Jeroen71

(2S*)-X-(3S**)-3NT * muiderberg, exactly 5 spades, 4+ minor, 6-10 HCP ** typically 4 spades, no game interest is 3NT natural here?

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=skt762haj42djtc62]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You are east and hear this auction by opps: (1♣) - pass - (1♠) - pass (1NT) - pass - (2NT) - pass (3NT) - pass - (pass) - ? opps are playing a natural 5crd major system with strong notrump. LHO tanked a little before accepting the invite. doubling now would request a spade lead. Would you? Would it matter if the scoring would be MP instead?

Ordering a beer in a bar is almost universally done as "een biertje" (a small beer). Of course, the beers in NL are indeed very small compared to our neighbour countries where you normally get at least 0.5L or a pint.

DD results do not produce a systematic bias, for most reasonable definitions of systematic bias. It as just as random as the "noise" from the simulated frequency tables. If my opps bid a ridiculous 7NT that happens to make on 3 finesses and a squeeze, I shrug and move on to the next table. The other pairs in the room are quite likely to have more normal results. However, the DD result is 7NT=, so now instead of, at most, one pair (+their opps) getting a ridiculous score, now everybody in the room will get a ridiculous score. It's not difficult to imagine that all of the pairs that happen to have 7NT on will have a near-zero chance to win the tournament, as they have to make up 34 imps (2 times 17) in perhaps as few as 24 boards.

Would you care to elaborate a bit on your choice of model + criterion?

Before you can start doing some statistical analysis, you would have to define what it means for one measure to be better than another. Not a trivial task....

Unfortunately, this is very common in The Netherlands at the moment after the latest change in our regulations :blink:

Because he cannot be sure his partner doesn't have clubs

As long as he had a legitimate bridge problem, it is irrelevant that the long tank could have the propensity to mislead declarer. Any inferences declarer makes are at his/her own risk (73D). As no infraction has been committed, there is no offending side, so ruling in favour of the non-offending side becomes a meaningless phrase.

I hate to be this person but I can't help it. Better word Good analysis though. So glad you're back, what would we do without posts like this! Use nonexistant words? like nonexistant?