jogs

Actually the top competitive eaters are quite fit.

On your auction, how would you ever find 3NT? The 1NT bid(not found by your teammates) by RHO screwed you.

Bid 4♥. East is 3=6=2=2. 3=5=2=3 would be a true minimum. [hv=pc=n&w=st8hjt543dkqjckq6&e=sk64hak872dt6cj42&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1hp2n(4%2BH%2C%20inv%2B)p3c(Any%20min)p3hppp]266|200[/hv] 4♥ may still make.

A much smaller space than the entire game. How to estimate tricks and how it affects judgment.

I have posted it on RGB. Everyone accepts the correlation between high card points and tricks. They also believe the correlation between trumps and tricks. Since HCP and trumps are stochastically independent the two are combined into a formula for tricks. These two features are usually known by the 3rd or 4th bid of the auction. Partners can exchange info on other features later in the auction. The formula is reposted E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e This is the formula for the general case. The sum of the HCP is known, but not the exact location of the honors within the hands. The e is for the error of the estimates. This is an estimate of tricks. On specific boards the actual number of tricks can be much more and much less. Tricks on average equal trumps. This relationship breaks down at 10 trumps. I have already posted a thread explaining that the relationship between tricks and trumps is a parabola. 13 trumps obviously can't average 13 tricks. It can be as few as 7 tricks. Let's start with a pure board. Both sides have 20 HCP. Pure means all our points are in our two long suits. AKxxxxx -- xxx QJx // QJxxxx -- xxx AKxx 13 trumps and only 10 tricks. We have no points outside of trumps. AKxxxxx -- xxx xxx // QJxxxx -- xxx xxxx 13 trumps and only 7 tricks. E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e When the expected tricks is greater than 10, one must inspect the effects of other variables. There must be controls in order to make slams. Therefore this formula is a reliable guideline whenever the our trumps is less or equal to ten and the expected tricks is no greater than ten. Notice that our expected tricks fluctuate wildly depending on the suit designated as trumps. The standard deviation of the estimates is between 1 and 1.5 tricks/board. When the hands are flat, meaning no singletons or voids in either partnership hand, the std dev drops to 1 to 1.25. Also flat hands reduce the number of expected tricks. With a 5-4 fit and 20 HCP the expected tricks is 8 2/3. These std dev's are for the general case. On any specific board the location of the honors are fixed and the std dev goes down.

Yes, I am opinionated. I have been studying effects on tricks for about ten years and thousands of hours. Does anyone have any curiosity? A five year old may ask, "Where do tricks come from?". How are tricks created? What conditions create tricks? How are tricks generated? An upper division statistic student would ask, "What is the moment generating function for tricks?" Is anyone investigating these questions. Has anyone attempted to identify the vectors which have the greatest effects on tricks. Uncover and quantify the effects of each vector. Recognize that the influence of each is dynamic, not static. Some vectors have more effect on lower level contracts than slams, while other have the reverse effect. Some vectors are independent and other vectors are interdependent. Vectors don't count tricks, they only estimate tricks, meaning there’s margin for error. Variance of the estimates is unavoidable. One should try to minimize the error. High card points is a variable for estimating tricks. Bridge players need to clear their minds and think estimating partnership tricks instead of calculating adjusted point counts. The goal is a better method to estimate partnership tricks, not improve the point count. Analysis of variance(ANOVA) is used to estimate tricks. Tricks is a function of high card points. Tricks is a function of trumps and high card points. E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e Each time an additional variable is added to the formula, our estimates improve. E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + SST + e SST is an adjustment for the shorter holding of the partnership for each of the side suits. E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + SST + SF + e SF is second suit fit. E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + SST + SF + C + e C is for controls. e is for the error. We want to minimize the variance of that error. Hand types reside in multi-dimensional space. Bidding in a one dimensional space. Don't expect anyone to solve this bidding dilemma soon. Dr. Bill Chen was able to change poker strategy by using game theory. I have been on a one man crusade to persuade bridge players to use ANOVA and partnership tricks to evaluate partnership assets. Alas I have received only negative feedback. Indeed it has been a lonely journey. jogs

Yes, double dummy 5-2 plays way better. How many of us can play all those 5-2 suits double dummy?

4♣. A minor overbid. Don't want to be bothered with part 2.

At least I think about it. While the experts are in fighting that their methods are better than all others without providing any proof.

Just scanned the first 9 rounds of play by USAI in the Bermuda Bowl. More than ten times one table bid slam while the other didn't. Sometimes making and other times going down. Only once did both tables bid slam. It had no play. Both tables went down. Can only conclude that even the best players in the world have no idea how tricks are generated.

Most members are lower on the bridge evolution scale. Would not be competing in the Vanderbilt or Bermuda Bowl. May even play mostly matchpoints, where nearly 40% of the boards are partscore battles. Also this thread is posted on the intermediate and advanced forum.

Partscore is probably ignored by most top pairs. And it may be only 20% of the imps. Think it may be nearly 40% of the boards. If one pair focused more than others on partscores they should have a small advantage. Might make a difference in a close match.

There seems to be a huge disagreement on what constitutes a negative double. With 5=2=3=3, should opener rebid 2♠, 3♣ or something else?

I think this style is optimal. 1♠ should be 4+ spades. A biddable spade suit, meaning ATxx, KJxx or better. Double is 2-4 spades. With 0-1 one should be able to find another call or pass.

One, I come from ACBL land. Two, speaking only of those who play 1♠ as natural.

It is just from articles I've seen on the subject.

1m-(1♥)-1♠. 1m-(1♥)-X The consensus of bridge experts play the 1♠ as showing 5 spades and the double to show 4 spades. But what does one bid with fewer spades. Are players required to pass all 0-11 HCP hands with no heart stop? 1♦ - (1♥) - ? How does one bid 3=2=3=5 and 2=3=3=5 hands? a) ♠ Kxx ♥ Ax ♦ 954 ♣ QJxxx b) ♠ Kxx ♥ Qx ♦ 954 ♣ KJxxx Are these a choice between 1NT and pass? c) ♠ Kxx ♥ xx ♦ 954 ♣ AQxxx A forced pass? The 'pass' is pulling too much duty. This forces too many reopenings with minimums by the opening bidder. Does anyone else have an opinion on how these hands should be bid. Should the boundary between 1♠ and double be placed elsewhere? * 1♦ promises 3 cards. Usually shows 4+. Can only be 3 when pattern is 4=4=3=2.

Use the Robson/Segal approach on contested auctions. No one is interested in playing in a minor. Therefore a 5 level minor suit bid is a fit non jump. Bid 5♦. Shows diamonds with heart support. It also suggest that partner should not lead a heart from AJT. Should lead trump or diamond against a high level spade sac.

When opponents bid and raise a suit and then lead another suit, isn't it a singleton 99+% of the time?

Points schmoints. 6-5 come alive. This hand is 6-6. In the old days there was a quaint notion that one needed values for a free bid. Today we know those values disappear into opponents' voids. Only require values when one is flat. Flat pattern is defined as one without singletons or voids. Free bids require offensive values. Makes no promises on defense. Helgemo held this in the Vanderbilt. [hv=pc=w&w=sk4haqt963dak9ca6&d=s&v=b&b=29&a=4d4hpp4sd5cp5ddppp]399|300|[/hv] Now what should Helgemo lead?

This is why Lawrence is objecting. Tricks equal trumps is a guideline, a loose guideline. It is certainly not a law. 4=2=2=5 // 2=3=3=5 With 20 high card points the expected tricks with clubs as trumps is =< 9. There will be likely duplication of values. With a 5-5 fit, there needs to be a singleton in one of the hands before the expected tricks can be 10.

The main reason I like (1.) over (2.) is I don't want partner competing with 3♠ over 3♥ with any 6 card spade suit.

I thought we were debating what is the optimal style. The style which would maximize our expected imps or expected matchpoints.

I have suggested in a thread in the intermediate to advanced forum that 1♠-(2♥)-X should be spade tolerance and 'cards'. Raises to 3♠ and 4♠ after the double show 3 card support, while raises after a cue shows 4+ support. Opener needn't stretch to reopen against 1♠-(2♥)-p-(p); ?

Now that I look again at this board, I agree with Gordon. You should not ask for aces with a doubleton in opponent's suit.