[mike777]

10% NOrth
20% South
70% Rub of the green.

[rhm]

gnasher, on Oct 18 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

rhm, on Oct 18 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

From South perspective North is more likely to have a much stronger hand with 5-4 or 5-5 in the majors than the actual one.
From South perspective with a likely trick more in ♥,  I would rather overbid and be in game in ♥ than playing 3♠.

Why are hearts likely to play a trick better than spades opposite a game-try?

I admit that "likely" may be an overbid.

I did a simulation (1000 deals) with the South hand specifying 2 and 3 for the small cards

I specified for North

5 or 6 cards in ♠
At least 4 cards in ♥, but ♥ never longer than ♠
13-15 HCP

Result:

3♠ made on 721 deals
4♥ made on 442 deals
4♠ made on 375 deals

So when game makes double dummy, game in ♥ was almost 18% more likely to make than in ♠
Also if you accept my restraints for the simulation, 4♥ can hardly be criticized vulnerable at IMPs

As you can see from these statistics playing in ♥ had on average an advantage over ♠, but this advantage was reduced because surprisingly often it was better to play in ♠, when for example trumps broke 4-1 in ♥

One more consideration:

North may have bid 3♥ to find out which game to play rather than whether to play game.
If you bid now 3♠ over 3♥ you can say good bye to your 4-4 fit in ♥.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

I did another simulation (1000) deals based on the North hand

My specification for South

3 or 4 card support in ♠

8-10p including distributional points for short side suits as follows

If South had 3 card support in ♠ 123p (doubleton, singleton, void, but voids were very rare and South was usually short in ♥)
If South had 4 card support in ♠ 135p for short suits

Result

game in ♠ was on in 222 deals
3♠ made in 588 deals

This confirms my suspicion that a game try is against the odds.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on Oct 19 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

5 or 6 cards in ♠
At least 4 cards in ♥, but ♥ never longer than ♠
13-15 HCP

I think these constraints might be distorting the results somewhat. When opener is 5-5 in the 13-15 range, he will often insist on game himself.

[billw55]

I guess "assign blame" means we assume something is wrong? Here 4♠ can make with trumps 2-2 and catching the ♥Q. I suppose that is pretty low odds though.

If anyone is to blame I think it must be north. I put myself in south's seat: partner's 3♥ is a game try. It says, bid game with help in hearts. He is not asking about the quality of my minor suit holdings! I have what he asked for so that is the answer I give. I don't really see an alternative here. 3♠ over 3♥? That says "sorry p no help in hearts". How will north keep confidence in me on future deals, if I deny what I have for no reason?

North, on the other hand, has decided to make a game try with a near bottom-scraping minimum opener. Only he can know that minor suit values could be wasted. So I say 100% north (of what blame there is).

[Codo]

I bet that all of you had been in much worse games. So I join the lone voice who said this is more bad luck then something to blame.

Switch the red suit jack and queen in the south hand and you want to be in game.
Switch both minor queens to the king of diamonds and game is fine.

Can south see that these cards would make a difference? No way.

No blame.

[gnasher]

Codo, on Oct 19 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

Switch the red suit jack and queen in the south hand and you want to be in game.
Switch both minor queens to the king of diamonds and game is fine.

Can south see that these cards would make a difference?

Yes. Opposite a long-suit game-try in hearts, either of those changes improves the South hand.

[jdonn]

rhm, on Oct 19 2009, 05:22 AM, said:

I did another simulation (1000) deals based on the North hand

My specification for South

3 or  4 card support in ♠

8-10p including distributional points for short side suits as follows

If South had 3 card support in ♠ 123p  (doubleton, singleton, void, but voids were very rare and South was usually short in ♥)
If South had 4 card support in ♠ 135p for  short suits

Result

game in ♠ was on in 222 deals
3♠ made in 588 deals

This confirms my suspicion that a game try is against the odds.

Rainer Herrmann

It most certainly does not. If south gets the decision right all the time then about half of the acceptances will make game. You also didn't include downgrades (your algorithm counts QJ doubleton of a side suit as 4 points, and singleton king as 6!!! points) or make an allowance to include 3(334) 11 counts which are clearly constructive raises. I mean the way you wrote that, Jxx Jxxx Jxxxx K is a constructive raise.

[rhm]

jdonn, on Oct 19 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

rhm, on Oct 19 2009, 05:22 AM, said:

I did another simulation (1000) deals based on the North hand

My specification for South

3 or  4 card support in ♠

8-10p including distributional points for short side suits as follows

If South had 3 card support in ♠ 123p  (doubleton, singleton, void, but voids were very rare and South was usually short in ♥)
If South had 4 card support in ♠ 135p for  short suits

Result

game in ♠ was on in 222 deals
3♠ made in 588 deals

This confirms my suspicion that a game try is against the odds.

Rainer Herrmann

It most certainly does not. If south gets the decision right all the time then about half of the acceptances will make game. You also didn't include downgrades (your algorithm counts QJ doubleton of a side suit as 4 points, and singleton king as 6!!! points) or make an allowance to include 3(334) 11 counts which are clearly constructive raises. I mean the way you wrote that, Jxx Jxxx Jxxxx K is a constructive raise.

You seem to forget that a simulation of a large number of deals is done by software and I make it a habit to check a few of the generated deals, whether they make sense or not.

All your quarrels are unlikely in a random simulation and matter perhaps on 3 of the 1000 deals generated.
They do not affect the overall result.

And by the way what a silly conjecture is "if South gets all the decisions right" ?
Is this South supposed to be party of the next cheating scandal?

Rainer Herrmann

[jdonn]

You think there are only 3 hands in 1000 that responder has Qx, QJ, singleton K of any suit, or a 3(334) 11 count, or a 3(334) 8 count (which should often be downgraded)? Are you being serious?

And yes of course responder won't get all the decisions right. But the point is that it's right for opener to try for game even if it makes much less than half the time, because much of the time it doesn't make responder rejects the invitation.

There are other factors too, for example if you pass they may balance and then you are pushed to 3 anyway (surely opener will bid 3 if the opponents balance), so trying for game and going down in 3 may not be a loss.

It's fine to do the sim, but it's simply not adequate to draw the conclusion that you did.

[kfay]

Jlall, on Oct 18 2009, 05:16 PM, said:

looks ok to me, unlucky

lol this is what i was thinking. i said... 'well i guess we didn't make it, now ATB'

definitely been in worse games.

if i were south and heard 3H i would bid game. both people were really aggressive.

[Codo]

gnasher, on Oct 19 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

Codo, on Oct 19 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

Switch the red suit jack and queen in the south hand and you want to be in game.
Switch both minor queens to the king of diamonds and game is fine.

Can south see that these cards would make a difference?

Yes. Opposite a long-suit game-try in hearts, either of those changes improves the South hand.

Sure but is this really enough to change your bid from 4 Heart to 3 Spade?

[hotShot]

Codo, on Oct 20 2009, 07:12 AM, said:

gnasher, on Oct 19 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

Codo, on Oct 19 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

Switch the red suit jack and queen in the south hand and you want to be in game.
Switch both minor queens to the king of diamonds and game is fine.

Can south see that these cards would make a difference?

Yes. Opposite a long-suit game-try in hearts, either of those changes improves the South hand.

Sure but is this really enough to change your bid from 4 Heart to 3 Spade?

It should!
2♠ promised 8-10 HCP, but you hardly have 8, because the ♦QT holding is not of full value.
After North showed 10 cards in the major's, both minor queens a obviously worthless.
South no longer has his bid, so South should show minimum and make the most discouraging bid 3♠, since 3♥ should at least be forcing to 3♠.

[billw55]

How has north shown 10 cards in the majors?

[cherdanno]

Rainer, I don't think your simulations corresponds to what people call a "constructive raise with 8-10". This means they would have 8-10 hcp with a typical shape, e.g. 4432 (of course they would upgrade with great hcp, like Q of trumps and AA, if they are sane). It certainly does not include xxx Kx Qxxx Qxxx. I would think 9-11 points in your count comes closer to describing it correctly.

[nige1]

subvert, on Oct 18 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

Dealer: ????? Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ AKxxxx ♥ Kxxx ♦ xx ♣ x ♠ xxx ♥ AJxx ♦ QT ♣ Qxxx

N      S   1♠  2♠   3♥  4♥   4♠ 2S:8-10p assign blame,thanks!

4♠ isn't wonderful but has play. Nobody to blame.

[rhm]

cherdanno, on Oct 20 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

Rainer, I don't think your simulations corresponds to what people call a "constructive raise with 8-10". This means they would have 8-10 hcp with a typical shape, e.g. 4432 (of course they would upgrade with great hcp, like Q of trumps and AA, if they are sane). It certainly does not include xxx Kx Qxxx Qxxx. I would think 9-11 points in your count comes closer to describing it correctly.

Fair enough

I have changed the simulation with the North hand fixed:

If South has 3 cards in ♠, 9-11 points with 3,2,1 for void, singleton, doubleton
If South has 4 cards in ♠, 8-10 points with 4,3,1 for void, singleton, doubleton

Result 1000 deals

game made in 319 cases double dummy
but 3S was already down in 310 cases

average number of tricks in a ♠ contract slightly less than 9.

Game try, even vulnerable, is still borderline I suppose.

Rainer Herrmann