Auction

[CSGibson]

I would be willing to bet that most partner hands with 33(34)/(23)44 shape and Kxx or weaker spades will play better in 5m than 3nt.

OK I'm taking you up on this bet, will post results later.

...

A shortened version of the previous post:

 

I wrote and ran a simulation.

 

I was wrong.

 

The simulation was flawed.

 

I am right.

[awm]

I will also note that partner's actual hand looks something like the hand Han says is "not a 2NT bid."

 

You could certainly bid:

 

1♦ - 2♣

3♣ - 3♦

3♥ - 4♣

5♣

 

on these hands, and it has the advantage that if responder really did have ♠Kxx there is a good chance he would've bid 3NT over 3♥ or maybe just responded 2NT to begin with.

[jdonn]

I will also note that partner's actual hand looks something like the hand Han says is "not a 2NT bid."

xxx AQx ATx KJxx

 

"looks a lot like"

 

xx Axx Axxx AQxx

 

???

 

Come on, it's plainly obvious the actual hand has better holdings to bid notrump in all four suits!!! (one may be debatable, three are clear). You are just trying to score cheap political-type points. Thats no less ridiculous than if he said "I would not open 1NT with Ax xx KQxxx AQJxx" and you reply "I will note that hand looks something like KJx xx KQTx AQJx"

[jdonn]

A shortened version of the previous post:

 

I wrote and ran a simulation.

 

I was wrong.

 

The simulation was flawed.

 

I am right.

He revived a dead thread two days later, when no one probably even remembered what he had said, simply to admit he had been wrong in his bet. He then stated it hadn't changed his mind about the correct bid, and clearly laid out the reasons why. What exactly do you object to?? Is it so hard to believe that having an uninformative auction to 3NT is enough of an advantage over a very informative auction to 5♣/♦ to negate a 4% double-dummy advantage? Or that he was lost his bet based on weighing 3NT against the COMBINATION of 5♣ and 5♦, giving those contracts the advantage when only one was better, even if you would (randomly?) have to reach the better of the two fits?

[CSGibson]

A shortened version of the previous post:

 

I wrote and ran a simulation.

 

I was wrong.

 

The simulation was flawed.

 

I am right.

He revived a dead thread two days later, when no one probably even remembered what he had said, simply to admit he had been wrong in his bet. He then stated it hadn't changed his mind about the correct bid, and clearly laid out the reasons why. What exactly do you object to?? Is it so hard to believe that having an uninformative auction to 3NT is enough of an advantage over a very informative auction to 5♣/♦ to negate a 4% double-dummy advantage? Or that he was lost his bet based on weighing 3NT against the COMBINATION of 5♣ and 5♦, giving those contracts the advantage when only one was better, even if you would (randomly?) have to reach the better of the two fits?

I don't find the post particularly objectionable, just slightly ironic. I probably should have just enjoyed it myself instead of enjoying the irony publicly.

[han]

Gibson, why don't you focus a little more on the substance and a little less on the form.

 

When Adam posted his bet, he made it very clear what the conditions were and I accepted the bet understanding those conditions. So I was wrong, not right. Now, when a simulation is as flawed as mine was I think it is right to point out the flaws, especially when I feel the simulation results suggest a call that I think is very bad in the real world.

 

Adam, are you actually saying that xx Axx Axxx AQxx is a 2NT bid? It seems that way since you object to my objection and state that the hand is similar to a hand you suggested 2NT with. I have difficulty believing it. Will you say anything, no matter how foolish, to come out of a discussion as a winner?

[TimG]

I would be willing to bet that most partner hands with 33(34)/(23)44 shape and Kxx or weaker spades will play better in 5m than 3nt.

OK I'm taking you up on this bet, will post results later.

I regret to say that I lost the bet.

I gave south the hand that started the discussion, ♠A ♥KJ75 ♦Q852 ♣QT63, and gave north a 33(34)/(23)44 12-14 count. I produced 1000 hands to fit the criteria. I found that game in NT (34.2%) and game in a minor (33.0%) were nearly identical propositions. (I think the difference will be significant once you add in the real world factor of a relatively blind opening lead after 1N-3N compared to the revealing auction to 5m.)

 

Some other findings:

• Game in NT made 24.3% of the time when responder had two spades and 35.9% of the time when responder had three spades.
   
  
• When responder held Kx(x) or QJx in spades, 3NT made 51.6% of the time; when responder had worse spades, 3NT made 27.4% of the time.
   
  
• When responder held Kx(x) or QJx in spades, 5m made 13.9% of the time; when responder had worse spades, 5m made 40.5% of the time.
   
  
• When responder had 12 HCP, 3NT made 22.7% of the time; when responder had 13 HCP, 3NT made 32.7% of the time; when responder had 14 HCP, 3NT made 53.5% of the time.
  

The middle two items suggest to me that this is a situation where an exchange of information will help the partnership land in the right spot -- the difference between making 3NT 51.6% of the time responder has spade help and 27.4% of the time responder has no spade help is not going to be overcome by putting the defenders to a blind opening lead (and defense). Of course, this is only a subset of the possible hands facing a 1444 opening 1NT, so there may be lots of responding hands where an exchange of information won't help our side and will help the defenders.

 

Below is the input file I used with mdealer for this simulations.

[space] [space]predeal south SA, HKJ75, DQ852, CQT63

[space] [space]shape_ok=shape(north, 3343 + 3334 + 2344 + 3244)
[space] [space]hcp_ok=hcp(north)>11 && hcp(north)<15
[space] [space]spades_ok = hcp(north, spades)<4
[space] [space]
[space] [space]north_ok = shape_ok && hcp_ok && spades_ok

[space] [space]tn=tricks(north,notrump)
[space] [space]td=tricks(south,diamonds)
[space] [space]tc=tricks(south,clubs)
[space] [space]
[space] [space]diamond_fit = diamonds(north)==4
[space] [space]club_fit = clubs(north)==4
[space] [space]
[space] [space]kx = hascard(north, KS)
[space] [space]qjx = hascard(north, QS) && hascard(north, JS) && spades(north)==3
[space] [space]bad_spades = !kx && !qjx
[space] [space]
[space] [space]game_nt = tn>8
[space] [space]game_m = td>10 || tc>10


[space] [space]condition north_ok
[space] [space]produce 1000

[space] [space]action
[space] [space] [space] [space]average "Tricks in NT" (tn),
[space] [space] [space] [space]average "Game in NT" (game_nt),
[space] [space] [space] [space]average "Game in minor" (game_m),

[space] [space] [space] [space]frequency "Tricks in clubs by club length" (clubs(north), 3, 4, tc, 9, 10),
[space] [space] [space] [space]frequency "Tricks in diamonds by diamond length" (diamonds(north), 3, 4, td, 9, 10),

[space] [space] [space] [space]frequency "Tricks in NT by spade length" (spades(north), 2, 3, tn, 7, 8),
[space] [space] [space] [space]frequency "Tricks in NT with bad spades" (bad_spades, 0, 1, tn, 7, 8),
[space] [space] [space] [space]frequency "Game in minor with bad spades" (bad_spades, 0, 1, game_m, 0, 1),
[space] [space] [space] [space]
[space] [space] [space] [space]frequency "Tricks at NT by HCP" (hcp(north), 12, 14, tn, 7, 8),

[Free]

1NT - 3NT