tricks in spades (double dummy).

No deals resulted in 9 tricks in clubs.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Jul 14 2009, 09:06 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 13 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 14 2009, 01:11 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 12 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

♠ KJ763 ♥ Tx ♦ x ♣ AJ762  -470/+100 (we need three trump tricks to beat it) 3♣ probably makes

I gave south these cards and north the cards from the opening post. This means that EW have 25 HCP and bid P-2♠-P.

Still, I gave east something of a normal weak two: 6+ spades or 5 spades in a 55 or 54 hand (but not 5 hearts on the side) and 6-11 HCP. That means west had at most 2 spades and I also restricted west to fewer than 6 hearts.

Double dummy simulation results in 2♠ going down about 95% of the time and 3♣ making about 1% of the time.

I know that double dummy has its flaws, but this hardly seems like "3♣ probably makes".

How many of these had five-card spade suits? The frequency of those will increase the chance of 2♠ failing.

A quick 100 deal sample shows 81 5-card spade suits and 19 6-card spade suits.

5 of the 81 and 2 of the 19 made 8 tricks in spades (double dummy).

No deals resulted in 9 tricks in clubs.

1. I think a weak two with odds of 4:1 in favour of five-card suits is reasonably unlikely even given that we have a five spades.

2. Maybe my eyeball estimate was wrong. I was doing this in quiet moments while I was directing and probably rushed the last one. I might not have assumed the best lead was automatic. The best lead is probably a trump but a spade lead allows for some ruffs. And a non-heart lead allows for a heart loser to vanish.

[pirate22]

against weak 2's we play a system assuming all 2's d/h/s are weak

if 2h or 2sp opened pard bids his best tolerance minor guareenteeing min 4 cards in other major---if single suited 5/6 cards in other major just bids 2s/3hts amd competing a x over majoris competing--if 2d opened weak we treat them as 1's x therefore is t/o

going back to 2 either maj by opp 2n.t is for minors

on the given hand i would bid 3 diamonds and its pards decision he knows i have a ht suit--------probably bids 4 hts no heroics and await developements

obviously one is aware of vuln all round- if one should decide to pass pard can apply same tactics

if you pass and pard says x thats for penalties--but if you 2/3/points one can take out-he would have used the system bids regards

[benlessard]

At imps its a clear pass. At MP its borderline and i think double is ok because they wont X you.