CSGibson Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Playing in the GNT superflight today, this auction came up: [hv=d=n&v=b&s=sj9532hkj9d3cq943]133|100|Scoring: IMP1♦-(P)-1♠-(P), 2♦-(P)-P-(X),P-(P)-?[/hv] Is redouble here trying to find another playable spot? Do you use that option, or do you just take your lumps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 I0d just pass, LHO didn't double before, he is kind of gamblimg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 I think xx is rescue here. I can't construct any hands that passed 2♦ and now really think 2♦xx is making and that they have no good save. But on the actual hand, I think pass is automatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 I agree with roger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 SOS redoubles at the 2-level are overrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Redouble would be SOS, but I don't think this is the hand for it. Whilst partner might be 4=5 in the reds or 6=4 in the minors, he might also be 1=3=6=3. For a redouble, I'd want something like J1098x KJx - QJ109x, where there is more hope of improving the contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Easy pass, I like to have a void to xx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 If you're redoubling, you might as well just bid 2♥... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 lol.. more simulation fodder. Without assumptions for opps hands, we get, after 614484 hands, suit lengths of: spades: 2.34559hearts: 2.4721diamonds: 5.76377clubs: 2.41854pard hcp: 12.7792pard hcp in diamonds: 5.44424 This hints at a 2♠ bid.... lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 lol.. more simulation fodder. Without assumptions for opps hands, we get, after 614484 hands, suit lengths of: spades: 2.34559hearts: 2.4721diamonds: 5.76377clubs: 2.41854pard hcp: 12.7792pard hcp in diamonds: 5.44424 This hints at a 2♠ bid.... lol You can prove almost anything with a simulation, as long as you get the parameters right. In this instance you seem to have assumed that with three-card support opener would frequently (or always?) rebid diamonds rather than raising to 2♠. If I were opener, my number average number of spades would be well under 2, because with almost any minimum hand containing three-card support I would have raised. Furthermore, on the small number of hands where I'd have rebid 2♦ in spite of having three-card support, I would have very good diamonds, which is rendered unlikely by the opponents' actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFA Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 lol.. more simulation fodder. Without assumptions for opps hands, we get, after 614484 hands, suit lengths of: spades: 2.34559hearts: 2.4721diamonds: 5.76377clubs: 2.41854pard hcp: 12.7792pard hcp in diamonds: 5.44424 This hints at a 2♠ bid.... lol Something is terribly wrong with the numbers... :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcphee Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Redble is not my thought at all, even if partner did hold 4H I doubt that would be a better spot with a trump lead. Same hand at the other table and possibly the same problem, why are we making a decision that could prove very wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 hearts: 2.4721clubs: 2.41854 There's something a bit smelly about these numbers too. Opener will often bid 2♦ with 4♥ and 5♦, but never with 4♣ and 5♦. I'd expect a much bigger difference between his average heart and club lengths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Yes, there was a bug in the code about hearts and clubs. Here're the new figures. spades: 2.09555hearts: 3.1117diamonds: 5.60782clubs: 2.18493hcp: 12.7525hcp in diamonds: 5.38587Generated 10000000 handsProduced 942490 hands So most likely shape is now 2362 and this argues for a pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 If this were matchpoints, you should redouble (SOS), as your opponents have told you that 2♦x is not making, so you are trying to get out of what is likely to already to be a terrible score. If you make it worse, it doesn't matter much. At IMPs, however, the magnitude of the minus is relevant. You don't want to make the situation any worse than it already is. You were going to pass 2♦ if they didn't double, so there is no reason to run now that you are doubled. Sit and take your lumps, and hope that your teammates duplicate the result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 lol.. more simulation fodder. Without assumptions for opps hands, we get, after 614484 hands, suit lengths of: spades: 2.34559hearts: 2.4721diamonds: 5.76377clubs: 2.41854pard hcp: 12.7792pard hcp in diamonds: 5.44424 This hints at a 2♠ bid.... lol No offense, but posts like this one are a waste of pixels: As Gnasher already commented, you can prove almost anything with a simulation. Simulations can be quite valuable, however, if you want to start a discussion about the results of your simulation you really need to document 1. The assumptions that were used to develop your simulation2. The code that you used to write your simulation Both of these are much more important than your results Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 I don't want to prove anything. And the assumptions were self-evident, which is why I didn't wrote them. Still, if this bothers you, you can read the code for yourself. generate 10000000 predeal south SJ9532, HKJ9, D3, CQ943 pard2D = hcp(north)>10 and hcp(north)<16 and diamonds(north)>4 and clubs(north)<4 and spades(north)<4 condition pard2D action average "spades" spades(north), average "hearts" hearts(north), average "diamonds" diamonds(north), average "clubs" clubs(north), average "hcp" hcp(north), average "hcp in diamonds" hcp(north, diamonds) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 I0d just pass, LHO didn't double before, he is kind of gamblimg. LHO has balanced, I suppose that could be considered gambling. It's RHO who holds the diamonds and who has converted the double. It may not be fashionable these days, but trap passing can be quite effective -- looks like it has hit pay dirt here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 I don't want to prove anything. And the assumptions were self-evident, which is why I didn't wrote them. Still, if this bothers you, you can read the code for yourself. generate 10000000 predeal [space] [space] [space] [space]south SJ9532, HKJ9, D3, CQ943 pard2D [space]= hcp(north)>10 and hcp(north)<16 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]and diamonds(north)>4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]and clubs(north)<4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]and spades(north)<4 condition [space] [space] [space] [space]pard2D action [space] [space] [space] [space]average "spades" spades(north), [space] [space] [space] [space]average "hearts" hearts(north), [space] [space] [space] [space]average "diamonds" diamonds(north), [space] [space] [space] [space]average "clubs" clubs(north), [space] [space] [space] [space]average "hcp" hcp(north), [space] [space] [space] [space]average "hcp in diamonds" hcp(north, diamonds) Your assumptions were far from self evident: For example, up until now, I didn't know that your simulation treated ♠ 9♥ AK7342♦ K7532♣ 9 As a hand suitable for a 1♦ opening and a 2♦ rebid after partner's 1♠ advance. In a similar vein, I believe that ♠ K3♥ Q63♦ AK732♣ K74 Would appear to be a 1♦ opening, followed by a 2♦ rebid rather than a 1NT opening. Oh yes, from what i can tell your simulation doesn't permit a 1♦ opening on hands like ♠ K653♥ K73♦ A763♣ K8 Given the number of elementary coding mistakes that you seem to make, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask you state specifically what you are doing and then demonstrate that you are actually achieving this end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Dude, you can get as picky as you want, but it won't change the fact that the true results probably won't differ much from the bugged ones, which took like 1 minute to code and run. You probably heard of Pareto's law, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Dude, you can get as picky as you want, but it won't change the fact that the true results probably won't differ much from the bugged ones, which took like 1 minute to code and run. You probably heard of Pareto's law, no? First you need to invest 20% of the required time ofcourse :P I think if you exclude 5332 distrubitions (and perhaps limit the number of ♥s to 0-4), you'll get a pretty accurate result Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Oh yes, from what i can tell your simulation doesn't permit a 1♦ opening on hands like ♠ K653♥ K73♦ A763♣ K8 If I opened that hand 1♦, I think I'd raise partner's spades rather than rebid 2♦. Of course, I would also raise to 2♠ holding three spades with some frequency. And, rebid 1NT with many 5332 hands (especially the ones where my suit isn't so good as hinted by 2nd hand's trap pass). I agree with Richard that it would be better to give at least a brief summary of the conditions you used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Nuno, I think you should set diamonds to 6+. Almost all hands with only 5 diamonds would bid differently. Maybe not Kx-xxxx-AKQJx-xx but you could ignore that exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Whereagles, I don't mean this as a flamebait but your assumptions are so far removed from what I would consider the correct assumptions your results do seem worthless to me. You should really include "unbalanced" as a condition, and for example for me a 2♦ rebid almost never has less than 6 diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Dude, you can get as picky as you want, but it won't change the fact that the true results probably won't differ much from the bugged ones, which took like 1 minute to code and run. You probably heard of Pareto's law, no? I'm well aware of Pareto's Law. However, in this case it gets trumped by one of the basic rules of computing. "Garbage In, Garbage Out" I'm perfectly willing to believe that the code in question took you less than a minute to write. However, I'd hardly brag about this if you're trying to convince people that they should have any faith in the accuracy of your results or pay attention to your simulations. Take a close look at what your simulation gets wrong: 1. Your simulation fails to exclude NT openers from your 1D opening 2. Your simulation doesn't exclude any hands with Hearts > Diamonds from your NT opening. 3. Your simulation doesn't recognize that there are hands with 4-4 in the minors that will get get opened 1D (thankfully these won't rebid 2♦) 4. Your simulation doesn't recognize that there are lots of hands that will rebid 1NT rather than 2♦ on balanced hands Its hard to place much faith in a simulation that misbids on both balanced and unbalanced hands. Given that you appear pretty new to this all, here's a bit of advice on methodology: Code reuse is your friend Invest some real time and effort developing a set of scripts that model a bidding system. Create a function that describes a 1♣ opening. Create another function that describes a 1♦ openingWork your way up (or down) to 3m or so... If your feeling ambitious, you might even start working on first round responses to thevarious openings. At this point in time, if you want to run some simulation you can slap together some code that is both quick to assemble and - get this - accurate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.