eyhung

New 10000-hand sim to add in diamond analysis and 99% confidence MOE: Spade lead = 10.1931 SD = 1.513 (t 99% for 10000 is 2.5763) MOE = .0390 Diamond lead = 10.4881 SD = 1.312 MOE = .0338 Club lead = 10.4455 SD = 1.380 MOE = .0356 So with 99% confidence we can say that a spade is better than a club or a diamond double-dummy, but a club and diamond are close.

The scoring is BAM, and the contract figures to be normal. I think avg # of tricks is much more relevant.

Taking it to the masses after you weren't satisfied with my spade answer, eh, Sathya? I ran a sim of 1000 deals, with the following constraints: RHO has 18-19 HCP semi-balanced with 2-4 spades, 2-3 hearts, and a 1D opener in shape (at least 4 diamonds, and diamonds are longest or tied for longest). No 4-4 minor-suit holdings are rejected. LHO has 7-13 HCP with exactly 4 hearts, 0-3 spades, and 0-5 diamonds. He also would not have long clubs and game-forcing values. Average # of tricks double-dummy on spade lead: 10.252 Average # of tricks double-dummy on club lead: 10.502 Make of that what you will.

Let's see how a random dart-throwing monkey would do : 1. Nyrolph 2. Arigun 3. Reisig 4. Tootsie215 5. Rafa

Darn it looks like I was beaten to the punch on the 3rd hand while writing it up.

Very well, here are my three guesses : Board 4 in the Nail 1Q, East holds T93 A64 875 QJ63 Board 11 in the Open BAM 2F, West holds K7543 T63 4 JT42 Board 6 in the Reisinger 2S, North holds A74 J965 863 K43

As a quick check, I also ran the experiment for a 1D opening (where all hands 4-4 in the minors and not eligible for a NT opener open 1D) 4=3=4=2 and 4=3=2=4 had almost exactly the same spade length (3.25) in both cases, even though opener average was 4.63 diamonds to 4.98 diamonds.

Actually, it's not true in every suit. While I was able to get similar results as awm for a 1C opening (similar parameters to awm except opener is allowed to have a 5cM with 6+ clubs and a good hand, and some balanced hands are discarded due to opening NT ranges), it's not true for a 1H opening (which guarantees 5 hearts, and also can't be 15-17 balanced or 20-21 balanced, and might have 5 spades only if holding 6+ hearts). When RHO opens 1H and you are considering overcalling 1S, if you hold 4=2=3=4 shape Over 1 million deals, partner averages 3.39 spades and RHO averages 5.52 hearts 4=4=3=2 shape Over 1 million deals, partner averages 3.45 spades and RHO averages 5.30 hearts This seems slightly unintuitive given awm's argument, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could double-check my results. If they hold, the only explanation I have for this discrepancy is that RHO's club length has far more variance. With long clubs in the overcaller's hand, the results are therefore weighed towards the short club openings, which significantly and adversely impacts partner's spade length. But when you are long in hearts, RHO's minimum is always 5, and usually in the 5-7 range, Taken to an extreme, let's say RHO is playing a system where 1H promises 9 hearts. Now, with 4-4 in the majors, you know partner has exactly 0 hearts so he is longer in spades than if you were 4-2 in the majors.

I don't understand the hate for the support double. In competition, the side that first understands how high they should bid has a huge advantage -- they can bid to their level or slightly over it and let the opponents guess. By support doubling, we put partner in the driver's seat first -- West still has to clarify to East how many hearts he has, and East may have extra undisclosed heart length. True, a support double does not guarantee a good result. But for every time a support double backfires, I can think of multiple auctions where communicating to partner that you hold 3-card support for his major helps you with the contested part-score auction. And here, you are void in the enemy suit, so you would much rather encourage partner to bid than to pass. The hands where I don't support double with 3 are those with soft cards in the enemy suit & bad shape & bad trumps, where we really don't want to be encouraging partner to bid. Just xxx is not enough of a deterrent for me -- the number of trumps is far more important than their strength in what looks to be a LAW auction. Once partner makes an informed pass over 3♥, I am not even tempted to bid 4♥. He knows our 3 spades, he knows our best suit, he knows our values, he can probably discern our shortness from the bidding, and he still has the opportunity to bid 4♠ or double himself. Doubling is similarly misguided -- we have exactly what we have bid, and nothing more. Given a capable partner, there is no call here to do anything but pass.

I'm glad someone had time to do a sim -- I'm still in San Diego (airport). I was going to run one myself when I got home. I think 2♦ is the clearcut contract here with the lack of spots, aces on the side, the ruffing value, and the jack of trumps, and I bid appropriately. But apparently popular opinion is against me. On the actual partner hand opposite, diamonds was three tricks better than NT double-dummy when partner flopped 5 diamonds to the QT, so on this one hand, my judgement was vindicated. 2♦ +110 was worth 21.5 out of 37, beating 1NT (which is down 1 double-dummy). FWIW, my LHO did think about bidding 2♥ in the balancing seat, but had he done so, he would have regretted it -- partner had KQJT of hearts and he would be going for a huge number. The score distribution on the actual hand : 1400 1 [2H doubled?] 1100 1 800 1 400 1 [2H undoubled, probably, since we are vulnerable] 200 1 200 1 150 1 [3D making 5 or 1NT making 3, can't tell] 120 3 [1NT making 2] 110 14 [2D making 3] 90 6 [1NT making 1 -- diamonds are ice-cold for 9 tricks in an expert field] -90 1 -100 7 [1NT down 1] -200 1 [1NT down 2? 5D down 2?]

3-card diamond holding by opener is irrelevant. Partner can't be 4432 because he would have raised spades. We do not open any other 3-card diamond suits.

An interesting matchpoint partscore strain decision from the Blue Ribbon finals: [hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa543h54dj432ca86]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Partner opens 1♦ in 2nd, you respond 1♠, and partner rebids 1NT (12-14). Do you pass or do you sign off in 2♦ (via 2♣ two-way puppet checkback?) I thought one of the choices was obvious, but a friend I respect who was also in the finals thinks the other choice is obvious. So which of us is out of sync?

I second this. I have saved most of Fred's posts in files for personal re-reading, which is why I was able to list several "best things" in this thread.

Maybe these aren't the best, but these are situations that keep coming up frequently and which I didn't really "grok" until I read it in the forums: Justin on why winners don't downgrade awm's natural followups after 1m - 1M - 2M Fred's principle of preemptive raises Fred's articles on how to become an expert / understand bidding theory

While I understand these bids are not integral to the system, I cannot play WJ2005 as published in most ACBL events because the 2D, 2H and 2S openings are not GCC legal. Well, I have actually played WJ2005 in GCC events with standard weak twos. The big selling point of the Polish Club for me is the ambiguous club opening, and that's GCC-legal. I must say I did enjoy people using their CRASH and Suction and strong club germ warfare vs. hands that were weak notrumps, but I realized I was getting better results with 2/1 because my judgement had been honed with it. I think Polish Twos should be GCC-legal at some point, but you know what, I don't think the lack of a toy is going to impact results very much. I like to think of bridge players as cooks, and systems as the tools they use to create a meal. Good tools are better than bad tools, but even a great cook can make a great meal without a boning knife, garlic press, vegetable brush, etc. Just give them basic tools and ingredients and the results will still be pretty good (although not as good with top-class aids) . Put a lousy cook in a top chef's kitchen, though, and the meal you get still won't be any good.

.... I readily admit, I play in ACBL events once in a blue moon. So you haven't "stopped" playing -- you've just reduced the amount you played. I wonder how many of the other scientist players "stopped". It's hard to go cold turkey when you've learned enough to be able to think about playing an illegal system. (Notice there's a difference between an illegal system and a non-standard system, like, say, Polish Club here in the US). Anyway. There have been comments about how bridge is great because it is complex. I agree! I, and many current bridge players, personally don't want bridge to be "dumbed down". Look at the failure of the "Classic Card" several years ago -- duplicate bridge addicts want their conventions. But when you are talking about appeal to the masses, to the man on the street, you either have to dumb down or accept that you will be participating in a niche hobby. I think we can group people's tolerance of complexity as a pyramid. At the base are the hordes of people who would never be interested in playing in a card game in their spare time. Higher up are a class of people who can, but don't want to have to know too much to play. Higher up are people like my dad who enjoy bridge but want nothing to do with tournaments -- they're just looking for a good time and a socializing opportunity. Higher up are people who are willing to go to duplicate clubs, and higher up are people who are willing to go to duplicate tournaments. Near the top are the scientists who want to spend a lot of time designing/tinkering systems -- they are higher because I don't think I see any scientists from the level of "casual players", so they are a subset of tournament players. If you want to expand the popularity of bridge, it seems better to cater to people towards the bottom of the pyramid base, than to the people at the very top.

Then I stand corrected. Glad to hear your experience was different from the other beginners I've taught.

I vote for 3♦. Putting an opener on a shapely 8-9 point hand is not winning bridge -- what percentage of 1D openers are going to have <10 HCP? 1%? And even then partner will never accept, he will pass 3♦. Mike, if you can rig partner to have the most minimum of hands, then surely I can rig the suits to be thus : 9xx Axxx AT9xxx void He will still make 3♦ a vast majority of the time. And when he is down, we have a cheap save versus the enemy club contract. Your second point about partner needing to know about a real invite vs. a courtesy raise is important, but that's what the cue-bid is for. 3♦ is merely a courtesy raise letting partner know about the 9-card diamond fit. A serious invite would cue -- you have already limited your hand by bidding 1NT so it can't be a super-strong hand. Finally, in response to nige1 : I think it's a common error to try to get too cute tactically in part-score auctions, when the information exchange has been limited. Your references to "1NT white tends to score well" indicates to me that you may be falling into this trap. Just bid your hand. I would rebid 2♦ on almost any unbalanced hand with 6 diamonds, and similarly, I would not disturb an opponent's white 1NT on a mediocre balanced hand just because "1NT white tends to score well". At some point, you have to play bridge and not rely on scoring quirks to make your decisions for you.

Oddly enough, I was looking through the history of this very thread and I found I already posted a similar argument 5 years ago. Some things never change, do they?

No, system restrictions are a significant factor in driving away scientific players. Most scientific players are young, but not all young players are scientific -- and I'd say a small minority are scientific enough to want to play an illegal system. But the post I was originally replying to stated it was driving away "young adventurous would-be players" i.e. young and new players. I think we agree that for new players, rudeness, culture, and complexity is far more of a problem. To conflate these problems with system restrictions is putting way too much emphasis on the latter.

I stopped playing specifically because of system restrictions Oh really? A quick Google search turns up : http://web2.acbl.org/tournaments/results/2009/04/0904035.htm Richard Willey earned 1.28 masterpoints in April 2009. http://www.nebridge.org/dist25results/2008/GNT08totalMPs.htm Richard Willey earned 13.78 masterpoints for the 2008 Flight B GNTs. You may have started your boycott after April. I wonder if the ACBL has even noticed. Besides, I actually thought you of all people might say something like this, Richard, which is why I specifically noted that there do exist some people who would choose not to play due to system restrictions. I just have not personally met someone who has, and you cannot disprove that. From my perspective, and I suspect the perspective of most others, the Richard Willeys are far outnumbered by the Aunt Gerties who have been playing for years and the recent retirees who are looking to have a good time. People on Internet forums are unrepresentative of the general membership -- they tend to be younger, more inquisitive, less conforming, and more mathematical. For example, I doubt 1 US duplicate player in 100 has bothered to learn a symmetric relay system. The percentage is far higher on Internet forums -- heck, even I've learned TOSR. But I at least know I am not representative of the US population. I can't speak for Down Under, apparently, but neither can they speak for us.

Poppycock. As a younger player myself who has taught several peers how to play, I never met anyone who "refused to continue to play bridge" because of system restrictions. Rudeness, yes. Too complex, yes. Too many other competing interests, yes. But too restrictive on system? Come on! Oh, I grant you there probably exists some person who has stopped playing bridge due to the "draconian regulations". But for every player who refuses to play bridge because "they won't let me play what I want to play" I will bet there are dozens who aren't interested in playing because it's too hard. Sure, system wonks are frustrated that their systems are not allowed. I myself would like to see some changes to the current system policy in ACBL-land. But saying that would-be players are frustrated to the extent that they're not going to play bridge? Give me a break. Bridge is declining in popularity not because of system restrictions, but for many other reasons, and it is misleading to project your frustrations onto the mass of beginning bridge players.

While I think such an approach is good for advancing players, for beginners, it's really too much for them to absorb. They're busy trying to remember how to count points and which cards are high, let alone plus/minus factors. Saying 13 to open, 6 to respond is mandatory, and once you get good you need fewer, works better in my experience. And yes, I do teach beginners to pass 12-counts because their cardplay simply isn't up to snuff -- they really need 26 points to make game. This is related to one of the issues I have with BBO's Learn to Play Bridge software. The software is incredible for an intermediate who is willing to review the fundamentals -- Fred does a great job explaining judgement and even I learned something after having played the game for many years. But having attempted to use the software as a teaching supplement, I have yet to see a single true beginner love the software -- if anything the software is a turnoff because there's just Too Much Information.

Agreed, that's why I wanted to see what other "sacred cows" he was targeting. But I strongly disagreed with his attempt to discredit lebensohl or "artificial 2NTs". I think after the splinter bid, the trend towards artificial 2NTs is the best concept of modern bridge. Full disclosure : I don't play puppet and don't like it. But compared to other prominent bridge authors, I find myself disagreeing with Granovetter a lot, and I can't imagine not having lebensohl over 2M. (Over 2D, I find the natural 2NT is more useful -- you now have two ways to show the majors anyway.)

To be fair, he also tries to make a case against lebensohl here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7375159/Bridge-Today-june-2006 I don't buy it. The lebensohl principle is incredibly useful in my experience. I wonder what other conventions he wrote against.