TimG

Sometimes it's good to know the answer just for the sake of knowing the answer.

The Wikipedia article regarding "median" includes this: "If there is an even number of observations, the median is not unique, so one often takes the mean of the two middle values." I have tracked down a few examples of calculating the median of an even number of observations and each time the mean of the two middle values is used. But, is this the only median if a strict mathematical definition of median is used?

Do most people play that lebensohl applies when the overcall shows two known suits? (Or, more specifically the slow/fast agreements.)

I was influenced by the thread title: "pick a partscore". I agree with you that it will be rare that responder can place the contract in 2D or 2H, either because the opponents will balance or because partner will bid again. I like your idea of bidding 2H to discourage partner later in the auction. Maybe the best way to accomplish that is to go back and pass 1D. (*ducks*)

Why are these reasonable conditions? Either opponent had the chance to overcall 1S, wouldn't they often do this with only 5 spades? When I dealt hands where partner had 11-15 points with at least 5 diamonds and 4 clubs and at most 3 spades, I found that one of the opponents would have a very clear overcall or takeout double on 49 out of the first 50 hands. The one remaining hand was less clear and partner was exactly 3-1-5-4 with 15 HCP. I think it is very good that you provide your simulation conditions in your post, but starting your post with "simulation suggests" is in this case a joke. I should have said something like: I can only assume the opponents have been gagged and mean only to address the relative merits of playing in diamonds vs hearts on hands consistent with opener's bidding. And, left out the part about the opponents being able to make a spade partscore so often. I expected the contest between hearts and diamonds to be closer. I think others would have guessed hearts better in the long run -- someone said "My hand plays so much better in hearts." That's really what I was trying to address. I think it would be very difficult to set up conditions for a simulation such that neither opponent would be intervening.

Simulation suggests that diamonds will play about 0.6 tricks better than hearts and 2D will make almost twice as often as 2H. The real challenge is keeping the opponents out of 2S -- they can make 2S over 90% of the time. So, maybe there should be some consideration to which auction is more likely to elicit a balance: 1D-1H; 2C-2D or 1D-1H; 2C-2H. If you don't think there is much difference to the opponents, then 2D is an easy winner. Conditions: opener has fewer than 4 spades, fewer than 3 hearts, at least as many diamonds as clubs (though I know that 3145 or similar is possible), not 3244, at most 10 minor suit cards, and 12-17 HCP; neither opponent has as many as 6 spades.

If 1883, it would be Whist. I believe that in at least one form of Whist, trumps was determined by facing the last card dealt (before putting it into dealer's hand). The marker was probably a way to remind all players what trumps was during the play.

Often times the minus in 5m will be a good sacrifice against 4H (or 4Hx). Suppose they are playing in a simply 4H at the other table and you pass this double. When 4H makes, you lose 5 IMPs; when 4H does down one, you win 5 IMPs; when 4H makes an overtrick, you lose 8 IMPs; when 4H goes down 2, you win 7 Imps. In order for you to win IMPs by passing, you have to think you are going to beat them more than half the time. If this is a clear takeout double (the 2nd time around) and you give your vulnerable opponents a bit of credit, I don't think you will be beating them more than 1/2 the time. Well, maybe you are already in a position to lose IMPs no matter what you do and you will lose fewer by passing than by pulling to 5m? Of course it depends on the relative frequencies of both 4H and 5m being down and making and how much we go down when they make, etc., but the simulations I have done suggest that bidding to 5m will be a winner against either 4H or 4Hx at the other table. Even when passing 4Hx is a nearly break even prospect, pulling to 5m wins over an IMP per board (whether they play 4H or 4Hx at the other table). Of course there was no way for us to lead trumps, they're overwhelming favorites to have 10 trumps (leaving partner with none) and I have no entry to get in to lead my trumps. Diamonds 4-1 can hardly be a surprise.

I do not pretend to understand the financial or political subtleties, but I don't think House members who voted "no" will get full credit for the results. At least not because of this vote. Whatever turmoil, disaster, market crash, etc. that results will not be fully on their shoulders as a result of this vote. Plenty of blame to go around.

Not that I'm going to be in Beijing anytime soon, but I thought I'd have a look: The blog you were looking for was not found.

This topic was recently opened in rgb, today there was an interesting response, a portion of which I quote here: "I know for a fact that Lucas asked the ACBL for "seeding" points and was told "NO". So he basically shrugged his shoulders and began with zero. Usually, because of good teammates, he has been in bracket 1. In the last couple of years, due to being hired by Joyce Hampton, he has often played in bracket 2 in regional events. Lucas did EXACTLY what he ethically was required or expected to do. The ACBL screwed up by first not awarding seeding points, then later deciding he was ineligible to take credit in is mini-spingold win." Tim

And here I thought you were just happy that someone was reading your posts.

Is that the royal "our"?

I think that even if we beat 4H nearly half the time, we will lose fewer points (and IMPs) overall if we pull (via 4N). It is possible that I give the vulnerable opponents too much credit for their jump to 4H, but I'd guess (with the help of simulation) that they're making about 60% of the time.

I wonder if maybe one of the new posters is really Justin is disguise?

Which one? Both. Would make for an unusual VP debate.

Which one?

The internet agrees with you. I am sure it is the hand the Moonraker hand reminded me of. Thanks to EricK for being the first to point me in the right direction.

I see your point that intervenor is looking at a different problem. In the 29 sim cases where opener had exactly 2 clubs, 3C made 16 times. Perhaps you are right that responder should guess that opener is approximately 4522. Well, I'm not implying opener should have only two clubs, although its possible. I'm looking at the construction from responder's point of view. If you assign the redoubler 4+ clubs and give intervenor your hand, then opener can have at most 2 clubs. My point being that as responder, the constructed danger hand for intervenor ought to be consistent with the hand we have.

I see your point that intervenor is looking at a different problem. In the 29 sim cases where opener had exactly 2 clubs, 3C made 16 times. Perhaps you are right that responder should guess that opener is approximately 4522.

South got: 1098x x A1076x J8x (the hand gnasher gave in the first post of the thread) East got: x Axx KQJxx AQxx (pclayton's example of hand intervenor could hold when hoping to get doubled in 3C) Actually, these are the spots I used: south ST984, H4, DAT763, CJ84 east S7, HA76, DKQJ85, CAQ76

I wouldn't hope to get doubled with that hand. I did a quick and simple simulation, dealing this hand to east and the hand that started this thread to south. I have north 3-4 spades, 5-6 hearts, 0-2 diamonds and at least 2 clubs along with 13-15 HCP (meaning that the intervening side has 20-22 HCP between them). Double dummy result for 3C was down 83/100. For comparison, 2D was down 65/100. Running from 2D, especially in a manner in which you are encouraging the opponents to double on momentum, seems wrong. Of course, if by pretending to want the opponents to double you, you convince them not to double you, I guess that's a good thing.

Will opener always have at least 3 clubs? Or, does he reopen with a double with shapes such as 4522 and 3622? It seems to me that even if opener is near minimum (~13-15 HCP), when he has 3 clubs they are an overwhelming favorite to go down. When opener has only 2 clubs, they will still go down often, maybe not enough to make the double worthwhile, especially since they're doubled into game this time.

Isn't Kx in an unbid suit a reason to bid 1NT (and protect the holding by becoming declarer)? Though I am often guilty of beginner bids, just to be clear, I was not advocating for a 1NT bid, just pointing out that I thought it strange the ♣Kx was given as a reason not to bid 1NT.

Isn't Kx in an unbid suit a reason to bid 1NT (and protect the holding by becoming declarer)?