jdeegan

:P These are exactly the numbers you get from Pavlicek's little computer gizmo.

:P It is really quite simple. Small to the jack wins whenever the queen is onside except for AQ97 - a percentage success rate of 45.2%. Ten off the dummy wins whenever the queen is onside unless it is stiff - a percentage success rate of 43.8%. The interesting part is that Q opposite A97 is more likely by 1.5% than AQ97 opposite void due to the law of vacant spaces. On this this particular hand, declarer is known to have 9 or ten spades in the trump suit. Anyone who covers a lead of the ten with his/her queen by choice is a really weak player.

:P A recent hand from the JEC bridge salon. The contract is 6♠. There are no losers outside the trump suit. The ♠ holding is: ♠10632 (dummy) ♠KJ854 (your hand) Alas, you are really good bidders, but your system just didn't get the ♠9 in the auction. So, how now, grasshopper? On the surface, you have two, apparently equal, cases to consider. The difference: Play one: RHO can have ♠ AQ97 opposite void. Play two: ♠Q opposite A97. Superficially, both seem equally likely. Richard Pavilcek and the 'law of vacant spaces' say no because 4-0 splits are less likely than 3-1 splits. But, fear not. Google 'Pavlicek'. Click on 'Bridge Calculators'. Next on 'Card Combination Analysis'. Figure it out. Now you too can divine the subtle differences (and, normally, they are very minor) in these probability situations. With play one, you start with the ♠10 off the dummy. With play two, lead small. It turns out that, absent any other info, there is only a very minor 1.5% difference between the chance of ♠AQ97 opposite void, and ♠Q opposite A97. You don't have to remember much more than that a 4-0 split is less likely than a 3-1 split and adjust the odds (very) slightly. If you have more info from the bidding or play, then you might be able to adjust the odds a fair amount. For example, if RHO overcalled a suit showing 5 or 6, then it reduces the odds of him/her having ♠AQ97. The odds of ♠Q opposite A97 increases. The spread of 1.5% goes up from to 4%. So, starting with the ten looks not so good in this situation. It is still not safe to come in out of the rain. JEC's partner on this hand is a fearsome rubber bridge player. In his world, players sometimes cover an honor with an honor when they should not. You should only do so only when covering builds a trick, either in your hand or partners. In the opponent's trump suit, this sort of trick promotion happens rarely. So, how do you play this card combination? Turns out, JEC's partner led the ♠10, the ♠ seven showed, so he floated it to the ♠ace. It worked as ♠ were Q7 onside versus A9 offside. What fun. At the other table in this high level game? The contract was also 6♠. For whatever reason, declarer played a small ♠ to the king. Down one.

:P Wrong to double at IMP's because of risk/reward ratio. Since we both know Garozzo, we can agree that he is/was a feisty and intuitive little dude who might actually do what he reportedly actually did do at Verona. I have seen him do some miraculous things at the bridge table. He may have been, in some ways, the best (and scariest) bridge player in history. If he is my LHO, then I pass even at BAM.

:P In the high fallutin' world of mathematics this circumstance is considered an example of what is called Bayesian statistics. In the down home clubs where I learned bridge it recalls the story of the man who bet $100 USD that if a man bet that the seven and one half of spades would never jump out of the deck and spit cider in his eye, he better start looking for a towel. The opponents bid just like the HCP's were, in fact, distributed 20-13-7 and zero. This is a seriously Bayesian event. Just a guess, but I have to bet that nobody ever responded to a opening 2NT opener with 6NT and then pulled to seven of a minor after you doubled in all of your bridge experience, or for that matter in the experience of anyone you know, personally. Other experiences related in the thread seem, at best, anecdotal. Passing at IMP's is probably correct given the extreme risk/reward ratio. At BAM - well, try to collect your thoughts and reflect on your folly.

:P Perhaps you can educate me about the general rules of the lightner double and how it should apply to this as yet hypothetical situation? By the way, pulling sh*t like 5 to one odds totally out of your ass is the very definition of drivel.

:P Hit it and lead the ♣king. Not enuf hearts to bid on. On a very good day the spade queen will make. Wtp?

:P I think you are correct to call these poetasters on their self-reinforcing follies. But what about me? I may be below average for my class, but at least I am really an expert. The thread is worth a look because JLall sometimes posts here. Timo and a few others are OK as well. Still, the drivel to real bridge discussion ratio seems to be getting worse.

:P Several points: 1. Having to remember a specific agreement to handle a situation that virtually never arises is not something real experts do. A more generalized agreement would make sense, imo. 2. The odds that LHO will get the yips and pull to 7m is non-existent for many players and unlikely for the rest since such hands are exceedingly rare. You should know your opponent a little have some table feel if he/she is getting jumpy or had a problem on the previous round of bidding. 3. Even against 7m, partner may lead a spade. 4. 7m may be unmakable against any defense. 5. The form of scoring is BAM. You get either 0, 1/2 or 1. Work out the possibilities.

:P As the lone 4♣ bidder, I was not really surprised at the actual hand. Partner figures to hold four hearts to reopen at this level. Partner figures to have more clubs than diamonds. That leaves room for how many spades? My heart ace is gold. My spade king is dreck. My diamond jack is better than a deuce. I don't want the cheese at this point. I just want out of the trap. There is a LOTT application here. They figure to have 10 spades less one negative adjustment for my spade king. We should have nine clubs. The probable 4-4 heart fit adds nothing playing in clubs. That comes to (only) 18 total tricks, more or less - 19 if partner has a spade void. This prospect makes me a pessimist, so I bid 4 clubs rather than 4 hearts.

:P Passing at IMPs - not really so bad due to the poor risk/reward ratio. Passing at BAM - just insane for the same reasons. So many hypothetical bad things have to happen for a double to go wrong. Also, what was the meaning of the 2NT bid? How does that compare with what my teammate is playing at the other table? Any table feel? This problem strikes me as more of an advanced/intermediate lesson.

:P That was exactly my experience 20 years ago playing the dreaded Kamikazi. My regular partner at the time was not a strong player, and I was coming off a 17 year layoff from bridge. At first, we needed all the 'randomizing' we could get. Later, I shook off some of the rust, and my partner improved his game. We ended up with some pretty decent teammates on occasion, and they were at times quite vocal about the 'randomizing effect'.

:P For a time, Meckstroth and Rodwell played the Kamakazi against the best in the world. Nothing nutty about that. This showed that the old Culbertson idea of an opening bid being a king better than an average hand was not necessarily the way to go, even though an opener facing an opener usually produced a play for game. Now that Meckwell and many others have adopted the strong club, you can see that certain of their one of a suit (other than one ♣) openers are less than a king better than an average hand. Others are not. Progress. They are getting some of the benefits of frequently occurring light opening bids without the risks inherent in opening one NT with an average strength balanced hand.

:P Some years ago the Kamakazi NT was, for a time, fashionable in the USA. I first ran across it playing in a Sectional tournament against a well-known Midwestern pair named Meckstroth and Rodwell. Good enough for them, good enough for me. It was loads of fun to play. Marshall Miles came up with an excellent system to handle its nuttiness. It could get a little hairy. I once kibitzed a Grand National Team qualifier in Jackson, Mississippi where minus 1280 was a push with two pretty good teams involved. My heartfelt advice as to how to defend against its craziness is to treat it with natural overcalls as if it were a one spade opener - except for the penalty double. You have to put such a cheeky bid in jeopardy. Playing any system designed as a defense to stronger 1NT openers is, imo, a very bad idea versus the dreaded Kamakazi. Go for the throat. Sometimes you will win. Sometimes you will lose. On this hand, a natural 2 club overcall looks about right.

:P IMO your comments indicate you know more about bidding than anyone else on this thread. That said, the failure of the North hand to double with the worst playing hand in the history of any major religion should be properly noted.

:P For goodness sakes! All I am saying is that every Tom, Dick and Harry is forever eager to offer a bridge lesson. The wise bridge player must be discriminating in knowing whom to listen to. If two players who have represented a major country in international open competition (or something close to that) disagree about the right bid, that is to be taken seriously. Otherwise, just be properly appreciative you have had the opportunity to get a genuine bridge lesson for free.

:P Hmm.......... The OP stipulates that the 3♦ bidder is one of the best players in the world. You say he/she cannot be even as much as a mere 'expert' player. Somebody has got to be wrong here. One wonders just who might that be? There is a possible ethical issue involved in this situation. Such a breach may have been an issue. Evidently some kind of hesitation was revealed in the OP if one clicked on some part of the hand diagram. My own browser did not reveal this - a computer glitch, perhaps. Glitch or no glitch, professional bridge players make their living helping customers win something. God knows what that is. God only knows why the customers want whatever that might be. If you really want to play this game, you need to come to terms with all of this.

:P All of your arguments are reasonable. At issue is whether bidding 3♠ is better percentagewise than double. Passing or doubling and then bidding 3♠ are both out of the picture according to ordinary bridge logic (not to say that either one or the other might not work best on any given hand). Most of the decision depends on the distribution of the various suits. We know for sure the expectancies. We know that the probability distributions around these expected values follow a binomial distribution, meaning they are roughly symmetrical in each case. I was hoping someone listening might have Pavlicek's hand simulator up and running. I don't anymore. In fact, from where I am now, calculating all one gazillion of the binomial distribution outcomes might actually be easier for me than reviving Pavlicek. My point is that there is a clear probabilistic solution that resolves the issue of which is the better bid. Double gets killed (most of the time) when we play in a 4-3 red suit rather than a 5-3+ spade fit. It wins (on balance) when partner passes (rare). It wins when partner has 5 or 6 hearts. It breaks even (more or less) when partner has four or more spades and not four hearts or diamonds. One last thing by far more important than all the probability B.S. JLOGIC bid 3♠.

:P I agree with your sentiment, but I would broaden it to include sims in general (for the most part). For most bridge hands they get very tricky pretty quick when all four hands are in consideration. As a trained statistician, the only ones I trust usually involve a huge amount of labor. First, you have to cast a very wide net and run, say, 100 sims that never leave out a possible hand. Then you have to cull out (by hand) the ones that don't fit the conditions. That, typically, leaves, maybe, 50 hands. Then you have to analyze each one by hand taking into account possible bids by opponents and possible opening leads. Assuming double dummy defense by a robot that peeks is often a surefire way to get a wrong answer. On this hand, you can very quickly use ordinary probability calculations to, at least, get the expected number of cards in each suit for each hand. With a little thought, you might be able to come up with a way to calculate the actual variances as well. Come to think of it, if all you are after is suit distribution, Pavlicek's hand generator might do a quick and dirty job. Just don't forget to include East (with at least six clubs) and then cull out the occasional odd hand where he has too many clubs or a second long suit. The expected values are: East: 2-2-2-7 South: 5-3-3-2 West: 3-4-4-2 North: 3-4-4-2 This alone, should show you why 3♠ is the correct bid.

:P Interesting thread. It really separates the sheep from the goats. The real players all bid 3♠. Double is not insane, but it is clearly inferior - and for the same reason why you should bid 1♠ over a 1♣ opener by RHO. A pass is really timid. Timo has his ranking system. Mine is even simpler. On the occasions where my bid disagrees with JLOGIC, I go back to the drawing board to see where I screwed up.

:P My mistake in retelling the auction. We do agree that a penalty double of 4♥ is not best. Others say you are among the best posters on this forum. I just got irritated after reading drivel like: 'partner cannot have a stiff heart' and 'I would have bid over 3♦'. One should be careful who one takes bridge lessons from. Else we get the blind leading the blind. I do take lessons from Justin because he is channeling Bob, his dad and others of that caliber. The rest of your opinions are 'interesting'.

delete

:P Yes, but for some reason, not in the original post.

:P 3♦. Wtp?

:P Are we discussing the same bridge hand? I was responding to an auction that went 1NT on my left, pass by my partner, 2♥ on my right, pass by me, pass by LHO, double by partner, redouble by RHO, 2♠ by me, 4♥ by LHO, passed around to me. The hand you give is more or less consistent with the bidding even (just barely) up to the point where partner finds a balancing double with a doubleton diamond. But, where did LHO find his/her 4♥ bid holding perhaps the worst Kamikaze NT opener ever seen? A few legitimate possibilities for this auction may exist. This is not one of them.