hotShot

Who's interested in the odds of a specific hand, when you don't know the specific hand? I have to make my (bidding/playing) decisions based on the knowledge of a set of hand that the specific hand belongs to. By a simulation I gain information about a subset of the set of hands I'm interested in. I hope that the decision that is right for most hands from my sample subset will be right for my real deal as well.

It's said that there are math gods, human number cruncher that can really calculate odds in bridge. Mere mortals like me use simulations to estimate the odds. Knowing that it is a very good estimate, is good enough for me.

Yes, at least he should consider a raise. If you bid a high preempt in red you should, count your loser and hope for 2 tricks from partner to make. This defines the level you bid. Depending on which 2 aces and 2 Q partner has he might see more than 2 tricks in his hand and rise.

I would not speak of blame here, because the right move could easily turn out to be a horrible mistake. East could realize that he can be endplayed with the ♣A and play that, prior to exiting in ♦.

The cause: Globalisation The population of first world countries will divide into 2 groups: 1) Those who's payment is in global competition or provide service for them. There are counties in the world where 500$ is considered a good monthly payment for an employee, so a global company will restructure and move the work to the cheapest county. This is nothing new, it affected jobs without a need for much professional training decades ago. The new thing is, that now jobs with high professional education are also involved. Now were talking about jobs like software development, research or development. In first world country's this lead to massive drop of income. 2) Those who's income depends on capital growth/intellectual property rights or provide service for them. Those not in 1) or 2) now, will join one of them sooner( 1) ) or later ( 2) ). There is no cure.

I have a program that parses lin-files and checks every card played, if it loses against the best double-dummy play. Intermediates average about 1 trick per board less than double-dummy play, experts to world class about 0.25-0.5 tricks per board. So if you are intermediate, forget about simulations and work on your cardplay and bidding. If you are expert+ you will play 3 of 4 boards equivalent to the double dummy solver, and can rely on the double dummy result. There have been scientific studies comparing ok-bridge data with double-dummy results, showing an average deviation of 0.25 tricks. (The deviation is larger for 1-level contracts and is shrinking the higher the level is.) These results are relevant for BB too, because this means that if intermediate pairs play each other, they will produce the same result as world class pairs. The former because each side misses 2 tricks, the latter because both sides miss no trick. So if there are enough scores/board the result of a BB query has a significant meaning.

Any simulation process has consist of 4 steps, it does not matter much if it's bridge or economics or for the weather forecast. 1) Make a model for your problem In bridge this is done by setting the constrains for the hand. Of cause you have to set constrains for all relevant hands, this includes opps. If your model does not fit your problem, you will misunderstand the results. At this point most people fail at least at the first try. 2) Create the input for your problem In bridge this would be deals. If your dealer does not produce truly random deals, your results will be flawed. 3) Perform the simulation This is executing the DD-Analysis or performing the BB query. Up to here you should be aware of the SI => SO principle which is politically correct expanded to: Nonsense In => Nonsense Out. So you should check if the deals created really fit your problem and you should reconsider the constrains you set. If your simulation tools does not allow you to check the deals used in some kind of log, you should get yourself a different tool. 4) Interpret the results Ask yourself again: "What question does my model answer?" And check if the answer is relevant. Before you install a 50.1% over 49.9% advantage in your system, find something else to optimize.

4♣ if that is ♣'s, else 5♣.

Well at least I can agree that the set of hands that make game is not empty and some are also a subset of partners possible hands. xx KJxx xxxx AQJ will do and even xx Kxxx Qxxx AQx has good chances. I just think that the subset is (very) small compared to the subset of possible hands partner could have. I need a more convenient simulation tool .....

Yes.

How about 20-(minimum strength of X)?

Please use the redeal button instead, otherwise people playing that board at another table might be very surprised.

That seems a rather extreme view. What would you do with xxx AQ10x x Kxxxx ? Partner is a passed hand, why should I bid over 2♠ with 9 HCP? I think that bidding on has to show more than that. And before you ask with xxx AQ10x x KQJxx I would have bid over 1♠.

1) I can live with it, but I would prefer it to be a little stronger. 2) 4♥

The only type of hand that would pass 1♠ and now bid again has to have 4+♠'s and opening strength. So I would take: dbl = penalty 2NT= to play 3m=4♠,3(-4)♥, 5m(probably weak suit) 3♥=4♠,4-5♥ maybe a little extra, non forcing

Partner will always sit over LHO, and opps can't avoid to play both black suits. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see a need to help opps developing tricks in a black suit, if partner really is strong in ♥, he needs to know which suit is best to exit. So I'll lead ♦.

2♦

I think in basic 2/4 you play the 2nd of 2 or 3 cards and the 4th of any 4+ suit. This way partner can estimate your length. In enhanced 2/4 this is combined with some sort of "attitude" signal, where playing a 4th card promises values in that suit. So you lead the 2nd of a weak suit, even if it's long. There are other possible enhancements.

So why should the Basque's, Bavarians or [place your favorite local group here] not be allowed to compete? I think the winner of the Super Bowl is called World Champion ... Competing in a championship for "people living an specified region" makes much more sense to me than a championship for "people you are spread all over the world, but inherited a nationality".

Should we rename or redefine Cappelletti since Cappelletti is now playing something different? I thought that Maurice Harrison-Gray, Jack Marx and S. J. Simon created it, but there is no enforceable standard for Acol. E. Crowhurst published "Precision Bidding in ACOL" in 1974 and "ACOL in Competition" 1980.

Remember that thread "What people call Acol"?

AKT97 AQx xx KJ7 You have the chance to make 4♠ tricks capturing one missing honor, 1-2♥ (depending on finesse/ lead) and 0-2 ♦ (depending on finesse/lead). This is a total of 5-8 tricks. QJ4 KQ975 KQT A5 You can get 0-1♠ tricks (assume AKT behind you), 0-2♦ (opps will capture one of KQ) and 1♣. The ♥ suit can lose to AJT8 so you are more likely to get 3 tricks and you might have to exit 2 times before the suit is developed, this means you might need entries to get to the high ♥. So here the total is 2-7 tricks. So the other hand is stronger.

In other sports, you are required to have the nationality of he country that you compete for. So in a way this regulation is relaxed. On the other hand in an united Europe nationality should be completely irrelevant (for competition in sports).

Since this is the B/I section, we should discus the textbook treatments. Acol is a 4-card system, meaning you should open 4+ card majors (4cM) as 1M. Suggesting to move 5M332 into 1NT, is in fact suggesting not to play Acol. You create a system with strong 1-level bids (because all weak balanced and semibalanced hands are opened 1NT). Even if that were a superior system, it's not Acol. The textbook treatment is to open 1M and to rebid 2M if weak (12-14) and 5332. We could point that Swiss Acol requires 1♠ to have 5 cards to avoid that problem in ♠.

I assume your read the thread from last week about that virus that floods any running application.