jogs

I haven't figured it out. "hv=pc=n&s=skjha9532dqjckqj9&w=saq853hkj764dk3c2&n=st96hqt8da9654ca7&e=s742hdt872ct86543&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1n2d(Cappelleti%20-%20both%20majors)3d(Lebensohl)p3nppp&p=s3s6s2sjdqdkdad7d4d2djd3c9c2cac4c7c3ckh4cqh6s9c6cjh7stc5sksad5s4sqd6s7h2s8d9d8h3s5h8c8h5hkhtcthah9hjhq]399|300[/hv" How does one access this code to post a board? TIA

I had never heard this claim before. Our side holds 19-25 HCP nearly four times more often than our side holds 26+ HCP. These lower level auctions occur much more frequently.

I don't think that statement is true. At the 5-6 level the 4-4 often plays one trick better. At lower levels with weaker 4-4 trumps, the 5-3 often plays better. Need an unbiased study to resolve this disagreement.

Now that you have posted the entire board, it is correct for N-S to bid 6CX-1. It is an example of the rare successful vul sac against a non-vul game.

Just scanned chap 5. Mostly 3 level decisions. Didn't see 4/5 level decisions.

How old was the declarer? Some players never claim down 1. They also don't accept legit claims.

Looking at the table of contents of "Partnership Bidding at Bridge". Can't find what R/S does when they put the pressure on us.

I have to agree with Helene. I would have bid 3NT and not 3♦. Now in mps 5♦ is only the successful bid if diamonds makes exactly 11 tricks AND 3NT makes exactly 9 tricks. I would probably take a shot at 6♦ now, figuring 5♦ would lead to a poor result most of the time.

If I held both these hands, this would be my auction whether I'm playing Acol or 2/1.

Power and Pattern(P&P) There are two independent random variables to measure tricks. They are power and pattern. Power is the set of all parameters measuring tricks by using honors and high spot cards. Pattern is the set of all parameters measuring tricks by using the length and shortness of suits. It is the 2X4 suit pattern of the partnership. All 2X13 cards of the partnership is part of pattern. L/W calls power, Winning Points. HCP is a component of power which is proportional to tricks. Trumps is the component of pattern which is proportional to tricks. Both trumps and SST are subgroups of pattern. Trumps is one end and SST is the another end Our tricks E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 By the third or fourth bid of a bidding sequence, we should know our combined trumps. We should also know our HCP within one point. We don't know their trumps. Our tricks E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + SSTadj With luck we can sometimes deduce our SST. Use the SST adjustment to improve our estimates.

Pass. As MrAce says,"too flat". Also don't like the location of the ♥K.

SST In the general case for every one unit lower in SST one can expect about 0.25 to 0.4 extra tricks. For any specific board one can only gain or lose tricks in integer increment amounts . On a specific board one can not gain a fractional trick. It is either a full trick or no tricks. The 8 card trump fit The 8 card trump fit is studied. 3 trump fits are in this study. The 4-4 fit, 5-3 fit, and 6-2 fit are parts of the study. High card points is normalized, meaning each side has half the deck. In theory we expect to make as many tricks as we have trumps. It is not easy to design an unbiased study comparing the expected tricks of the three 8-card trump fits. It IS easy the calculate the expected short suit totals. Ran one million iterations of each of the three 8-card trump fits. Threw out any cases that contained a longer fit. This is not a proof. It is a naive approach to present evidence of the relative values of various 8 card fits. These were the results. 4-4 fit: 3.664 SST 5-3 fit: 3.564 6-2 fit: 3.255 These results suggest that the 6-2 > 5-3 > 4-4. The 6-2 fit plays better than either the 5-3 fit or 4-4 fit. By plays better, the expected tricks are greater with the same HCP strength. The 5-3 fit plays marginally better than the 4-4 fit. Smaller SST suggests more expected tricks. Assume no ruffing for extra tricks and solid trumps. The 4-4 fit produces only 4 trump tricks. The 6-2 fit produces 6 trump tricks. This would also suggests that 6-2 fit produces more tricks than the 4-4 fit. 4=3=3=3 //// 4=3=3=3 Mirror patterns produce fewer tricks. SST=6 is only possible when the trump fit is 4-4. This is why in general the 5-3 fit is better than the 4-4 fit. jogs

Just shows how worthless a PhD is. Most of the best bridge players are college drop-outs.

My thinking is way out of the box. I think negative doubles only apply to 1m - (1♠) - X With 1♠ - 2♥ - X No one cares about the minors. This double shows two spades. The 2♠ shows 3 spades. This is sort of like support doubles. If a raise shows x cards, the double shows (x-1) cards.

It requires a long bidding sequence to exchange info on WP. WP is a side distraction. With a long bidding sequence why not just attempt to count our tricks? This thread is devoted to SST. Future post will suggest ways to use SST to gain insight on tricks due to suit patterns.

Short Suit Totals(SST) Since To Bid or Not to Bid Cohen has convinced the bridge masses to think in terms of total tricks. We often know our combined trumps. We can only guess at their combined trumps. Also today we know that tricks=trumps only about 40% of the time. These examples will be estimating our tricks. ---- We have two 9 card fits. 5=4 and 4=5. To simplify the examples all hands are normalized to we have all the honors in the majors and they have all the honors in the minors. west east tricks 5=4=4=0 4=5=0=4 13 5=4=3=1 4=5=1=3 11 5=4=2=2 4=5=2=2 _9 5=4=1=3 4=5=3=1 11 5=4=0=4 4=5=4=0 13 We probably can't make all 13 tricks in lines 1 & 5. The potential is there. Lawrence would argue it is only the SST that matters. Our combined length in the two long suits is 18. We only have 18+ cards in our two long suits 3 1/2% of the time. In this special case SST gives us our immediate losers. It is relatively easy to exchange info on our trump length during the auction. It is extremely difficult to decipher our SST during the auction. west east tricks 5=4=4=0 5=4=0=4 13 5=4=3=1 5=4=1=3 11 5=4=2=2 5=4=2=2 _9 5=4=1=3 5=4=3=1 11 5=4=0=4 5=4=4=0 13 Trumps do matter. In this special case, an additional trump is not worth a full additional trick. Still the extra trump is worth fractionally more tricks. If the QJT of trumps is exchanged from the EW hands for small trumps in the NS hands in each of the two sets of examples, the extra trump is worth even more fractional tricks. Trumps and SST are subvariables. The partnership 2X4 suit pattern is the independent random variable for estimating tricks. jogs

Short Suit Totals(SST) There seems to be a misconception of what SST means. There is no definition provided by Lawrence on his website about fighting the LAW. Here's my definition: SST is the sum of the shorter holding of the two short suits within the partnership. SST is the number of possible quick losers in those two short suits. Examples 4=5=3=1 /////////// 5=4=3=1 The shorter diamond holding is 3. The shorter club holding is 1. SST = 3 + 1 = 4 -- 4=5=3=1 /////////// 5=4=1=3 The shorter diamond holding is 1. The shorter club holding is also 1. SST = 1 + 1= 2 -- 4=5=3=1 ////////// 5=4=2=2 The shorter diamond holding is 2. The shorter club holding is 1. SST = 2 + 1 = 3 -- 4=3=3=3 ////////// 5=4=2=2 The shorter diamond holding is 2. The shorter club holding is 2. SST = 2 + 2 = 4 ------------------------- Lawrence claims tricks have nothing to do with trumps. That statement is false. Studies using least square estimates confirm that tricks are correlated to trumps. SST is also a valid parameter for estimating tricks. The truth is the true random variable for estimating tricks is the joint 2X4 suit pattern of the partnership hands. All 26(2X13) cards of our partnership affects the number of tricks we can make. SST does not replace trumps. Trumps is one end of this variable. SST is the other end. Together trumps and SST estimate tricks better than either on a stand alone basis. --------------------------- Analogy: Using American football. What's the most important attribute for a wide receiver? Speed, size, or good hands. Wrong question. They are all important. Bridge: HCP, trumps, and SST. The partnerships who know all three parameters are better positioned for making correct bidding decisions than partnerships utilizing only two of the parameters. --------------------------- Lawrence's SST may be used to gain insight for uncovering value due to suit pattern(or shape if you prefer). Hand evaluation should evolve from counting and adjusting one's points to estimating tricks for the partnership. The more parameters partnerships use to evaluate their hands the better their estimates of their tricks. jogs

The agreement shouldn't be sound. It should be rational depending on hand's suit pattern. 6322 would be sound. 6331 6421 6430 The more skewed the pattern, the less HCPs promised.

So what's the lesson? If you preempt a crappy hand, you better find the killing lead?

Does this mean with this program you can easily create histograms? 1. Like total trumps for a board. 2. Sum of two long suits for a partnership.

You're right, only need partial understanding of algebra. The terms never shift from the right side of the '= sign' to the left. It helps to understand Excel. The functions are in Excel. Enter your set of data into column A. Click the function you want. fx For mean click average. For variable click var. For standard deviation click SQRT for square root of variance.

Question: does partner ever transfer with 5=4 or 4=5? If not, both patterns are equally likely.

You only need a complete understanding of algebra. No need to know geometry.

That may have been true in the past. Today with Salman Khan teaching statistics for free in his Khan Academy, a bright high school can solve bridge hand evaluation in little pieces at a time. None of the discrete bridge models require knowledge of calculus. The key in using hypothesis testing is choosing the appropriate side conditions. When testing opening 1S vs 1NT every data entry must have a 5332 pattern. Do not include the 5422 pattern. Double dummy analysis is always biased.

cherdano, Maybe the link I posted was too tough for you to understand. Try this one from the Khan Academy. https://www.khanacademy.org/math/probability/descriptive-statistics/variance_std_deviation/v/sample-variance Helene thinks double dummy analysis is an exact science. It isn't. She thinks confidence intervals look like this ||. In bridge they really look like this |______________|. In 7 board swiss matches flight C teams occasionally get lucky and beat world class teams. 90% slams go down 10% of the time. Feel free to delete your inane post.