2 h or 1 s

[maris oren]

Playung short club partner bids 1♥. Opponents pass. I hold 8-9 points, 3 ♥ and 5 ♠. should I respond 2♥ or 1♠?I responded 2 ♥. Partner passed. made 4♥

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 sometimes you make over tricks, just because partner made 10 tricks, does not mean he makes 10 tricks, if you had bid 4H.

Even if the lay of the cards always allowed making 10 tricks, this does not mean, that bidding game is a sensible / odds on option.

#2 You showed support. Why should delaying showing the support, maybe even not being able to show the primary support in a later

auction, put partner in a better position?

If you can show spades and later show primary support, it is usually ok to do so.

With 8-9points, you have to decide, if you show a min raise hand with support 6-9, or a hand with inv. raise strenght (10-12).

If you go with inv. raise, it is usually possible to introduce spades, if you choose min raise, you cant.

 

It is possible, that your evaluation was wrong, that the hand was worth an inv. raise.

It is also possible, that partner had a hand, that should have made a move over the single raise.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[LBengtsson]

you should try to show support for your partner's suit at the earliest time, but here I bid 1♠ with 5♠3♥. it is forcing if you are not a passed hand. partner may have 5♥4♠in his hand then you have a double fit when he raises ♠. that will allow you to reassess your hand.

[mikeh]

The problem with bidding 1S is that a later bid of 2H, if opener rebids 2m, sounds like a weak hand with a doubleton heart. This will often cause opener to undervalue his hand.

 

The problem with bidding 2H is that it buries the spade suit. Also, if you bid 1S and opener rebids 1N, your 2H bid will show a constructive raise with, usually, 5 spades.

 

So the ‘correct’ approach depends upon the specifics of your hand.

 

If I held, say, KQxxx Kxx xxxx x, I’d raise because I’m accepting game tries other than 3D.

 

If I held, say, Qxxxx Kxx Qx xxx, I’d raise because this is too weak for 1S then 2H over 1N

 

If I held, say, KQxxx Kxx xxx xx, I’d bid 1S then pull 1N to 2H. Of course, I’m less happy if partner bids 2m.

 

So opener’s rebid style matters.

 

What would he rebid over 1S with, say, x AQJxx Jxxx KQx?

 

Some permit 1N, since they don’t like suggesting a very weak minor suit…2D can be passed and we’d rather play 1N if responder has say 5=1=3=4 weak.

 

Others say 1N promises 2-3 card spades so they bid 2D, preferring that unsatisfactory call to a misleading (for them) 1N

 

Thus I don’t think it’s possible to set out a short guide to when one should consider bidding 1S or raising. However, when the decision is really close, I like to fall back on the aphorism of support with support.

 

As for missing a game, it’s impossible to provide meaningful comment without seeing the whole hand.

 

Seeing opener’s hand allows us to assess whether passing 2H was a normal action.

 

Seeing your hand allows us to assess whether we’d prefer 1S.

 

Seeing all the hands allows us to assess whether the opps misdefended or whether 4H was cold but lucky

 

And so on.

[mw64ahw]

If you want to show the ♠s switch to playing Kaplan Inversion where 1NT shows 5+♠ and 1♠ is the forcing NT. If opener has support then it will often be better to play in responders suit if weak. I play 1♥-

1♠-1NT balanced or 4♦ 2♣ asks which?

1♠-2♣ 4+♣

1♠-2♦ 4♠/various strong hands

etc.

[johnu]

If you want to show the ♠s switch to playing Kaplan Inversion where 1NT shows 5+♠ and 1♠ is the forcing NT.

 

Then you will routinely miss 4-4 spade fits. That is unless you play Flannery with non-reverse (4♠-5♥) hands but Flannery is not particularly popular and you lose whatever 2♦ (some use 2♥) bid you were previously playing.

[mikeh]

I played flannery for many years. I don’t regret stopping. It is low frequency and easy to defend against. There are much more frequent uses for 2D. Even a weak two is surprisingly effective, if playing in an event or with a partner where I can’t use multi.

 

Plus the inversion may well wrong side notrump, whether opener passes or raises.

[Winstonm]

The goal is to find an 8-card or better major suit fit. Once that is known why keep looking? Bid 2H unless prepared to treat your hand as a limit raise.

[mw64ahw]

Then you will routinely miss 4-4 spade fits. That is unless you play Flannery with non-reverse (4♠-5♥) hands but Flannery is not particularly popular and you lose whatever 2♦ (some use 2♥) bid you were previously playing.

Nope - 44 ♠ fits are found as above via 1♥-1♠-2♦ which shows 4♠ or a strong hand with 6+♥.

Responder chooses 2♥/2♠/3m or invites in ♠ with 2NT.

In practice I use 2NT to show either the ♠ invite or 55 in the minors so opener bids 3m (3♠ then confirms the invite)

when not strong or 3♥-Str 6+♥, 3♠-Str 4♠, 3NT-45(30), 4m-SI 453m0

[apollo1201]

The problem with bidding 1S is that a later bid of 2H, if opener rebids 2m, sounds like a weak hand with a doubleton heart. This will often cause opener to undervalue his hand.

 

The problem with bidding 2H is that it buries the spade suit. Also, if you bid 1S and opener rebids 1N, your 2H bid will show a constructive raise with, usually, 5 spades.

 

 

There is also another problem with bidding 1S is that opps might interfere and there are 2 bad things coming:

 

- LHO finds a 2m bid, that they might not have risked at 3m: lead and defense are easier for opps, you might get pushed to play 3H instead of 2H (eg you balance with 2H, RHO balances with 3m, and partner balances with 3H)

 

- LHO finds a 2m bid, and RHO bids 3m: now you’re stuck, if you pass, you might miss a making 3M, if you bid, partner will play you for a better hand and might righteously bid game, for down 1

[johnu]

Nope - 44 ♠ fits are found as above via 1♥-1♠-2♦ which shows 4♠ or a strong hand with 6+♥.

Responder chooses 2♥/2♠/3m or invites in ♠ with 2NT.

In practice I use 2NT to show either the ♠ invite or 55 in the minors so opener bids 3m (3♠ then confirms the invite)

when not strong or 3♥-Str 6+♥, 3♠-Str 4♠, 3NT-45(30), 4m-SI 453m0

 

So now you have to invent, get a partner to buy in, and both players memorize a complex convention B-) Keep in mind that this is in the "Natural Bidding Discussion". So the immediate question that comes to mind is how does opener show a 2nd suit in diamonds since 2♦ is artificial. So obviously you must have another artificial sequence to show diamonds. This is spiraling far away from any kind of natural bidding agreements.

[mw64ahw]

So now you have to invent, get a partner to buy in, and both players memorize a complex convention B-) Keep in mind that this is in the "Natural Bidding Discussion". So the immediate question that comes to mind is how does opener show a 2nd suit in diamonds since 2♦ is artificial. So obviously you must have another artificial sequence to show diamonds. This is spiraling far away from any kind of natural bidding agreements.

Not invented, but plagiarised from one of these bridge forums. . and I changed my approach from natural as a result of one of these discussions.

Yes this is a natural bidding forum, but there is player progression from natural bidding to a convention that addresses the challenge that was posted.

The sequence to show ♦s was in my initial post

1♥-1♠

1NT (balanced or 4♦)-2♣ asks which? 2♦ shows 4♦, 2♥ shows balanced

 

In the initial post I would also want to know the modified loosing trick in addition to the 8-9 points to judge whether to show the 5♠ or not.

I would tend to bid 1NT when weak or had an MLT <=8.5 (with 2 8-card fits this could be an upgraded value) . If opener showed ♠ support then I bid 3♥ to invite in either suit

[Douglas43]

Playung short club partner bids 1♥. Opponents pass. I hold 8-9 points, 3 ♥ and 5 ♠. should I respond 2♥ or 1♠?I responded 2 ♥. Partner passed. made 4♥

 

It might be worth considering your partnership stance on opener's position when responder is a passed hand? If opener is allowed to pass a new suit then it makes sense to raise opener whenever you sensibly can. If you still treat a new suit as 100% forcing then 1♠ is an attractive option (subject to all the good advice from previous posts).

Your partnership stance might vary according to the positions and vulnerabilities in which you open light, and possibly the suit opened.

[mikeh]

Not invented, but plagiarised from one of these bridge forums. . and I changed my approach from natural as a result of one of these discussions.

Yes this is a natural bidding forum, but there is player progression from natural bidding to a convention that addresses the challenge that was posted.

The sequence to show ♦s was in my initial post

1♥-1♠

1NT (balanced or 4♦)-2♣ asks which? 2♦ shows 4♦, 2♥ shows balanced

 

In the initial post I would also want to know the modified loosing trick in addition to the 8-9 points to judge whether to show the 5♠ or not.

I would tend to bid 1NT when weak or had an MLT <=8.5 (with 2 8-card fits this could be an upgraded value) . If opener showed ♠ support then I bid 3♥ to invite in either suit

Beware of the path to temptation, lol.

 

Every convention ever invented was invented to 'solve' a particular problem.

 

Every convention ever invented created other problems.

 

The difficulty facing relatively inexperienced players is recognizing the other problems and assessing whether the new sexy gadget is in fact a net winner. Most are not.

 

Also, beware of cribbing specialized conventions from players who play it in the context of an overall approach.

 

Some conventions have limited 'rippling' effects...others carry implications for a host of sequences.

 

Here, for example, playing 1H 1S 1N as either 6+ hearts or 4 diamonds is a kludge. There is no way this is as effective as playing 1H 1S 2D as 4+ diamonds if only because you can no longer rebid 1N!

 

So you've lost the ability to make an extremely useful and common rebid on a 5332 hand...one of the most common shapes and definitely the most common for a 1H opening bid.

 

Plus I suspect that now you get into further complications after 1H 1S 1N 2C....oh, I'm sure you can handle most of them, but why bother?

 

You say you are a club player, with no experience in serious competition. I commend you for you degree of interest, but you may wish to consider that there are a lot of players who do play a lot of high level competitive bridge. Which is a tremendous testing ground for systemic experimentation.

 

Systems are to some degree accessible online...the WBF convention cards are fairly detailed and all top pairs have cards loaded in the context of World Championships. There are also other, more detailed, resources available on various websites.

 

Personally, I change my methods frequently, in consultation with my regular partners. But we do so only after discussion of the problems we are trying to solve and the cost of doing so.

 

For example, in an effort to be harder to play against (more in a NA context than international since in NA we are very restricted in what we can play in most events, so other than the very top pairs, most players are unfamiliar with some methods), we have adopted, when permitted, Multi 2D and 2M showing 5 cards and a side suit, 5-10 hcp. In one we play 11-13 1N in some seats.

 

But we had to look at how, for example, the 1N opening affected our 1-suit openings and rebids. We had to look at how we'd handle 6+ diamonds and a weak hand, for the multi, and so on.

 

Finally, consider memory load for you and partner. As an example, one friend of mine, with whom I have occasionally played, has a transfer method for responding to 1D: 1H shows spades and 1S shows hearts.

 

The problem is that the follow-ups are extremely complex....he sent me many pages of notes. 40 years ago, I might have memorized them. These days...I'm unwilling to try. The theoretical gain seemed non-existent but the objective was primarily to create situations for the opps with which they would be unfamiliar. To me, this wasn't sufficient...I am sure we'd have an occasional forget.

[mw64ahw]

a) Here, for example, playing 1H 1S 1N as either 6+ hearts or 4 diamonds is a kludge. There is no way this is as effective as playing 1H 1S 2D as 4+ diamonds if only because you can no longer rebid 1N!

 

So you've lost the ability to make an extremely useful and common rebid on a 5332 hand...one of the most common shapes and definitely the most common for a 1H opening bid.

 

b) The problem is that the follow-ups are extremely complex....he sent me many pages of notes. 40 years ago, I might have memorized them. These days...I'm unwilling to try. The theoretical gain seemed non-existent but the objective was primarily to create situations for the opps with which they would be unfamiliar. To me, this wasn't sufficient...I am sure we'd have an occasional forget.

a) I think you have a misread here 1♥-1♠-1NT is either balanced (5332) or 4♦ and can be a passed, with 2♣ simply asking which?

b) I'm sure I'll be there in a handful of years time if not already

[mikeh]

a) I think you have a misread here 1♥-1♠-1NT is either balanced (5332) or 4♦ and can be a passed, with 2♣ simply asking which?

b) I'm sure I'll be there in a handful of years time if not already

then what do you bid with 5=5 red hands?

[mw64ahw]

then what do you bid with 5=5 red hands?

Straight to the crux of the matter - responder to show 5+♠ or opener 4+♦ directly.

 

Strong with 4+♦/3523 - 2NT

Intermediate with 5+♦ - 3♦

Minimum with 4/5♦ I'd bid 1NT.

Responder usually follows with

2♣ w. 4♦&2♥ when weak or invitational so you are left with the in between hand which can pass.

2♦ with 5+♦

2♥ weak with 2/3

2♠ direct shows the GF hand with 6+♠, while GF w. 5♠ goes via 2♣ to get a better idea of opener's shape.

2NT with 5♦ Limit+ (passable), 2NT via 2♣ shows both minors Limit+

3♣ 6+♣ Limit+, go via 2♣ when not Limit+ to play in ♣

3♦ 6+♦ Limit+

 

There is also the option of opening 1NT when 2542

[mikeh]

Straight to the crux of the matter - responder to show 5+♠ or opener 4+♦ directly.

 

Strong with 4+♦/3523 - 2NT

Intermediate with 5+♦ - 3♦

Minimum with 4/5♦ I'd bid 1NT.

Responder usually follows with

2♣ w. 4♦&2♥ when weak or invitational so you are left with the in between hand which can pass.

2♦ with 5+♦

2♥ weak with 2/3

2♠ direct shows the GF hand with 6+♠, while GF w. 5♠ goes via 2♣ to get a better idea of opener's shape.

2NT with 5♦ Limit+ (passable), 2NT via 2♣ shows both minors Limit+

3♣ 6+♣ Limit+, go via 2♣ when not Limit+ to play in ♣

3♦ 6+♦ Limit+

 

There is also the option of opening 1NT when 2542

I think this to be fundamentally unplayable

 

Intermediate hands lacking a fit jump to 3D. That is horrible on several levels (unless playing a big club)

 

Responder ‘usually’ bids 2C over 1N. That is horrible on several levels

 

I’d expect that you’d frequently, perhaps even usually, get away with this but in the long run you are creating terrible results.

 

Every system has holes or seams, because every system involves compromises. But any good system minimizes systemically horrible results.

 

I simply don’t see any gain from your approach sufficient to offset the inevitable poor results.

 

And that’s without discussing the problems that arise from having to jump to 2N with a heart-diamond gf hand. Sure, that can work. It now you need yet another kludge to deal with the 5332 18-19 hcp hands….and a kludge to replace the natural meaning of the bid you now use for that purpose.

 

Anyway, it’s obviously your choice. But I wouldn’t play these methods unless being paid a huge amount😀

[mw64ahw]

I think this to be fundamentally unplayable

 

Intermediate hands lacking a fit jump to 3D. That is horrible on several levels (unless playing a big club)

 

Responder 'usually' bids 2C over 1N. That is horrible on several levels

 

I'd expect that you'd frequently, perhaps even usually, get away with this but in the long run you are creating terrible results.

 

Every system has holes or seams, because every system involves compromises. But any good system minimizes systemically horrible results.

 

I simply don't see any gain from your approach sufficient to offset the inevitable poor results.

 

And that's without discussing the problems that arise from having to jump to 2N with a heart-diamond gf hand. Sure, that can work. It now you need yet another kludge to deal with the 5332 18-19 hcp hands….and a kludge to replace the natural meaning of the bid you now use for that purpose.

 

Anyway, it's obviously your choice. But I wouldn't play these methods unless being paid a huge amount😀

I've run many simulations comparing with a standard approach and this comes out on top. My sole aim it to produce an optimal approach with no emotion attached to it.

The various 5332 hands either bid 3NT directly with a controlled doubleton or go through a defined route to show either 4+ of the 2nd suit or 5332.

In the ♦ case you can either bid 3♦ to show 4+♦ support (perhaps intending to play), opener corrects to 3NT if it is his weak doubleton. The alternative is to bid 3♣ to ask for further shape.

In standard you have the jump shift to 3♦ with the strong hand and 2 fewer bids to find out whether you have 4/5 ♦, a semi-balanced hand, singleton or void if required.

 

The intermediate hands may not be a strict 15-17, but also have correctly placed high card points and a pre-set MLT requirement. Yes, a minority of the time you will go down opposite a bare-minimum responder. There is of course always the option of skipping this bid and treating everything as a minimum.

 

As to whether you find it playable or not that is down to the individual as the simulator learns and sticks to its rules. Personally I find that it is my play that lets me down not the bidding itself.

 

 

[mikeh]

I've run many simulations comparing with a standard approach and this comes out on top. My sole aim it to produce an optimal approach with no emotion attached to it.

The various 5332 hands either bid 3NT directly with a controlled doubleton or go through a defined route to show either 4+ of the 2nd suit or 5332.

In the ♦ case you can either bid 3♦ to show 4+♦ support (perhaps intending to play), opener corrects to 3NT if it is his weak doubleton. The alternative is to bid 3♣ to ask for further shape.

In standard you have the jump shift to 3♦ with the strong hand and 2 fewer bids to find out whether you have 4/5 ♦, a semi-balanced hand, singleton or void if required.

 

The intermediate hands may not be a strict 15-17, but also have correctly placed high card points and a pre-set MLT requirement. Yes, a minority of the time you will go down opposite a bare-minimum responder. There is of course always the option of skipping this bid and treating everything as a minimum.

 

As to whether you find it playable or not that is down to the individual as the simulator learns and sticks to its rules. Personally I find that it is my play that lets me down not the bidding itself.

The problem with most simulations is that the designer only uses it to test how it works on the hands that fall within the parameters of the simulation.

 

This approach fails to take into account how one deals with the hands that used to be covered by the bids now co-opted for the convention.

 

Put another way….and with a very simple example….assume we wanted to see how well multi fares.

 

We simulate weak twos in the majors.

 

Fine

 

But to be useful we now need to simulate hands that we’d open with a weak 2D, if that’s our alternative.

 

We might find that having to pass or open 3D costs more than we gain via multi

 

I’ve actually done this. But even with the best will in the world, it’s impossible to simulate real world efficacy.

 

As an example, say I decide I’d open a weak 2D.

 

To know whether this worked, on balance, I have to make subjective decisions about how different opponents might compete…on some hands some opps would bid and others pass…and those who bid might have a choice of calls available.

 

Then I need to decide what partner would do.

 

Then I need to look at all the weak 2D hands…all 52 cards…and decide what would happen if I were to pass or to open 1D or 3D…since I can’t open 2D if playing multi.

 

And then I’d have to do similar work on hands that would be opened multi.

 

Anyone who claims that they can evaluate conventions purely by simulating hands, usually with double dummy analysis and little consideration of how the other three players might act, doesn’t understand simulations

 

Equally, anyone who claims their simulations yield objective results is fooling themselves.

 

Thus, while simulations can be useful, the deciding factors have to include a myriad of factors including:

 

Memory load

 

Cost of errors

 

Gain from using the gadget

 

Loss from using the gadget (there’s always loss)

 

Loss from other uses for the bid(s)

 

Ripple effects on the rest of the system

 

Degree of difficulty created for the opps.

 

I defy anyone to address these adequately by way of simulations.

 

Anyway, you clearly enjoy what you’re doing. So I wish you well. I suspect, however, that as and if you progress in th3 game, you’ll see things differently. Indeed, if you don’t then I predict that you won’t in fact progress much.

[Trinidad]

you should try to show support for your partner's suit at the earliest time, but here I bid 1♠ with 5♠3♥. it is forcing if you are not a passed hand. partner may have 5♥4♠in his hand then you have a double fit when he raises ♠. that will allow you to reassess your hand.

You don't need to bid spades yourself. If partner has a game invitational hand with 4 spades and 5 hearts, he will bid 2♠ after 1♥-2♥. Partner will intend this as a long suit game try to invite to 4♥, but you can bid 3♠ to show your hand. Partner will than bid 4♠ if it he has four spades (and he will bid 4♥ if he made a long suit game try on a three card suit).

 

Rik

[mw64ahw]

The problem with most simulations is that the designer only uses it to test how it works on the hands that fall within the parameters of the simulation.

 

This approach fails to take into account how one deals with the hands that used to be covered by the bids now co-opted for the convention.

 

Put another way….and with a very simple example….assume we wanted to see how well multi fares.

 

We simulate weak twos in the majors.

 

Fine

 

But to be useful we now need to simulate hands that we'd open with a weak 2D, if that's our alternative.

 

We might find that having to pass or open 3D costs more than we gain via multi

 

I've actually done this. But even with the best will in the world, it's impossible to simulate real world efficacy.

 

As an example, say I decide I'd open a weak 2D.

 

To know whether this worked, on balance, I have to make subjective decisions about how different opponents might compete…on some hands some opps would bid and others pass…and those who bid might have a choice of calls available.

 

Then I need to decide what partner would do.

 

Then I need to look at all the weak 2D hands…all 52 cards…and decide what would happen if I were to pass or to open 1D or 3D…since I can't open 2D if playing multi.

 

And then I'd have to do similar work on hands that would be opened multi.

 

Anyone who claims that they can evaluate conventions purely by simulating hands, usually with double dummy analysis and little consideration of how the other three players might act, doesn't understand simulations

 

Equally, anyone who claims their simulations yield objective results is fooling themselves.

 

Thus, while simulations can be useful, the deciding factors have to include a myriad of factors including:

 

Memory load

 

Cost of errors

 

Gain from using the gadget

 

Loss from using the gadget (there's always loss)

 

Loss from other uses for the bid(s)

 

Ripple effects on the rest of the system

 

Degree of difficulty created for the opps.

 

I defy anyone to address these adequately by way of simulations.

 

Anyway, you clearly enjoy what you're doing. So I wish you well. I suspect, however, that as and if you progress in th3 game, you'll see things differently. Indeed, if you don't then I predict that you won't in fact progress much.

If interested this document was the basis for this particular plagarisation with my adaptations for Kaplan Inversion.

Fixing the Forcing Notrump (examples included) v.03.pdf - OneDrive (live.com)

 

In terms of modelling the problem - this is the challenge I am pursuing rather the drive to compete internationally (for the time being anyway)

My background is one of financial modelling and my approach to setting up the model for simulation is likely to be more involved than most practitioners.

You have highlighted a number of challenges

1. Memory load/Cost of errors - these are human weaknesses, but can be built into a Monte Carlo simulation with random, but controlled frequency. As you imply I am sure that at some level of frequency any gains are wiped out and you would be better off playing a simpler approach.
2. Gain from using the gadget - this is a straightforward comparison to the base system run over X simulations.
3. Loss from using the gadget (there's always loss) - this goes with 2 above; you are looking for a net gain, but a statistical analysis by hand classification can pinpoint any specific weakness. The trick is to build in the cost via implementation of the scoring system in use. Intuitively one may say that finding a Major fit at the 2 level is preferable to a minor suit fit; this is your null hypothesis which can then be investigated.
4. Loss from other uses for the bid(s) - this is the same type of problem as 2 or 3, but involves more than 1 base system
5. Ripple effects on the rest of the system - again you are looking for an aggregate gain compared to your original approach so this is captured via a broad simulation
6. Degree of difficulty created for the opps. - the competitive angle is a step up in complexity, but there is enough data available to calibrate to the standard of opponents as tournaments are graded. Again unpredictability of competition can be built in. A generalised approach is difficult, but the opponents system cards provide the constraints.

[DavidKok]

Many people have previously set out on applying thorough simulation, data analysis or other data-driven techniques to figuring out a stronger bidding system. All of the six challenges you state can, in theory, be addressed to satisfaction, and would result in a fantastic corpus of information for developing and testing bidding systems. Regrettably, nobody has ever successfully done so. In my limited experience, the people who have attempted this usually fail in one of several predictable ways. Often with greatly overstated confidence in their results.

It is not at all clear to me that you will do better than the historical success rate of projects like these, which is close to 0. This is why people refer to experts, results from high-level tournaments and 'common practice' - not because bridge players are luddites, but because it's the best source available. Put more charitably, there is a huge amount of bridge knowledge and expertise that is already available. You can (and probably should) use this as a starting point for more thorough investigation. The only hurdle is that this information is called 'expert practice', and is not always in a format that appeals to a scientific mindset (but this does not make it any less valid).

 

To be specific, I think points 1, 5 and 6 on your list are decisive for determining the value of a treatment, and I have next to no confidence that you are able to address these sufficiently well.

[mw64ahw]

Many people have previously set out on applying thorough simulation, data analysis or other data-driven techniques to figuring out a stronger bidding system. All of the six challenges you state can, in theory, be addressed to satisfaction, and would result in a fantastic corpus of information for developing and testing bidding systems. Regrettably, nobody has ever successfully done so. In my limited experience, the people who have attempted this usually fail in one of several predictable ways. Often with greatly overstated confidence in their results.

It is not at all clear to me that you will do better than the historical success rate of projects like these, which is close to 0. This is why people refer to experts, results from high-level tournaments and 'common practice' - not because bridge players are luddites, but because it's the best source available. Put more charitably, there is a huge amount of bridge knowledge and expertise that is already available. You can (and probably should) use this as a starting point for more thorough investigation. The only hurdle is that this information is called 'expert practice', and is not always in a format that appeals to a scientific mindset (but this does not make it any less valid).

 

To be specific, I think points 1, 5 and 6 on your list are decisive for determining the value of a treatment, and I have next to no confidence that you are able to address these sufficiently well.

I'm a long way from developing a Deep Blue type program, but perhaps I'll aim for one of the world computer bridge-championships.