Crazy or Not Part 2

[PhilG007]

Huh? I thought we were talking about

1♦-1♥

2NT-3♥*

 

This is normally forcing and shows 5+ hearts. Opener raises with 3-card support (or bids a 4-card spade suit first and then corrects 3NT to 4♥).

 

Whether you play 5-card majors or not is immaterial. But of course, if you play NMF or something similar you can agree to play 3♥ as non-forcing.

Let's remember what we were taught as novices. When you bid a suit,you are initially proposing it as a potential

trump suit and also as a lead suggestion to partner if he becomes the opening leader. It follows,therefore,you should have reasonable

cards in it K1098x is quite a decent suit and may well take more than one trick. However,Kxxxx is a king heading a load of rubbish. :(

[PhilG007]

I fail to see how that is a response to my post which you quoted.

 

You remind me much of the many weak players on BBO who identify themselves as advanced or expert, then play very poorly, making fundamental mistakes. They then proceed to lecture partner or ops (or in this case, forum members) with statements that are hilariously wrong. The puffed up pride and self-certainty only add to the amusement.

 

Anyway, I have decided to classify you as a troll. As such, no further responses.

 

 

Oh Goody....can I have that in writing (?!) :P

[PhilG007]

Based on post #45 I still think you are a novice. Replace 1 small D with a H and you rebid 2D on a 18 count!

Just a quick question, Phil - have you posted here before using a numeric nic?

 

 

I refuse to rise to your suburbanity. Being criticised by your ilk is like being

savaged by a dead sheep(!) :P

[PhilG007]

Based on post #45 I still think you are a novice. Replace 1 small D with a H and you rebid 2D on a 18 count!

Just a quick question, Phil - have you posted here before using a numeric nic?

 

 

2♦ is the only sensible action on the hand. You cannot raise partner's [hearts)s on the "assumption" he holds

5. And NTs are out of the question given the dodgy black suits.

[eagles123]

s

2♦ is the only sensible action on the hand. You cannot raise partner's [hearts)s on the "assumption" he holds

5. And NTs are out of the question given the dodgy black suits.

 

so when p has a balanced 8 count and passes when 3N is cold whats my excuse in the post mortem?

 

seriously mate I am no expert but at the same time i'm no mug and I know what you are saying is total rubbish.

 

if I knew how to ignore someones posts I would do!!!

[PhilG007]

2♦ is the only sensible action on the hand. You cannot raise partner's [hearts)s on the "assumption" he holds

5. And NTs are out of the question given the dodgy black suits.

 

And the fact the hand has 18 HCP is irrelevant. It has been proven time and again bridge players

cannot live by points alone. True,they are the caviar of the hand...but who can live on just caviar(?)

Points.therefore,should be a guide...not a muzzle.

[PhilG007]

so when p has a balanced 8 count and passes when 3N is cold whats my excuse in the post mortem?

 

seriously mate I am no expert but at the same time i'm no mug and I know what you are saying is total rubbish.

 

if I knew how to ignore someones posts I would do!!!

 

 

Tell me,how many times have you seen a partnership with a combined point count for game and the contract

has gone down????? I have seen it happen time and again. You fail to take into account several factors

such as will the suits break evenly or badly,will the finesses come off,the ability of the opposition,or most significantly,your own proneness to error?? In golf,how many times have you seen a professional player miss a short putt?? I know what I'm talking about. I've gained my experience the hard way...many years of playing

high stakes rubber bridge against very formidable opponents(!) You want to try it sometime. $100 a hundred with a strange partner and see how good YOU are(!) Bidding a game or slam is one thing,trying to make it is quite another B-)

[helene_t]

so when p has a balanced 8 count and passes when 3N is cold whats my excuse in the post mortem?

 

seriously mate I am no expert but at the same time i'm no mug and I know what you are saying is total rubbish.

 

if I knew how to ignore someones posts I would do!!!

Click on your own username in the upper right corner, that should give you a menu that includes "manage ignored users".

 

It is not very effective though as the worst trolls will be quoted ad nauseum.

[eagles123]

Tell me,how many times have you seen a partnership with a combined point count for game and the contract

has gone down????? I have seen it happen time and again. You fail to take into account several factors

such as will the suits break evenly or badly,will the finesses come off,the ability of the opposition,or most significantly,your own proneness to error?? In golf,how many times have you seen a professional player miss a short putt?? I know what I'm talking about. I've gained my experience the hard way...many years of playing

high stakes rubber bridge against very formidable opponents(!) You want to try it sometime. $100 a hundred with a strange partner and see how good YOU are(!) Bidding a game or slam is one thing,trying to make it is quite another B-)

 

would love someone to do a sim of balanced 8 count with at least 4 hearts opposite Kx AJX AKQJx xxx and see how often 3NT made

[PhilG007]

would love someone to do a sim of balanced 8 count with at least 4 hearts opposite Kx AJX AKQJx xxx and see how often 3NT made

 

Why not set up the hands yourself? It will need precise opponent hands to make 3NT with the cards that are displayed Often that's not the case. There's a big difference between an example hand and actuality playing in a tournament. When you are declarer and dummy

appears,you're on your own and have to discover the layout yourself.

[1eyedjack]

would love someone to do a sim of balanced 8 count with at least 4 hearts opposite Kx AJX AKQJx xxx and see how often 3NT made

 

OK I didn't do exactly what you asked, but this is what I did:

 

With Dealmaster Pro I generated 1000 hands with the criteria that North was pre-dealt K2, AJ2, AKQJ2, 432, and South was balanced with precisely 8 HCP and 4 or 5 Hearts.

I exported the result to a PBN file, which I then imported into Bridge Captain's Double Dummy Solver (maybe DMPro would do the analysis work for me but I am more familiar with DDS).

 

With DDS I calculated the double dummy par result on all hands and exported the resulting table to CSV, which I then loaded into Excel.

 

In Excel I then set it to count the occasions on which the double dummy par aggregate score exceeded +399 for N/S, suggestive that N/S can make game (NB not limited to 3N - I could count just the 3N hands if you wish).

 

The total count was 727 (out of 1000) hands. Actually this was a bit less than I intuitively expected. But 1000 hands is not a very large population, mind.

 

We recognise that the double dummy result on a specific hand may not be what you might expect to make at single dummy, but we would also expect these discrepancies to even out both ways.

[johnu]

The total count was 727 (out of 1000) hands. Actually this was a bit less than I intuitively expected. But 1000 hands is not a very large population, mind.

 

Dealmaster Pro has a very easy to use double dummy solver. 1000 hands is a very large sample for this type of simulation. I think ~73% sounds about right since the primary reason 3NT will fail is that clubs are wide open.

[the hog]

I think we have another troll, and this one is not even funny. Mind you, the comment to bid 2D on the 18 count left me rolling about laughing. I wonder how his $100 rubber bridge partner would feel when 9 or 10 tricks roll in in 3NT and this character is languishing in 2D. I think we might get a repeat of Zia's head banger story.

[1eyedjack]

"Had" to rush off to pub after last post. So last sim was perhaps a little rushed, because I tried to comply perhaps too closely albeit not completely with the requested input criteria.

 

On reflection I think that the input criteria were a bit biased in favour of criticising the 2D rebid. For example it cuts out all the 6-7 HCP responders where the auction might get too high after a forcing 2N rebid.

 

So I have had another go. Still very crude, but hopefully a bit fairer. I simply expanded responder's HCP range from "8 - 8" to "6 - 10". More than 10, or more distributional, and responder would likely bid again over the 2D rebid and I am assuming that opener can then recover.

 

This time the success rate of game drops to 664 / 1000.

 

Then, to cater for the possibility that responder might be likely to bid again with a 10 count I did it one more time restricting responder to 6-9.

 

I still get a success rate of 592 / 1000

 

The statistical validity of any conclusions you draw from this you do at your own risk.

 

PS Thank you for the head banger story. Took some googling but eventually found it in the Daily Bulletin No. 2 from the 69th NABC, Albuquerque, 1997. Seems to refer to the sense of humour of the late Ron Andersen. Nice.

[Antrax]

To end the teasing:

The most famous Ron story involves his diabolical sense of humor ---the “head-banger” story. Ron made a side bet on his Swiss team match that he could get his high-strung opponent to bang his head without using a word.

The bet was on. On an early board, Ron and his partner bid to a small slam, and head-banger’s partner led a heart. Declarer, Ron, won with the king and went after trumps, losing a trick to head-banger’s partner.

When a heart was led for the second time, Ron ruffed! At that point, head-banger started rocking, talking to himself, and then got up and went to the nearest wall and started banging away. Only when head-banger returned to the table did Ron excuse himself and say, “Oh, hearts. . .so sorry.” He then retrieved his trump and replaced it with the ♥A!!!

http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/1997summer/db2.pdf

[1eyedjack]

One of the limitatoins of my earlier analysis is the assumption that with 8 (or 9, say) HCP responder would pass a 2D rebid, and thereby close the auction, denying opener an opportunity to come "out of the bushes". Clearly if responder were to bid again then the potential to reach game is still open.

 

There are at least two main risks of responder bidding again with such a hand:

 

1) 2D might be the last makeable contract if opener has a minimum so that bidding again converts a plus partscore into a penalty (or may already be beyond the last makeable contract, so that bidding again increases the penalty and increases the risk of a double).

 

2) Increasing the range and variety of hands that can be included in the 2D rebid (or any sequence for that matter) decreases the accuracy of your followup continuations following that sequence, which can damage your results even when responder is strong, or when either partner has a borrderline decision to bid or pass in a non-forcing situation opposite a hand with potentially wide range.

 

The sims run above make no attempt at evaluating these effects.

[billw55]

OK I didn't do exactly what you asked, but this is what I did:

We recognise that the double dummy result on a specific hand may not be what you might expect to make at single dummy, but we would also expect these discrepancies to even out both ways.

Is it really true? I would have thought that DD favors the defenders, because the opening lead is the decision most often wrong. In this example, defense will always choose correctly between clubs, spades, and even hearts.

 

I read some stats once that even world class defenders give away something like a quarter trick on average on opening lead. Wish I could find it again :(

[Zelandakh]

I read some stats once that even world class defenders give away something like a quarter trick on average on opening lead. Wish I could find it again :(

I think this is the thread you are thinking of. The analysis was done by bluecalm and the result was half a trick rather than a quarter (see post #7).

[billw55]

I think this is the thread you are thinking of. The analysis was done by bluecalm and the result was half a trick rather than a quarter (see post #7).

Hey yeah, nice find. Half a trick is huge.

[1eyedjack]

Yeah, my bad.

Perhaps I should have said that they mainly offset each other.

Possibly the result is not surprising.

Before reading that thread I thought that declarers are generally more frequently placed in a "finesse or drop" dilemma than defenders. Perhaps just not enough to make up for the blind opening lead.

[PhilG007]

I fail to see how that is a response to my post which you quoted.

 

You remind me much of the many weak players on BBO who identify themselves as advanced or expert, then play very poorly, making fundamental mistakes. They then proceed to lecture partner or ops (or in this case, forum members) with statements that are hilariously wrong. The puffed up pride and self-certainty only add to the amusement.

 

Anyway, I have decided to classify you as a troll. As such, no further responses.

 

The learned comprehend,the ignorant never do...

[ArtK78]

The learned comprehend,the ignorant never do...

So true.

[PhilKing]

Tell me,how many times have you seen a partnership with a combined point count for game and the contract

has gone down????? I have seen it happen time and again. You fail to take into account several factors

such as will the suits break evenly or badly,will the finesses come off,the ability of the opposition,or most significantly,your own proneness to error?? In golf,how many times have you seen a professional player miss a short putt?? I know what I'm talking about. I've gained my experience the hard way...many years of playing

high stakes rubber bridge against very formidable opponents(!) You want to try it sometime. $100 a hundred with a strange partner and see how good YOU are(!) Bidding a game or slam is one thing,trying to make it is quite another B-)

 

Please come to TGR's when you are in London - I am agreeable to the stakes. :D

[mikeh]

Tell me,how many times have you seen a partnership with a combined point count for game and the contract

has gone down????? I have seen it happen time and again. You fail to take into account several factors

such as will the suits break evenly or badly,will the finesses come off,the ability of the opposition,or most significantly,your own proneness to error?? In golf,how many times have you seen a professional player miss a short putt?? I know what I'm talking about. I've gained my experience the hard way...many years of playing

high stakes rubber bridge against very formidable opponents(!) You want to try it sometime. $100 a hundred with a strange partner and see how good YOU are(!) Bidding a game or slam is one thing,trying to make it is quite another B-)

If this story is true, then I can well understand, based on the insight into the game that your posts display, why your formidable opponents welcome you to the high stakes game....after all, they only partner you 1/3rd of the time.

 

I really wish you would re-read helene's and zel's posts addressed to you. One of the characteristics of a poor player is that he has no idea how good players think. There are some extremely good players here....players with multiple national titles and, in the case of at least two, world titles. You don't impress anyone here....don't you at least think that in a forum with some really good players, at least one or two of them might agree with you if there were merit in your posts?

 

I suggest a little humility on your part might make your participation here more enjoyable, for you and for the rest of us.

[PhilG007]

Please come to TGR's when you are in London - I am agreeable to the stakes. :D

 

 

 

I feel sorry for your money.(!) I hope you have plenty of superfluous cash (!) :D