vsmague

HI Rainer Very interesting - what about the hands that have been passed (so plays 3S), how many are only 8 tricks ?

I was in front of Antony for that deal :rolleyes: In our system, I have 3 options : - strategy 1 : transfer then pass, except if super accept (showing max hand with 4 spades) where I bid 4 - strategy 2 : transfer then invitational 3S. I assume there partner will decide to bid 4 with maximum hand or medium hand with nice fit - strategy 3 : stayman (3 answers) then 2S on a 2D or 2H answer (and 4S on a 2S answer), showing 5S in an invitational hand. Maximum, partner can bid 3NT (I'll sign off at 4S), with minimal hand he stops at 2S, and in between partner relays to 2NT to ask for shortness and I bid 3D to show short clubs. Partner can then decide to bid 3 or 4S according to the hand fit (no lost points in Clubs). I have just simulated the 3 strategies using double dummy on a sample of 2000 deals. Criteria are : - Strategy S1 : opener plays 4S if 17H and 4S, else he plays 2S - Strategy S2 : opener plays 4S if he has 4S, or a maximum hand, or a non balanced medium hand with 3 spades (or Hx), else he plays 3S - Strategy S3 : responder plays 4S if opener is maximum, or has 4S, or has a medium hand with 3S and no K or Q in C - sometimes opener plays when he has 4S and no 4H. If medium hand with lost point in Clubs, responder plays 3S, else he plays 2S if opener is mini I have compared the results for the 3 strategies and here are the findings S1 versus S2 : S1>S2 34% - S1=S2 39% - S1<S2 27% S1 versus S3 : S1>S3 18% - S1=S3 63% - S1<S3 19% S2 versus S3 : S2>S3 14% - S2=S3 62% - S2<S3 24% So seems on the sample that S3 slightly better than S1, both are above S2 Downside of S3 is that the hand is played by respondant in most cases, but the advantage is that declarer is more able to judge his hand given the known club shortness

I didn't find out how to fix the dealer. I tried the instruction "dealer south" in the advanced settings but it fails. Is there an other way to do that ? Tks

The competitive bidding is now very performant with the possible use of robots (with web-based interface) and Delear language for setting hands. But for efficient competitive bidding, I think it would be great to set the dealer (it is not possible neither with the dealer instruction nor in the pbn files). For instance, if we want to train to manage 1x-2♠ - ?? sequences, the actual rotation of dealers is not very convenient. Any other opinion on this topic ?