Round 5, Board 6

[rogerclee]

Ben, 6=4 is a VERY normal holding in the majors for bidding 1♠ and doubling 3♣, why are you ignoring this shape?

I think the stance is that because the script says west would double a 1C opener but overcall 1S over 1D, he is probably 5440 or 5413, and since the script (not the auction at any specific table) governs the opponents' hands, then the people who opened 1D don't get a break.

 

I think this unfairly punishes pairs who play a standard opening bid style, but oh well. Perhaps in the future it would be better to not have such a specific script.

[TimG]

Perhaps in the future it would be better to not have such a specific script.

I think it is more practical and fair to stick with specific actions by the opponents that don't depend much on how the auction goes or choice of opening bid. There is probably a reason you don't see a whole lot of competition from the opponents in BW's CTC.

[hanp]

I now understand the thought behind making 5C the top spot. I don't understand the reason for writing this script. Did some people actually open 1C? What's the purpose of having a hand where the best spot can only be determined (when seeing both hands) if one makes an opening bid that nobody would ever make?

 

I don't have a good suggestion for what to do with this hand and it's scoring. As far as I know Ben is running this event for the first time and it is inevitable that such problems occur. For the future I would recommend that the scripts are not more complicated those in Challenge the Champs. The more the information we receive depends on our bids, the more complicated the scoring gets.

 

Ideally it should be pretty clear from seeing both hands what the top spot is. The exact points are of course never clear.

[jdonn]

Too much to reply to, but I still think 5♣ is overrated and 4♣ is underrated. The line inquiry suggests seems to complicated/random/obscure to score based on finding it!

[inquiry]

Perhaps I relied too much on the stipulation that West doubles a natural 1C bid, but my simulations did not include a six card spade suit, matter of fact, I limited them to 5431 and 5440. The actual hand (at the table) was 5440. The simulations had 5C making 99% of the time under this situation, but of course, the simulation finds the correct play when 5440 exist 100% of the time.

 

Awn has pointed out that it is not quite such a sure thing in the real world. But it is a sure thing with 5431, which is more comon that 5440, so I am forced to lower the score for 5C and increase the score for 4C. Five clubs will be decreased to 8 to reflect the problem of correctly dealing with the problems associated with 54, and 4C is being raised to 7 for the same reason.

 

Because of the change of 5C, the score for 3Hx has increased to a 9.

[rogerclee]

Because of the change of 5C, the score for 3Hx has increased to a 9.

To me 3Hx is probably cold and is more likely to make 4 than go down on the auction we had (1D X 2C P 3C X).

 

Your double dummy simulator is leading a diamond and getting its diamond ruff always. This will happen much less in real life.