[jdonn]

I would bid 2♦ and only go to game opposite a max with 4. I think inviting makes you go down in 3 way too often when partner has a doubleton heart.

[eyhung]

gwnn, on Oct 26 2009, 01:27 AM, said:

I hope I won't be LOL ed at but how can 1NT be both the hardest to defend and the hardest to declare?! I am usually happy to declare 1NT and give away between 1.5 and 4 tricks on 1NT defence. But I guess I'm just a datapoint.

I guess I worded that poorly. I meant that the double-dummy line in 1NT, more often than in other contracts, is not as obvious to declarer. Finding the double-dummy line to defend 1NT is even harder. Overall the defense vs 1NT suffers more than the declarer, but I still find myself taking more bad lines declaring 1NT than, say, 3NT.

[jdonn]

gwnn, on Oct 26 2009, 03:27 AM, said:

I hope I won't be LOL ed at but how can 1NT be both the hardest to defend and the hardest to declare?! I am usually happy to declare 1NT and give away between 1.5 and 4 tricks on 1NT defence. But I guess I'm just a datapoint.

It could be the hardest to defend and to declare. That just means the most mistakes are made by both sides. The expectancy relative to double dummy might even be 0.

[dellache]

eyhung, on Oct 26 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

dellache, on Oct 26 2009, 12:14 AM, said:

Eugene has already said that the higher the contract, the more the balance will be in favour of declarer (if you think about the extremes, barring the lead, declarer has almost ever the advantage playing the slams double dummy).

That's the opposite of what I said. In general, the LOWER the contract, the MORE advantage declarer has in real-life.

No that's not the contrary it's just another formulation (let's call it the dual formulation) of what you said :
- you say "the lower the contract, the higher the advantage for declarer of playing SD" ;
- I said "the higher the contract, the higher the advantage for declarer of playing DD".
Quoting the example in my previous post : declarer has almost ever the advantage playing the slams double dummy.

Two different formulations of the same obvious fact.
Glad we agree.
Cheers.

[Fluffy]

but he agrees with me that at game level declarer plays "better" than double dummy.

[eyhung]

Got it, dellache, we agree, I missed the double-dummy qualifier.

[nigel_k]

gwnn, on Oct 26 2009, 08:27 PM, said:

I hope I won't be LOL ed at but how can 1NT be both the hardest to defend and the hardest to declare?!

I would say that 1NT is probably the contract where both sides are most likely to fall short of optimal (double dummy) play. If that's what the post meant then it makes sense. The declaring side will nevertheless do better than defenders on average, compared to the double dummty result.

I think the explanation for Jeff Miller's findings is that declarer has more decisions to make relative to the defence as the level of the contract increases. Though declarer always has an advantage over the defence in accurately exploiting his side's combined assets, as he has more opportunities to go wrong and the defence have fewer, the defence may do better compared to double dummy.

In 6NT (compared to 1NT) declarer may need to find a missing jack, drop a doubleton queen offside, or other similar decisions. While he is doing this the defence will usually just be following suit. While declarer's advantage over the defence in getting decisions right remains, the number of decisions for each side means that the defence becomes 'easier' as the level increases.

[vincit]

Quote

I won't bug you with another figures, but here's is the result of the second strategy (bid 2♦, and bid 4♥ if pard shows 4+♥) : you gain 0.36 imp per board this time.

1°) Partner with a 4 card fit can be mini or Maxi what is the impact on the sim?
2°) The key issue is the duplication of value in C in case of a fit you can have the info below 3H

For instance :

1NT 2D
2S = 4H mini
2NT = 4H + anti-splinter in C (xxx or little wasted values)
3C = 4H + anti-splinter in D
3D = 4H + anti-splinter in S
3H = 4H Maxi

So now in case of a super-fit you can analyze the true value of your singleton, the downside maybe that you are telling too much to the defense

Worth the trouble or not ?

[dellache]

vincit, on Oct 27 2009, 08:07 AM, said:

Quote

I won't bug you with another figures, but here's is the result of the second strategy (bid 2♦, and bid 4♥ if pard shows 4+♥) : you gain 0.36 imp per board this time.

1°) Partner with a 4 card fit can be mini or Maxi what is the impact on the sim?
2°) The key issue is the duplication of value in C in case of a fit you can have the info below 3H

For instance :

1NT 2D
2S = 4H mini
2NT = 4H + anti-splinter in C (xxx or little wasted values)
3C = 4H + anti-splinter in D
3D = 4H + anti-splinter in S
3H = 4H Maxi

So now in case of a super-fit you can analyze the true value of your singleton, the downside maybe that you are telling too much to the defense

Worth the trouble or not ?

Worth the trouble if you play this kind of stuff throughout your system... which is the case in the very complex system I play with one of my pards. You need to design it as to make the describing hand dummy most of the time.

I think that locating shortness (or ideal holdings facing potential shortness) everytime it might be needed is really missing in most of the "natural" systems.

[gnasher]

vincit, on Oct 27 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

1NT 2D
2S = 4H mini
2NT = 4H + anti-splinter in C (xxx or little wasted values)
3C = 4H + anti-splinter in D
3D = 4H + anti-splinter in S
3H = 4H Maxi

So now in case of a super-fit you can analyze the true value of your singleton, the downside maybe that you are telling too much to the defense

Worth the trouble or not ?

I think that the cost in terms of helping them with the lead is far too high.

[vincit]

Quote

I think that the cost in terms of helping them with the lead is far too high.

Alternatively if you consider you can be at three tricks with invitational hands you can invite from the opener's side showing your shortness for instance after 2H

2NT = Invitation with 6H or 5H4xx and shortness in C
3C = Shortness in D
3D = Shortness in S

You keep 2S as a Relay something along these lines ... If opener's interesting in your shortness with a fit he will bid game, in addition he can rectify the transfer with good hands to investigate further

With this solution you get the best of both worlds