Do you come in?
#21
Posted 2020-September-22, 04:45
1)THERE WILL NOT BE another chance.
2)We play LEBENSOHL so no chance of going overboard.
3)I am an aggressive bidder.
Thanks.
#22
Posted 2020-September-22, 05:22
#23
Posted 2020-September-22, 10:12
Almost half the time (~ 48%), partner has spades, we are presumably happy; partner won't be able to overcall/double on a decently large fraction of them. (of course we may subsequently overbid/underbid these, but some of these will presumably be cancelled out by opps competing in hearts when we were about to play an unfortunate diamond fit, or 5-2 diamonds getting out for down 1 when they were making hearts, etc.)
About 10% or so of the time partner has longer clubs then diamonds without spades.
About 40% of the time partner has diamonds w/o spades, and diamonds>=clubs. But somewhat over half these rate to work out, because either partner is strong enough to FG with 3H (or try 3nt himself) and we manage to bring in 3nt, or partner has 6+ diamonds and we are presumably not too unhappy.
#24
Posted 2020-September-22, 11:49
#25
Posted 2020-September-22, 11:55
Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-22, 10:12, said:
Thank you for doing a simulation, Stephen. I've come in late on this discussion.
My view, for what its worth, is 5422 is not the best shapes generally at bridge - I believe Benito Garozzo discussed this shape somewhere - but with a minimum hand I would Double 2♥ with my regular partner because I would be showing ♠s but not necessarily both minors, or a stronger hand with a different shape but not necessarily a 4 card ♠ suit.
However, if the opening bid had been 2♠ and I had 2425 shape I would consider pass even though we use Lebensohl, because the opponents are non-vulnerable and have the higher ranking suit and can probably outbid us.
#26
Posted 2020-September-22, 12:31
DavidKok, on 2020-September-22, 11:49, said:
I didn't calculate this but I would assume a great deal worse. The problem is West cannot come in with a balanced hand and 3cd hearts without like a 15 count for a 2nt balance. And if distributional can't double/overcall without very close to opening hand either IMO. Over anything East should drive to game IMO, so basically anything where partial is the limit you cannot reach. Or hands where you get out for -1 undoubled when they were making hearts.
If you start saying West should start balancing super-light in case East felt compelled to pass on hands like this, and East should not drive game, you hurt your bidding considerably when West holds stronger hands and East has to hold back, your ranges are too wide with too little space to sort things out, plus you get in trouble when South has the strong misfit hand instead of East.
#27
Posted 2020-September-22, 16:22
Preempts Work, and they work because those kinds of decisions can't be made with great accuracy when you take away the 1 level.
#28
Posted 2020-September-22, 16:48
DavidKok, on 2020-September-22, 04:33, said:
As for partner passing, this would typically show either a five-card heart suit (or a solid four-card suit), or a decent number of points (let's say 9-12) with a notrump distribution, 4 hearts and values in the heart suit, gambling that 3NT is one off but 2♥X can be set. At this vulnerability the latter hand type might well bid anyway, red against white is not the time for speculative penalties. Regardless your ♥A9 are wonderful news for partner, and while you are on the light side your hand has OK values for a takeout double (but not the ideal shape). Slam down the ace of hearts and collect a good penalty without trouble. Instead, the auction I'm worried about is partner pulling to 3♦ (possibly with a convention).
Well, just to put our minds at ease, I gave the hand to the robots on a teaching table. I have a funny feeling that I read somewhere that Mike Lawrence had a hand in designing GIB - I might be wrong. In his complete book on doubles, he states "a five-card suit is gold".
The robots overcalled 3♣ and after I bid 3♥ they made their way to 4♣. I let them play it out.
Here's what happened.
#29
Posted 2020-September-22, 17:04
mycroft, on 2020-September-22, 16:22, said:
I would imagine pretty low, unless the 10 count opposite had a lot of shape to justify a GF. You have invitational sequences available; 3S and for some people also 2nt followed by 3S. This hand of course would decline, and if you have another king you would presumably accept.
Now, 3S will go down on some of the worse 10 counts, and that would be sub-optimal, but you may find that they were making 2H and partner wasn't going to balance if you didn't act so you were never really getting +110 and -100 might be better than -110. It'll probably be pretty difficult for the opener's partner to find the axe.
Quote
Quote
Obviously you are going to get some wrong, but the main question is whether you get more frequent good results than bad ones by acting rather than passing. I know I'd personally much rather double on this hand than balance overcall 2S on my 8/9 count or balance double with 4342 on 9 count. Or you could get conservative and pass both sides and avoid 3d disasters but you'll lose a lot when 2s makes or you drive them into 3H down 1.
#30
Posted 2020-September-22, 19:15
Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-22, 10:12, said:
Almost half the time (~ 48%), partner has spades, we are presumably happy; partner won't be able to overcall/double on a decently large fraction of them. (of course we may subsequently overbid/underbid these, but some of these will presumably be cancelled out by opps competing in hearts when we were about to play an unfortunate diamond fit, or 5-2 diamonds getting out for down 1 when they were making hearts, etc.)
About 10% or so of the time partner has longer clubs then diamonds without spades.
About 40% of the time partner has diamonds w/o spades, and diamonds>=clubs. But somewhat over half these rate to work out, because either partner is strong enough to FG with 3H (or try 3nt himself) and we manage to bring in 3nt, or partner has 6+ diamonds and we are presumably not too unhappy.
I don’t understand this post. A proper simulation should not conclude that ‘we are presumably happy’ to have doubled when partner has spades.
Surely whether we are happy depends on whether the double realistically gets us to a better outcome than would a pass.
Playing 4S doubled, down 2, for example, would likely leave us extremely unhappy. Reaching 4S making would be good, but maybe we’d reach it after a pass.
In other words, analyzing a simulation requires a huge amount of largely subjective analysis. If the point was that double reaches spades often, that’s of no use at all.
#31
Posted 2020-September-22, 19:56
mikeh, on 2020-September-22, 19:15, said:
Surely whether we are happy depends on whether the double realistically gets us to a better outcome than would a pass.
Playing 4S doubled, down 2, for example, would likely leave us extremely unhappy. Reaching 4S making would be good, but maybe we'd reach it after a pass.
In other words, analyzing a simulation requires a huge amount of largely subjective analysis. If the point was that double reaches spades often, that's of no use at all.
It's a first step ballpark estimation, not intended to be a down to the last percentage estimate of how much better one action is than another. I was interested in the relative frequencies partner has spades, to the nightmare scenario where partner bids 3D.
I think if anyone told you that partner was guaranteed to bid spades and wasn't going to bid diamonds you would rather double then pass, no? Of course it's not going to work out 100%, but I think it's clear bidding will work out a ton more often then passing.
Now if you want to bore down into greater detail, I can. For example, I looked at hands where partner has 6-9 hcp and 4+ spades, where he is unlikely to act if we don't. Where South doesn't have a huge fit or say a strong NT hand that would 2nt inquiry or whatever. Here we are making 2S+ some 86+% of the time and down 1 only another 12 or so. While they are making 2H+ 90+%. Surely we want to bid, no?
#32
Posted 2020-September-22, 20:25
Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-22, 19:56, said:
I think if anyone told you that partner was guaranteed to bid spades and wasn't going to bid diamonds you would rather double then pass, no? Of course it's not going to work out 100%, but I think it's clear bidding will work out a ton more often then passing.
Now if you want to bore down into greater detail, I can. For example, I looked at hands where partner has 6-9 hcp and 4+ spades, where he is unlikely to act if we don't. Where South doesn't have a huge fit or say a strong NT hand that would 2nt inquiry or whatever. Here we are making 2S+ some 86+% of the time and down 1 only another 12 or so. While they are making 2H+ 90+%. Surely we want to bid, no?
You and I seem to have very different ideas about simulations. Of course, I ‘knew’ that partner has 6-9 hcp and 4+spades, I’d want to bid. In my wirld, catering to a narrow set of hands partner might hold does not lead to a useful simulation.
As I mentioned in my first post, doing it properly requires an enormous amount of work, and is just about impossible to do objectively.
One could try, but it would likely require analyzing, individually, at least 100 deals, and deciding what each player would do with each hand. So that if two good analysts examined the same hands, they’d likely draw different conclusions. I’d expect one who began feeling double was good would find that confirmed and one who felt it was a poor action would find the same hands to confirm that view as well😃 There’s just too much subjectivity.
#33
Posted 2020-September-22, 21:13
#34
Posted 2020-September-22, 21:28
Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-22, 21:13, said:
Like all matters of Judgement, it varies inversely with the (hours of wakefulness multiplied by your blood alcohol level) divided by masterpoints. This is a well-known fact.
#35
Posted 2020-September-23, 01:01
dealt randomly (using the Dealer script
) on the condition that
- North has something resembling a classic Weak 2♥ in terms of hcp and shape (so a hand with 5-S6H and 5-10 hcp that doesn't meet the rule of 20);
- East has 12 hcp and 4225 shape (because we want to know to do on "similar" hands, not just one that we will almost certainly never be dealt again).
#36
Posted 2020-September-23, 01:26
#37
Posted 2020-September-23, 02:27
FelicityR, on 2020-September-22, 11:55, said:
I don't see why it should make any difference whether the opening is in hearts or spades. They can outbid you in spades, but so what? If they outbid you, you have forced them a level higher which might mean they go down. If you don't bid, they don't have to outbid you and can play at the two level. This is assuming they will bid over you.
#38
Posted 2020-September-23, 02:53
pilowsky, on 2020-September-22, 16:48, said:
The robots overcalled 3♣ and after I bid 3♥ they made their way to 4♣. I let them play it out.
Here's what happened.
This does not put my mind at ease at all. The cold 4♠ is missed, and NS are doing something rather fancy (not to say 'ridiculous') on trick 5. Also South should grow a pair and bid 4♥ instead of 3. And I just noticed the vulnerability doesn't match the poll.
#39
Posted 2020-September-23, 08:45
msjennifer, on 2020-September-22, 04:45, said:
1)THERE WILL NOT BE another chance.
2)We play LEBENSOHL so no chance of going overboard.
3)I am an aggressive bidder.
Thanks.
In your partnership, what is the minimum strength for a *jump* advance here?
If you were playing with a stranger who had agreed to lebensohl, what would you expect that minimum to be?
#40
Posted 2020-September-23, 09:38
I appreciate the effort, but think that generating hands for east invalidates the procedure. Not all 4=2=2=5 12 counts are the same. Bear in mind that I think that most players see the east hand as borderline (imo, pass is the better call but obviously there will be many hands where it is not, and I think the bidders see it similarly but in reverse)
The actual hand has poor texture and a horrible diamond holding. A lot of your examples have all their hcp in their long suits, improving the hand significantly. Also, Kx in hearts is almost a good as AX, in terms of the heart suit, and leaves an extra point for the long suits.
Ironically, I think a more appropriate simulation is a lot easier to do (one hand is known) and definitely a lot easier to analyze. Finally, double dummy results are simply wrong, unles you know people who can both bid and play double dummy. No double dummy analysis wil, help you decide how the auction would go, let alone hoe the hand would be played in real life.