HighLow21

Now we're talking about close to 250 hands declared, so I think it's reasonable to say that there's something to this. Who were your teammates in 2011/12 out of curiosity? It looks like it was Hurd and Woolridge. They were setting a lot of contracts at the other table (about 42.5% vs. 36.5% average for the field). This might help explain the strong I/bad statistic; I:pad should, I think, be independent of the other table. Anyway, it's reasonable to assume it had something to do with (1) finding more making contracts that the opponents your way did not find, and (2) finding more good sacrifices than the opponents your way.

Ya I was beginning to notice that the sample was small. For Justin and a number of others the number of hands was 300-400, so about 75-100 hands declared. If the standard deviation of IMPs/board is as low as 3, then the standard error will be around 0.3 or 0.4 or so. That means a fair amount of variation. In my own datasets, when I do any kind of breakdown I tend not to jump to conclusions unless I'm including at least 1,000 hands... and for some measures (like slam performance) I need a lot more because they happen relatively frequently. Still some data is better than nothing, and if the trends hold, perhaps there's an explanation for it -- probably some combination of the things we've identified plus 1 or 2 others we haven't.

Also Justin, if you draw a scatterplot of I:pad vs. % making for the results in this data set, you get virtually zero correlation: http://www.rpbridge.net/9y16.htm But check out Jonsson,T. 51.79% making, but -0.71 results vs. par. He only plays 26% of hands. An excellent sacrificer? Bids and makes a high number of low-HCP games the field doesn't find? I leave it to you.

Justin we've established in previous posts that you tend to be more aggressive in competing an auction--perhaps also in bidding borderline games and slams. What I suspect is that your bidding is more aggressive both for sacrifices and for makeable contracts that other tables don't find. For example, if you get to a 17-HCP spade game that makes 50% of the time and is a good save against their rock-solid 4♥, or something like that. It's my suspicion that when one gets to the highest levels of the game there's not a significant relationship between percent of contracts made and IMPs earned per board. Perhaps even a negative relationship in certain situations. We're talking about a lumped average, of course, so there are many ways to pick apart the data and many different factors contributing to the results. One clue to me is that your I:pad stat is surprisingly high (-1.27 vs. a field average of -1.99). My guess is this: you bid mre aggressively, and more frequently find good "saves" for your side; you frequently overbid, but that's balanced out by overbidding to MAKING contracts that are either fortunate in the lie of the cards or misdefended. This goes well with Bob Hamman's philosophy of bidding game to put pressure on the defense because defense is difficult. Just my thoughts

Lots of other great stats too -- like average IMPs per board as declarer or on opening lead by player. Average across all the players was 65.88%, which lines up with my original idea that it should be around 2/3 of the time.

This is extremely relevant and interesting, to billw55's point. Thank you! http://www.rpbridge.net/9y18.htm

I guess what I'm looking for is just a blended, long-term average. A range. I recognize IMPs will probably be a bit lower if played correctly (more sacrificing and 50/50 game bidding) and I also recognize that pairs that sacrifice more (even when it is best to do so) will fare worse in this metric. It's part of a multi-factor model I'm looking at: 1. How often do you get to the best level (part-score, game, ss, gs) relative to your opponents 2. How often do you make that contract relative to your opponents 3. How frequently do your doubles and redoubles work out etc. This kind of review helps me gauge my overall improvement and decision making.

Will have to check Pavlicek. Thank you!

What is a good percentage of declared contracts to make? I'm aware that if you make 100% of your contracts that means you're not bdding enough; what's a reasonable rule of thumb for good play? 60%? 2/3? 75%?

Free market solutions break down for products like insurance in general, and health insurance specifically. And in terms of trusting governments--I think when it comes to protecting your rights, they're going to do a far better job than insurance companies will.

Yes, you do.

"Curious hand; both sides can make 4♥" -- Oscar the Owl

Again -- overall, you will probably make the contract. Maybe even as high as 90%.

I disagree--if your claim is true, it's very interesting to note a hand in which one side can make 1 of any suit but NOT 1nt. Falls under the category of "Interesting Bridge Hands" in my book.

Note: it's forcing for one round but you do not have to bid here -- and I would not bid anything at this stage. Pass the redouble to East. The whole point is, East may have no decent suit to play in and may be in desperate trouble. Do NOT let him off the hook by bidding now. As I've mentioned above, knowing that your partner is strong you would love to double 1 of a major by the opponents unless partner has a singleton. More will be revealed on the next round of bidding. Pass. You're in great shape right now.

Then what? Loser-on-winner, getting ruffed? You'll probably make the contract, but again, the line isn't 100%.

Redouble simply means 10+ HCP and a desire to take penalties if possible. It means that either N/S will declare this hand, or E/W will be doubled in whatever they bid. It usually implies a lack of fit for the opened suit but it doesn't have to. But even with a poorish trump suit, N/S should have enough to make 7 tricks in diamonds. Since West passed, about 95% of the time East will bid something at the next turn. South with then either double for penlaties, pass the decision to you, or bid something descriptive. If I were North and East's bid were passed back to me, I would double 1♥ or 1♠ by East and I would bid something is 2♣ were passed back to me.

Why can't 2♦ just be a forcing hand rather than specifically a heart raise?

If West gave the answer then yes, East wasn't dishonest. Read it wrong; my apologies.

Please explain to me how North plans to avoid promoting a trump for West by his line of play. I can't see any way the contract can be awarded, though there ought to be SOME sort of punishment for East's blatant dishonesty. Another point -- how exactly did North go 2 down?

I'd take my 5 side suit winners (assuming W has A♥) ending in dummy, ruff a heart in hand and wait for RHO to have to trump something or other to give 2 trump tricks to dummy. If RHO has the A♥ I can still play to ruff hearts in hand. I'm essentially cross-ruffing and don't mind getting overruffed by RHO because when he returns trumps he's leading into my tenace. Should make 8 or 9.

I have to remember the phrase "Bavarian Illuminati" for my next social gathering. -T

OK, what if diamonds are 3-3?

Once again, assuming that trumps are 3-2 and that the short diamond hand had exactly 3 trumps.

Where did you hear this term? It is new to me. A double stopper is something like AKx (or even AQx in declarer's hand), and a half-stopper is a holding that by itself is not a stopper but, when combined with partner's holding, is a stopper. Best example is Jxx opposite Qx. Using inference I woudl think a "half-double stopper" is one of two things: 1. A holding that will be a single stopper always and a double stopper half the time. Something like AQx in dummy opposite xx. 2. A holding that will be a by itself will not stop the suit necessarily once but, facing another similar holding, is guaranteed to stop it twice. Something like JTxx in dummy opposite Q9x. (Neither holding, opposite xx, is even a full stopper, but combined it is a guaranteed double stop.) Hope this helps.