bluecalm

Whatever GF bid I have in my system. In standard it would be 2♣. In precision and polish club 1♣. When deciding if I should open with bid which contains GF hands I usually ask myself if I have a gf hand. If the answer is yes then I open it, hence 2♣...

I will have to double check the calculations but quick script shows me that declarers won 27610imps over dd expectation during 97706 hands which gives them 0.282 imps advantage per hand. This is also 0.067 tricks per hand.

This is one idea I had alredy. Both calculating opening lead "success" and declaring after opening lead. I will do that once I am back home :) The conclusion that declarers have advantage over defenders couldn't be drawn from this sample because I deleted all the people who declared less than 250 hands on vugraph. I will calculate what advantage (if any) declarer has for whole sample though.

I had some fun doing this so I will share :) I compiled hands from major events from 1995 to 2009 (unfortunately I wasn't able to get hands from 2010 yet), calculated dd results for them (thanks to awesome double dummy solver written by Piotr Beling, http://bcalc.w8.pl/index.php?lang=en&topic=abou) and made various things with them. First thing is to see which player outscores double result when declaring. This is done like this: for every hand dd result in actual contract bid is subtracted from result at the table. This is then converted to IMPs then summed for all hands. What are major events ? My completely arbitrary choice was : world teamc championship, Olympiad, WMSG, Rosemblum, Spingold, Vanderbilt, USBC, European Team Championships and European Champions Cup as well as Cap Gemini and Forbo tournaments. The results (first column is total imps won, second total hands played, third average per hand). I didn't make much attempt to remove hands from senior tournaments. They shouldn't be there but if somehow they were thrown into vugraph folders for major events then the stats will include them. Ok, have fun: (the data only contains players who declared at least 250 hands on vugraph) Elinescu : 248 , 285 , avg: 0.87 Gitelman : 341 , 464 , avg: 0.73 FANTONI : 546 , 767 , avg: 0.71 Levin : 312 , 441 , avg: 0.71 pszczola : 170 , 250 , avg: 0.68 Cronier : 229 , 343 , avg: 0.67 VERSACE : 1047 , 1607 , avg: 0.65 WLADOW : 235 , 374 , avg: 0.63 helgemo : 424 , 712 , avg: 0.60 ROSENBERG : 418 , 739 , avg: 0.57 bertens : 218 , 407 , avg: 0.54 BOCCHI : 630 , 1190 , avg: 0.53 Levy : 213 , 409 , avg: 0.52 Mari : 144 , 278 , avg: 0.52 Multon : 159 , 309 , avg: 0.51 WEINSTEIN : 468 , 916 , avg: 0.51 Hampson : 191 , 375 , avg: 0.51 bakkeren : 144 , 285 , avg: 0.51 Sontag : 216 , 436 , avg: 0.50 sementa : 206 , 420 , avg: 0.49 Cohen : 303 , 618 , avg: 0.49 BALICKI : 269 , 557 , avg: 0.48 DUBOIN : 617 , 1278 , avg: 0.48 HAMMAN : 428 , 919 , avg: 0.47 RODWELL : 569 , 1293 , avg: 0.44 Meckstroth : 593 , 1380 , avg: 0.43 FALLENIUS : 157 , 367 , avg: 0.43 MARTENS : 112 , 268 , avg: 0.42 Jansma : 129 , 309 , avg: 0.42 Garner : 170 , 410 , avg: 0.41 Zia : 409 , 1008 , avg: 0.41 lauria : 629 , 1562 , avg: 0.40 Branco : 180 , 449 , avg: 0.40 piekarek : 142 , 359 , avg: 0.40 Lanzarott : 125 , 319 , avg: 0.39 SEAMON : 134 , 343 , avg: 0.39 Brogelan : 191 , 495 , avg: 0.39 Muller : 181 , 472 , avg: 0.38 Nystrom : 127 , 334 , avg: 0.38 Soloway : 206 , 549 , avg: 0.38 Lindkvis : 110 , 298 , avg: 0.37 WEICHSEL : 119 , 355 , avg: 0.34 BOMPIS : 148 , 446 , avg: 0.33 Jonsson : 135 , 407 , avg: 0.33 Helness : 249 , 769 , avg: 0.32 FREDIN : 141 , 443 , avg: 0.32 Stansby : 183 , 577 , avg: 0.32 nickell : 176 , 568 , avg: 0.31 Ramondt : 92 , 302 , avg: 0.30 PASSELL : 91 , 301 , avg: 0.30 WESTRA : 109 , 371 , avg: 0.29 KOWALSKI : 81 , 286 , avg: 0.28 Ekeblad : 111 , 404 , avg: 0.27 Dubinin : 96 , 352 , avg: 0.27 Nunes : 107 , 400 , avg: 0.27 Gromov : 146 , 553 , avg: 0.26 HACKETT : 225 , 862 , avg: 0.26 GAWRYS : 72 , 305 , avg: 0.24 CHAGAS : 112 , 480 , avg: 0.23 freeman : 125 , 538 , avg: 0.23 TUSZYNSKI : 76 , 337 , avg: 0.23 Martel : 97 , 446 , avg: 0.22 Moss : 83 , 406 , avg: 0.20 Schaltz : 52 , 272 , avg: 0.19 JASSEM : 53 , 314 , avg: 0.17 Quantin : 51 , 304 , avg: 0.17 Mouiel : 58 , 363 , avg: 0.16 Drijver : 43 , 281 , avg: 0.15 Berkowitz : 93 , 664 , avg: 0.14 bertheau : 49 , 415 , avg: 0.12 Wang : 33 , 395 , avg: 0.08 Chemla : 22 , 406 , avg: 0.05 ZMUDZINSKI : -24 , 406 , avg: -0.06 WELLAND : -33 , 401 , avg: -0.08 Jacobs : -40 , 408 , avg: -0.10 buratti : -42 , 348 , avg: -0.12 SAELENSMI : -48 , 330 , avg: -0.15 This is just for fun purposes. Obviously some players face tougher opponents and sample size is small enough to make variance very significant, so I don't think any serious conclusions could be drew from the data :)

Simulation time but unfortunately I am not at home and can't run it. My wild guess is 4S.

Btw, would you be so nice to post the followups you have after those ? I like their system a lot and would like to learn more about it :)

Hello, So far I was downloading individual files for .lin files of my favorite players/tournaments. I realize I am wasting tons of bandwitch by 100's of http requests (I wrote automatic downloader for chosen tournamets/players/dates etc.). Would it be possible for some admin to zip all .lin files from vugraph archives and make them available on some file sharing site ? Niko's website is great but it lacks files from 2010 :( Thanks for help :)

Balicki - Zmudzinski and most other polish pairs play this version of multi. I also don't like multi and I even less like 2suiter 2M openers (w/e they are called). In Poland situation is similar to Netherlands: default is multi and you usually need a lot of convincing to change it.

Pluses of obligatory support double are that partner knows you don't have support so he could safely pass many hands with 4 or 5 spades which normally he would feel he needs to compete with. It's get along with philosophy of making descriptive call in the bidding asap and then shutting up. I think this is winning style in this game.

Almost ? Could you give example of 5-4-3-1 hand with support which doesn't double ? I like to play that support double is obligatory. If we don't want to double then we don't open (and I am a fan of opening EVERY 11hcp). I could see merit of passing pathetically weak 4-3-3-3 but passing any 4-4-3-2 seems counterproductive to me.

1NT p p 2H p p dbl has no influence on: 1NT p p 2H dbl I would like to play both as t/o. Some of my friends prefer playing the 1st one as penalty for reason which was never convincing to me (you could bid 2S with 4 of them and t/o shape; but what about 3-2-4-4 and say 7hcp ? and why not dbl with 4-2-4-3 or something and give partner chance to leave it ?) I like to play 2nd as t/o no matter what i agree in the 1st one. I mean, even if we play penalty in 1st how do we ever compete ? 4-2-4-3 opposite 3-2-4-4 and 24hcp combined and they are enjoying their 2H on 9trumps. Neva!

I agree with everything awm said in this thread. I think opening problem would be more interesting in 4th seat at matchpoints (as you really don't want to go minus with big misfits) but in 3rd seats and hand that strong 4♠ is no brainer. 100% N. he had a chance to correct himself after hearing positive bid by partner.

In my opinion it's clear pass unless somehow I passed 1NT with 0-4-3-6 (which I wouldn't). Amount of overthinking in the simplest of situations in this thread amaze me :)

I forgot about puppet which I am not used to playing. I think that there is a way to discover 5-4 fit then we should stayman on this hand (to bid slam opposite 5spades).

Of course he won't pitch the queen if he has it. Why would he give declarer free trick for his Jxx of hearts ? The point is that if you cash the second heart and partner doesn't have the queen then declarer will be forced to play an honor from his QJx (supposedly he didn't bid 2NT with 4 hearts) and position in the suit will be clear (if declarer plays J then partner pitches the queen and you cash out heart suit). Switching to clubs instantly might be better though as it's likely that declarer has Qxx of hearts, A of diamonds and A of clubs and then cashing 2nd heart will give him 9th trick.

Ok, right. I dealt some hands and it indeed looks like passing is awful. Partner has 5+ hearts or 4+ diamonds just too often with strength which doesn't warrant any action from him after our pass. Plus double very rarely leads to bad result. I change my opinion to double, because it just works.

I like 3NT on this one. If I stayman that's surely to make a slam attempt. I think 3NT is better than 4♠ at both IMPs and MPs with that many hcp combined.

I don't like those agreements (playing wide range support double along with wide range openers), there should be a way to show strong hand. I would prefer bidding 2NT. Anyway, now I pass, what else ? I am not even close in strength to play at 4 level.

I just want to say that my opinion in this one isn't strong and I usually play 2♣ majors, rest natural. I just wanted to quote Martens opinion which I find relevant to this thread. I tend to agree with him but I haven't thought about it too much and I think awm may well right on this one.

Some reference: Robson - Segal recommend penalty double in similar sequence (which, they say, could be called "defensive double"): 1♥ dbl pass 1♠ 2♥ dbl (giving examle hand: J84 K7 AK84 AQ96 Doubler of course doesn't have ♥ stack but has maximum and would like to rebid 1NT if opener passed. They argue that in this sequence the t/o dbl is no longer needed. I agree with their views on this one. They don't mention our sequence (with 1NT instead of 1♠) but I would guess the same principle applies.

I think double is very aggressive action and I think most good players would not double. I still double because I think my bridge hero would :-) (Meck)

Imo: West has clear 4♦ as partner bid 6-4 and quite a strong hand. East overbid with 3♦, he should have doubled which better describes his hand (no extra distrib, but extra strength) I think tanks by NS doesn't matter.

I meant that you have 14hcp in the first hand and 12hcp so passing is inconceivable to me :-)

You have 14 and 12pc respctively in 4 and 8...

I found 3) interesting, what about 4NT ? (as 2suiter). I think 4♣ just loses heart suit forever.