Only me to blame?

[rhm]

I ran a simulation with the West hand

 

North at least 5 spades, at least 10 HCP

South at least 4 spades

East at most 2 spades (so N-S have a ten card spade fit or better), exactly 4 cards in hearts, at least 3 cards in each minor, 12-14 HCP.

 

Result:

 

5♣ made double dummy 18% of the time, average number of tricks in ♣ for West was 9.5

At the same time

4♠ made 29% of the time, average number of tricks in ♠ for North was 8.8

 

I am standing firm: East takeout DBL is aggressive but not crazy. The critic is overblown. Many would open this hand.

The distribution is fine for a takeout double, the honor dispersion is bad, but the hand has still 3 quick tricks and 5 controls.

Note, East takeout DBL allows a sane West to double 4♠ for a top score.

 

The 5♣ bid is insane. This is simply a matter of hand evaluation and judgment!

If you are not sure that DBL shows cards in this sequence your option is still between Pass and DBL.

(Even without agreement any experienced tournament player should know that West, sitting below the opening bidder to boot, is unlikely to have spade tricks in this sequence)

5♣ is crazy, particularly at these colors!

 

 

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

I ran a simulation with the West hand

 

North at least 5 spades, at least 10 HCP

South at least 4 spades

East at most 2 spades (so N-S have a ten card spade fit or better), exactly 4 cards in hearts, at least 3 cards in each minor, 12-14 HCP.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Was that the only constraint? I would expect 4♠ to make a lot more than that.

[helene_t]

Rainer, South would probably not bid 4♠ with a balanced hand with four spades. And E could have more than 14 HCPs. I think both factors make 5♣ a bit more attractive in practice. But of course some of those hands on which 5♣ is right, double would work also when East pulls the double.

[rhm]

Rainer, South would probably not bid 4♠ with a balanced hand with four spades.

Not far from what the actual South had. He had a fifth trump, but only secondary honors and the flattest distribution you can have when you have a five card suit.

 

And E could have more than 14 HCPs. I think both factors make 5♣ a bit more attractive in practice. But of course some of those hands on which 5♣ is right, double would work also when East pulls the double.

Sure. I wanted to show what would happen opposite a minimum, but perfectly respectable takeout double, since the majority here seem to blame East takeout double.

5♣ could make or 5♣ could be one down with 4♠ making. But all this is heavily against the odds and it is not close.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Was that the only constraint? I would expect 4♠ to make a lot more than that.

Yes.

I usually specify my constraints in full.

Total number of trumps is unlikely to be higher than 19. East-West have at least half the HCP. (West's ♥JT9 is often useful)

North/South need quite a lot of side suit distribution before 4♠ makes.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

Not far from what the actual South had. He had a fifth trump, but only secondary honors and the flattest distribution you can have when you have a five card suit.

And many posters here suggested that South should be institutionalized for bidding 4♠ with that hand. Think what they would have said about raising to 4♠ on a balanced hand with 4 card support.

Sure. I wanted to show what would happen opposite a minimum, but perfectly respectable takeout double, since the majority here seem to blame East takeout double.

That is not the way to analyze West's 5♣ bid. West doesn't know that East has a "minimum, but perfectly respectable takeout double" (which he hasn't and your sim is not restricted to "minimum, but perfectly respectable takeout doubles" either). West has to decide what to do opposite "all possible takeout doubles that would pass a 5♣ bid" (baring in mind that he will also have to find a way out if partner does bid again). In this decision he should try to find the call that gives him the best expected value, integrating over all these hands East can have, not merely over the bad ones but also over the relatively good hands that will pass out 4♠ if West doesn't act. In this evaluation he should not include hands that East should hold (such as the actual hand or other minimums with 2 spades).

 

Now I think that a correct sim (i.e. including only hands that East can hold for his double, that will pass 4♠ and 5♣ and giving South the actual hand or better, not worse, for his raise to 4♠), will show that West's 5♣ bid was against the odds. Most people here, including the OP, seem to agree that 5♣ might not have been the best choice.

 

If you bias your sim in such a way that the 5♣ will yield a worse result than realistically should be expected, the expected outcome of the sim will be that 5♣ is bad, because the BFF crowd already agreed that 5♣ was already a poor bid under realistic and unbiased conditions.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

North/South need quite a lot of side suit distribution before 4♠ makes.

Which is why most players require side suit distribution for a 4♠ bid. And, hence, you should have used this condition in your sim.

 

Rik

[lalldonn]

That is one of the worst constraints for a simulation i have ever seen. And east's double is still awful.

[wyman]

Is there a "how to run a sim" thread somewhere? What kind of software do you guys use? I'm a programmer so this should be easy if there's some off-the-shelf software (hopefully that runs on a linux platform, but I can emulate windows).

[rhm]

That is one of the worst constraints for a simulation i have ever seen. And east's double is still awful.

For sure.

What always happens when I do a simulation and publish my constraints on this forum.

If people like you do not like the results they blame the constraints.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Which is why most players require side suit distribution for a 4♠ bid. And, hence, you should have used this condition in your sim.

 

Rik

I would accept your claim if the vulnerability would have been reversed.

Fact is South did not have any side distribution.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[lalldonn]

For sure.

What always happens when I do a simulation and publish my constraints on this forum.

If people like you do not like the results they blame the constraints.

 

Rainer Herrmann

It sounds like you aren't very good at setting constraints on your simulations if they get that many complaints. But if it makes you feel better I can most definitely assure you, had you published the constraints without any results I would have made the same comment. (I do appreciate your creativity in shielding yourself from any criticism though. If anyone criticizes the sim they must be resulting!)

[cherdano]

South made an awful 4♠ bid. Consequently, in his simulation rhm chooses an even more awful criterion for the 4♠ bid.

That's innovative logic, even by BBF standards.

[rhm]

And many posters here suggested that South should be institutionalized for bidding 4♠ with that hand. Think what they would have said about raising to 4♠ on a balanced hand with 4 card support.

 

That is not the way to analyze West's 5♣ bid. West doesn't know that East has a "minimum, but perfectly respectable takeout double" (which he hasn't and your sim is not restricted to "minimum, but perfectly respectable takeout doubles" either). West has to decide what to do opposite "all possible takeout doubles that would pass a 5♣ bid" (baring in mind that he will also have to find a way out if partner does bid again). In this decision he should try to find the call that gives him the best expected value, integrating over all these hands East can have, not merely over the bad ones but also over the relatively good hands that will pass out 4♠ if West doesn't act. In this evaluation he should not include hands that East should hold (such as the actual hand or other minimums with 2 spades).

 

Now I think that a correct sim (i.e. including only hands that East can hold for his double, that will pass 4♠ and 5♣ and giving South the actual hand or better, not worse, for his raise to 4♠), will show that West's 5♣ bid was against the odds. Most people here, including the OP, seem to agree that 5♣ might not have been the best choice.

 

If you bias your sim in such a way that the 5♣ will yield a worse result than realistically should be expected, the expected outcome of the sim will be that 5♣ is bad, because the BFF crowd already agreed that 5♣ was already a poor bid under realistic and unbiased conditions.

 

Rik

For you I modified the constraints:

 

North at least 5 spades, at least 10 HCP

South at least 4 spades, but if only 4 spades the hand is unbalanced (side singleton or void)

East at most 2 spades (so N-S have a ten card spade fit or better), exactly 4 cards in hearts, at least 3 cards in each minor, 12-17 HCP. The implication is that East is not likely to pass 4♠ with 18 HCP or more.

 

Result (1000 deals):

 

5♣ made double dummy 27% of the time, average number of tricks in ♣ for West was 9.7

At the same time

4♠ made 27% of the time, average number of tricks in ♠ for North was 8.8, exactly the same as in my last simulation.

 

5♣ makes slightly more often if East does not necessarily have a minimum takeout double, but is still a heavy underdog, because minimum hands for East are much more frequent.

Accordingly 4♠ did not even make more often, even though I specified that with 4 card support South would be unbalanced.

But I am sure you will not like my new constraints either, simply because you do not like the results.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

For sure.

What always happens when I do a simulation and publish my constraints on this forum.

If people like you do not like the results they blame the constraints.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

I might be being a bit thick but if Josh voted for doubling 4♠, why would he not like the result of the sim?

[rhm]

I might be being a bit thick but if Josh voted for doubling 4♠, why would he not like the result of the sim?

So tell me which constraint should be changed given that N/S are white on red?

South actual 4♠ bid was dubious but certainly influenced by the colors. I know a lot of experienced players who will always bid 4♠ when holding 5 card support at these colors.

I bet any reasonable constraint will not change the result substantially.

Please tell me what you would like me to change and I will see whether I can accommodate.

But do not tell me South (a passed hand) needs to have 6 card spade support and a side void at these colors for his 4♠ bid.

That is possible and was not excluded by my constraints, but is certainly not the minimum requirement for South to bid 4♠ here.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

 

 

I am standing firm: East takeout DBL is aggressive but not crazy. The critic is overblown. Many would open this hand.

The distribution is fine for a takeout double, the honor dispersion is bad, but the hand has still 3 quick tricks and 5 controls.

 

 

 

Rainer Herrmann

This statement that the double is justified because 'many would open this hand' has to be the weakest argument I have ever seen you make. I am usually an admirer of your posts, but this thread has not been one where I think much of your position.

 

We'd all open AKx x Axxxx xxxx as well but I don't know many who would venture a takeout double of 1♠ with this hand.

 

Now, I know that you wouldn't either and that your other point is that the shape is right for a double. However, shape and number of hcp aren't a sufficient set of criteria and I know you are far too good a player to argue that they are. When one's hcp are minimum, and one's shape is not perfect (as in 1=4=4=4 for example) a good player looks at how the high cards mesh with and support the shape. Here, as I know you know, the AK of spades are to be devalued for offence. So we have a sub-minimum for offence, imperfect shape, and a passed hand partner. It's not that we expect a 4♠ bounce but that we can reasonably expect partner to compete at the 2 or 3 level in a situation where we are at real risk of going 200 or 300 against 110 or less. Partner will never expect, nor should partner ever expect, xxxx xxxx in the reds, with opener on his left probably holding most of the defensive values.

 

Arguing that the double is reasonable merely makes you look silly, which is a shame because you are usually anything but.

 

As for your constraints, I would personally rather stipulate 4+ spades for opener....3rd seat at favourable, a 4 card suit isn't unheard of, even missing AK. While I think 5 is more common, it is wrong to rule out 4...indeed I would place N with 4 far more often than S, especially since S will be worried about a 4 card opener.

 

Otherwise, I'd be ok with your constraints provided that you then did some weeding out of hands that are inconsistent with the auction. I refuse to believe that we should ever play for S to be 4=3=3=3 6-8 count for example.

 

I don't know what programme you use for simulations, but I often find that for non-simple auctions, I run into the sensitivity v specificity dilemma.

 

If one programmes constraints that generate hands that always fit the auction, one will have high (100%) specificity, but one will almost certainly fail to generate some hands that would fit the auction but not one's constraints. Otoh, if one loosens the constraints, such that one captures far more of the hands that fit (high sensitivity), one will start generating hands that meet the criteria but not match the auction. It's always a tradeoff. Personally, if I have the time, I prefer high sensitivity combined with a hand by hand inspection to discard inappropriate hands. However, this adds to the subjectivity of the exercise. That doesn't matter to me if I am working on a partnership issue where I know that my partner and I tend to think alike, but can be a problem when trying to argue on this forum or elsewhere.

[gnasher]

So tell me which constraint should be changed given that N/S are white on red?

I might be being a bit thick too, but what makes you think Phil wants you to change any of the (new) constraints?

[lalldonn]

I'll join the thick crowd. Might they not, just occasionally, bid 5♠ over 5♣? Might this particular south, just possibly, have bid 4♠ even if east had passed over 1♠ thus allowing east to double for penalty? Please don't flame me, remember I did say west should double instead of bidding 5♣!

 

I will admit I'm in no position to criticize the new sim, because I got as far as "North at least 5 spades, at least 10 HCP" then laughed so hard I had to stop reading.

[PhilKing]

I might be being a bit thick too, but what makes you think Phil wants you to change any of the (new) constraints?

 

Rainer is psychic?

 

So tell me which constraint should be changed given that N/S are white on red?

Rainer Herrmann

 

Apart from the relaxing the 10 point requirement for a Ferdinand Spade, I have one that would change the result a lot - I would not double 1♠ with 12-13 HCP and 2443 or 2434 distribution opposite a passed hand, but that's just me. And my experience is that most do not jump to 4♠ with 5332 shape.

 

Since my initial guess was that both sides had about a 30% chance of game, I want to tweak things until I can justify myself. B-)

[Trinidad]

For you I modified the constraints:

Thank you.

 

So now, with more reasonable constraints, you have proven what everybody (including the OP) already wrote: 5♣ was not a good bid.

 

Now please try to explain to us how you can conclude from your sim -that used other East hands- proves that it was correct to double with the actual East hand.

 

Rik

[rhm]

Thank you.

 

So now, with more reasonable constraints, you have proven what everybody (including the OP) already wrote: 5♣ was not a good bid.

I am not sure what we are arguing. To me many comments seem to concentrate on the takeout double as the major culprit.

I can not see that. In my opinion it had little to do with the actual result. With a sane West it would have produced a great result on the actual board, which I admit does not prove the bid is right.

But I repeat: I do consider the critic on the takeout double overblown.

 

Now please try to explain to us how you can conclude from your sim -that used other East hands- proves that it was correct to double with the actual East hand.

I can not. Not because I would not like to. But not all bidding questions are suitable for simulations. Some are and some are not.

For example I can not prove what the lower limit of an opening bid should be by way of simulation nor for a takeout double red versus white.

 

This statement that the double is justified because 'many would open this hand' has to be the weakest argument I have ever seen you make. I am usually an admirer of your posts, but this thread has not been one where I think much of your position.

 

We'd all open AKx x Axxxx xxxx as well but I don't know many who would venture a takeout double of 1♠ with this hand.

I said the takeout dbl is borderline, aggressive and I also said that if East wants to get into bidding it is probably safer (not risk free) now than later with this hand.

l said many people would open this hand. I did not claim that all hands which are openings bids are also suitable for a takeout double. HCP Strength is one requirement for a takeout double, proper distribution another.

Before bringing forward your counter-arguments it would be good if you would first try to understand what was actually said and claimed.

 

As for your constraints, I would personally rather stipulate 4+ spades for opener....3rd seat at favourable, a 4 card suit isn't unheard of, even missing AK. While I think 5 is more common, it is wrong to rule out 4...indeed I would place N with 4 far more often than S, especially since S will be worried about a 4 card opener.

North/South have very likely a ten card fit. If North has opened a 4 card suit, South has passed with a six card spade suit white versus red. Not impossible but rather unlikely.

Whatever I can assure you from my simulation experience this will not change the actual result substantially, allowing North to have opened with a 4 card spade suit.

If you are interested I can do the simulation easily.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

 

 

 

 

l said many people would open this hand. I did not claim that all hands which are openings bids are also suitable for a takeout double. HCP Strength is one requirement for a takeout double, proper distribution another.

Before bringing forward your counter-arguments it would be good if you would first try to understand what was actually said and claimed.

 

 

 

Rainer Herrmann

I really don't want to get into a flame war, but it is unfair to take a limited part of what I wrote and then criticize it, by claiming that I didn't 'try to understand what was actually said'.

 

 

I was very careful, in my quote of you, to add your statement about distribution and honour dispersion. I went on to stress that I was sure (that I 'knew') that much of what I was saying about hand evaluation was already understood by you.

 

Had I wanted to use the tactics you just used, I would have left the quote at the first statement that, in isolation, suggests that holding an opening hand is itself enough to warrant a takeout double. So let me suggest to you, if we are to have any semblance of a real debate, that you take your own advice, ok?

[bsm20]

Sorry, but I have to say that I find some of rhm's comments offensive - 'If a sane West...' etc.

 

I understand that rhm feels very strongly about this. However, there is no need to be rude. I have never been aggressive or defensive about my bid. All players make misjudgments at times.

 

Incidentally, I gave the problem to several very strong players at my bridge club. The most popular bid on my hand was 4NT. Presumably, this would lead to a similar doubled result, albeit in 5D. Is rhn saying that these strong players, with proven experience in Gold Cup events and so on, are 'insane' too?

[the hog]

I ran a simulation with the West hand

 

North at least 5 spades, at least 10 HCP

South at least 4 spades

East at most 2 spades (so N-S have a ten card spade fit or better), exactly 4 cards in hearts, at least 3 cards in each minor, 12-14 HCP.

 

Result:

 

5♣ made double dummy 18% of the time, average number of tricks in ♣ for West was 9.5

At the same time

4♠ made 29% of the time, average number of tricks in ♠ for North was 8.8

 

I am standing firm: East takeout DBL is aggressive but not crazy. The critic is overblown. Many would open this hand.

The distribution is fine for a takeout double, the honor dispersion is bad, but the hand has still 3 quick tricks and 5 controls.

Note, East takeout DBL allows a sane West to double 4♠ for a top score.

 

The 5♣ bid is insane. This is simply a matter of hand evaluation and judgment!

If you are not sure that DBL shows cards in this sequence your option is still between Pass and DBL.

(Even without agreement any experienced tournament player should know that West, sitting below the opening bidder to boot, is unlikely to have spade tricks in this sequence)

5♣ is crazy, particularly at these colors!

 

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

I think this post is insane and not the post of a Bridge player. The double is very poor. You have the majority of your points in the opened suit. The 5C bid, or a 4NT bid for that matter, is merely dubious; it certainly is not insane.