cherdanno

Can you see which is less frequent and subtract that likelihood from the making percentage? Constraints: - North has at least 11 hcp, South at least 5. - North has at least as many diamonds as clubs, and (no 5-card major) or (more diamonds than cards in each major) - South has at least 4 hearts - If South has 5 spades, he has more hearts than spades West makes 5♣ 59.3% of the time (10000 runs) North has ♠KQ: 30.1% of the time North has ♠Hxxx: 27.8% of the time

Yes sorry I had a typo in my simulations, I now get similar numbers as Ben. They seem to be based mostly on the fact that declarer is picking up both KQx(x) and Hxxx with North, just as Adam wrote.

Btw, I still don't understand why 5♣ is supposed to be a 60% game. When I tried simulations, I got 38%.

I think this is a mistake. It means that missing a 60% game becomes exactly as costly as missing an 90% game, which is very much unlike matchpoint bidding (or any kind of bridge bidding). CTC have thought about this a lot and there scoring is based strictly on matchpoint expectancy.

[deleted]

Huh? Do you play 3D as forcing? Anyway, the worst bid was West's failure to double 5♣, the second-worst the raise to 5♣. Btw, I disagree with Josh, West seems to have two double cards :)

Why? That makes it ridiculously better to be 34-seed than to be 33-seed.

I think you absolutely need to be able to show a takeout of spades after (2D) (2S). 2way double may work. Maybe X=spades, 2N = takeout can work. But how can you live without a takeout double when most likely they are about to pass out 2S in their 6-2 fit?

You know, Ron, when 5 people point out you have made a mistake, then it might be a good idea to double-check quickly whether you made a mistake, before dishing out insults to everyone. It would help the credibility of your other insults.

Did the director know about the previous suspension/probations of this player?

Why not 7? Because some go down in 6!

Lol such a typical The_Hog conversation.

I wonder whether you can leave reviews. "I really recommend xyz, would always date him/her again"

So did the standard auctions to 4S mostly go 1S 1N 4C 4S? (Our auction.) Or 3S rebid? Or 3D as Ben suggested? I admit in real life it would never occur to me to stop short of game with the East hand, but maybe in a bidding contest the trick might be to stay low with a bad suit? (Of course if I had a method to show a very good 3S bid with a bad suit then I would, but in standard I don't see an alternative.) Btw, I have to admit that I tanked as West over 4C - I was !sure! the problem was how to get to 6H in our 5-3 fit. But since there was no way of getting there anyway I just bid 4S ;)

So if we forget the East hand, what does the panel think should West do over a takeout double by East? 3♣ or game force?

Kathryn, you clearly didn't do anything wrong. Siegmund, sorry to hear your story. I assume your 4252 19-count was actually a 4225 19 count? S.th. like AQT7 Kx Ax AQTxx?

A system where a 2NT rebid is non-forcing :P

I appeal, 5♠ should be worth 9 :)

So just to satisfy the curiosity of someone who has never heard of law 86D: Assuming you use 86D, you could assign percentages to 6CX=, 6NT down, and games, with the percentages favoring defenders if in doubt, because - we think that the opposing team achieved a very good score with 6CX=, and - we deem them to be the offending side?

Well if the field is in 3N and 3N makes more often than not, then 4♣ can't get a score above 50%. I don't think 3N is quite as good, so my scoring would be s.th. like 3N=7, 4C=6, 5C=5. Anyway, this is not an appeal, just meant as some general thoughts how these should be scored.

Hope you didn't take any cats with you.

Haha I tricked you. That part was added in an edit :)

With hindsight, it would have been better to make the West hand weaker, so that 4♠ is going for 500 against nothing. That would cast doubt upon this: Yeah I thought you had a very good auction to 4♠, unlike most of us I assume. Gnasher's auction was: (2D) P (2S) X* (4H) 4S X was spades, or takeout of spades. Over 4♥, West could be sure it was the former.

Thinking about the scores made me appreciate how much effort is put into the selection of hands for The Bridge World's Challenge-the-Champs. At CTC, the scoring is strictly matchpoint expectancy in a very good field. That means that you can't even use a hand where the top spot is a 75% 4♠ contract, where you expect some of the field to be there and the rest (majority) in part-scores: 4♠ will tie against anyone else in the same contract, and beat any partscore 75% of the time - which means it's matchpoint expectancy is s.th. like 65%, or 8 on a 12 top. And of course you want to be able to hand out one better score than that on any hand. On the other hand, I enjoyed bidding the BBF contest's hand much more than bidding CTC hands, as it wasn't as frustrating :) It was easier to get to the top spot, and even when we didn't get there, it wasn't quite as obvious as that another spot was better :) (And this isn't criticism of Ben's selection in any way - I am sure I would have done a worse job than him selecting the hands. There is a reason I haven't gotten an offer to replace Eric Kokish in selecting the CTC hands yet :).)

Double.