[nige1]

Hanoi5, on Oct 26 2009, 09:30 PM, said:

Red vs White, after three passes you're looking at: ♠QJx ♥Jxx ♦Kx ♣KQxxx
What's your call? It's a butler tournament if you need to know...

Scoring: IMP

This is the complete hand. My partner didn't want to open his 12-count either so we got 0 instead of the 600 that everyone got in 3NT. How would you divide the fault here?

---

• IMO _P = 10, 1♣ = 9. Although you hold 3♠, your hand is a bit quacky. The answer depends on partner's opening habits. Opposite Roth or Stone, there's a better case for opening.
  
• Since I open partner's hand and pass on Hanoi5's, I blame partner for missing game
  
• If I opened 1♣ and partner replied 1♥ or 1♠, then I would pass.

[aguahombre]

edit. delete

[eyhung]

jdonn, on Oct 28 2009, 05:15 PM, said:

I'm fairly sure he is using total bridge-points, as in +50 for setting them one trick, so 4.2 would be extremely tiny and suggest passing was about as good as opening. However I still feel the missing factors suggest opening as well.

Yes, to confirm, I am using total bridge points, so the original sim says passing is about as good as bidding if both sides play par bridge.

I have tweaked the simulation to disallow some of East's 10-11 counts so North's Average HCP is going to be somewhat higher than his expected 9.33.
I also used the true spots -- the original post only specified x's, while a followup post mentioned the actual spots (QJ3 J75 K2 KQ754)

Hands = 1000
Average North HCP = 9.734
Average NS score = 35.75 points
N/S plus = 606
N/S minus = 394

160 [Score "NS -110"]
26 [Score "NS -120"]
15 [Score "NS -130"]
85 [Score "NS -140"]
3 [Score "NS -200"]
8 [Score "NS -400"]
20 [Score "NS -420"]
1 [Score "NS -450"]
10 [Score "NS -80"]
65 [Score "NS -90"]
1 [Score "NS -920"]

154 [Score "NS 100"]
99 [Score "NS 110"]
91 [Score "NS 120"]
11 [Score "NS 130"]
98 [Score "NS 140"]
11 [Score "NS 300"]
16 [Score "NS 500"]
17 [Score "NS 600"]
9 [Score "NS 620"]
1 [Score "NS 630"]
3 [Score "NS 650"]
12 [Score "NS 80"]
84 [Score "NS 90"]

All the +100s and -200s are from doubled contracts, so it's easy to adjust. The total score on the 1000 hands was 35750. Double gains 50 points 154 times, or 7700 points, and loses 100 points 3 times for 300 points. So assuming no matchpoint-style doubles, the adjusted total score would be 35750 - 7400 = 28350, giving N/S a more realistic par average of 28.35 points from opening. So with the East adjustment, it's clear to open in 4th chair.

Also, the -920 involved A7 T6 AT87654 J6 opposite KT842 A984 Q93 8, but it only influences the par average by 1 point. I admit my preempt / weak two function is not robust -- I'd be happy to solicit suggestions to make my future sims better.

[gnasher]

eyhung, on Oct 29 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

Also, the -920 involved A7 T6 AT87654 J6 opposite KT842 A984 Q93 8, but it only influences the par average by 1 point.  I admit my preempt / weak two function is not robust

I'd say that the problem is with your 1♦ function.

[OleBerg]

Jlall, on Oct 27 2009, 09:42 PM, said:

dellache, on Oct 27 2009, 02:41 PM, said:

1NT... weak.

One of the downsides of weak NT in 4th seat seems to be that you can't play 1M anymore. You also are opening 1N less frequently.

Of course on the plus side sometimes you will get to play 1N when they could have found a making 2 level partscore otherwise.

And they have to make the blind lead, often an unenviable position.

[OleBerg]

Hanoi5, on Oct 28 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

This is the complete hand. My partner didn't want to open his 12-count either so we got 0 instead of the 600 that everyone got in 3NT. How would you divide the fault here?

50/50

Opening hand + opening hand = Game.

[OleBerg]

nick_s, on Oct 28 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

K&R hand evaluator gives 10.3 for the N hand.

(http://www.jeffgolds...Jx+Jxx+Kx+KQxxx)

Personally, I'm still on the fence about whether it's a good idea to open the hand, and have enjoyed reading the comments.

The S hand is a clear 1NT (12-14) opener for me though.

Typed all for hands into the evaluator (with all spots.)

Results:

North: 10,30
South: 11,70
East: 10,40
West: 5,20

In all: 37,60.

It seems to me, that the calculater, or at least the way it is used, is not perfect.

On the NS hands, 3NT is completely laydown, while any of those hands will not make a laydown facing the East hand.

Edit: Ok, not laydown, but will often make.

It seems to me, that as the calculator is geared to handle bot balanced and unbalanced hands, Aces and Kings might be overrated for balanced deals, while intermidiates are underrated. Looking at the North hand, it seems quite likely, that this could be such a deal.

Edit: Thanks to rhm, see below.

[rhm]

OleBerg, on Oct 29 2009, 06:40 AM, said:

nick_s, on Oct 28 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

K&R hand evaluator gives 10.3 for the N hand.

(http://www.jeffgolds...Jx+Jxx+Kx+KQxxx)

Personally, I'm still on the fence about whether it's a good idea to open the hand, and have enjoyed reading the comments.

The S hand is a clear 1NT (12-14) opener for me though.

Typed all for hands into the evaluator (with all spots.)

Results:

North: 10,30
South: 11,70
East: 10,40
West: 5,20

In all: 37,60.

It seems to me, that the calculater, or at least the way it is used, is not perfect.

On the NS hands, 3NT is completely laydown, while any of those hands will not make a laydown facing the East hand.

Edit: Ok, not laydown, but will often make.

It seems to me, that as the calculator is geared to handle bot balanced and unbalanced hands, Aces and Kings might be overrated for balanced deals, while intermidiates are underrated. Looking at the North hand, it seems quite likely, that this could be such a deal.

You got the directions wrong

East: 5.20
South: 10.40
West: 11.70
North: 10.30

K & R is a poor evaluator when it comes to notrump contracts below the slam level.
The 5th evaluator is far better in that respect. The South hand is clearly worth more than the North hand and what difference K & R assigns.
K & R is not bad for high level trump contracts. It counts a lot for distribution and honors in long suits.

Rainer Herrmann