What is your opening bid with 1NT vs 1D : 1062/KQ3/AQ87/A63
vincit
You are the Dealer
You play strong NT (15-17)
1062
KQ3
AQ87
A63
How do you evaluate this hand ? (Do you deduct 1pt for the 4333
shape?)
What is your opening bid ? Why ?
Do you consider your choice obvious or would you hesitate between 1D
and 1NT ?
Vincit, Paris, France
CBFalconer
>
> MP
> You are the Dealer
> You play strong NT (15-17)
>
> 1062
> KQ3
> AQ87
> A63
>
> How do you evaluate this hand ? (Do you deduct 1pt for the 4333
> shape?) What is your opening bid ? Why ?
No deduction. 1 NT.
> Do you consider your choice obvious or would you hesitate between
> 1D and 1NT ?
Super obvious.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
boblipton
I just count up to 15, ignoring the shape, the Ten and the 3.5 quick
tricks and open it 1NT. If partner invites, I'll make a decision
then.
Bob
Bill Jacobs
9193f0...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com:
I'm not big into upgrading or downgrading points for NT openings. I'm
prepared to upgrade excellent 17 counts, but rarely downgrade.
The reason? I play imps a lot, and you really cannot afford to miss games.
By the way, downgrading opening choices for 4-3-3-3 shapes is stoopid.
(FYI, Kaplan rates the hand as 14.75 points: that's not a downgrade.)
Cheers ... Bill
Steve Willner
> MP
> You are the Dealer
> You play strong NT (15-17)
>
> 1062
> KQ3
> AQ87
> A63
Nobody mentioned "fifths count," I think, so I will. Add 2/5 for the
S-T, subtract 1/5 each for H-K, H-Q, and D-Q, and get 14.9. I'd still
open 1NT if playing 15-17 but not playing 15+ - 17+. As others have
said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
David Stevenson
>As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much
as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an
error.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Adam Beneschan
wrote:
> Steve Willner wrote
>
> >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
>
> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much
> as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an
> error.
That seems like common sense to me, since the fourth card in a suit
gives you a chance of setting up a long-suit trick there, and having
two four-card suits would give you a better chance than having just
one. But I have a vague recollection that one of the simulation wonks
on this newsgroup had reported, a number of years ago, that 4333's
really don't play worse than 4432's, or maybe are even a bit better.
It could be that having a doubleton increases the chance that the
*opponents* have a suit long enough that they can set up to beat you.
I'm not sure, and I don't think I'd be able to find the post that I
think I might have possibly vaguely remembered.
-- Adam
vincit
wrote:
> Steve Willner wrote
>
> >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
>
> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much
> as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an
> error.
>
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Mr Stevenson,
With all due respect do you any datas and/or research to back up your
statement (made in the context of the hand quoted) ?
I remind you we are reasoning A PRIORI and not in general terms after
having seen the four hands ...
You would indeed agree with me that most experts would never downgrade
a 4333 hand A PRORI for NT purposes
because they consider the following : occupying space + tactical
reasons + prempt-effect + conveying the structure and potential of the
hand immediately AS the most important factor
The reduced playing potential of the 4333 is offset by the safety of
the shape in defense
So the key factors are intermediaries and whether or not the hand is
NT oriented that is it !
A 4333 ok when facing a 4432/4333/5332 and does much better than a
324=4 facing a 324=4 (actually 4333 is one the best dist for NT
purposes when facing a balanced hand)
Now stating that you have to deduct a point for a 4333 a priori when
deciding or not to open 1NT as some players keep advising is simply a
non sense.
Would you deduct a point with a 4333 when playing a Strong NT and
downgrade the hand to a 1m opening a priori ? That is the core of the
question ...
Indeed at suit a 4333 is clearly a negative factor but this is another
matter
Vincit
Andrew
> On Dec 18, 5:40 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Steve Willner wrote
>
> > >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
>
> > I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much
> > as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an
> > error.
>
> That seems like common sense to me,
Common sense is neither common, nor always sensical.
> since the fourth card in a suit
> gives you a chance of setting up a long-suit trick there, and having
> two four-card suits would give you a better chance than having just
> one. But I have a vague recollection that one of the simulation wonks
> on this newsgroup had reported, a number of years ago, that 4333's
> really don't play worse than 4432's, or maybe are even a bit better.
> It could be that having a doubleton increases the chance that the
> *opponents* have a suit long enough that they can set up to beat you.
> I'm not sure, and I don't think I'd be able to find the post that I
> think I might have possibly vaguely remembered.
>
> -- Adam
If you want to see the proof that 4-3-3-3 is a superior distribution
for the purpose of playing in NT go to Thomas Andrews' website:
http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/
Thomas's conclusion (that 4-3-3-3 is slightly superior to other
balanced shapes for playing in NT) has been independently confirmed by
Kurt Schneider.
CBFalconer
> Steve Willner wrote
>
>> As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
>
> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as
> much as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for
> a 4333 is an error.
It all depends. For example, it is much easier to get 4 tricks out
of Axxxxx in the dummy with xxx in your hand than with xx in your
hand.
David Stevenson
Proof, huh? No, thanks. I know that 4333 hands are worse based on
forty plus years of results. I have little doubt I would merely find
myself disagreeing with the premises, and I cannot be bothered with
something not in RGB.
David Stevenson
Of course good players downgrade 4333 hands for no-trumps.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
vincit
They do BUT not a priori when considering opening a strong NT !
Anyway even if you consider (based on your experience) that it is a
minus factor there are other considerations that are more essential
This is why all in all a priori they do not downgrade (and dowgrading
one point is a non sense)
vincit
vincit
wrote:
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
You do not need proofs so you may be trapped with a cognitive illusion
(LOL), this is indeed very common we all are !
vincit
David Stevenson
>You do not need proofs so you may be trapped with a cognitive illusion
>(LOL), this is indeed very common we all are !
Of course I could be. Not to mention my late friend, John Armstrong,
who agreed with me over 4333s. But there again, perhaps I am correct.
My strength at bridge, and the reason I win so much at this game is
not based on my judgement in slam bidding, which is dreadful. It is not
based on my technical ability, which is poor. It is not based on my
table feel, which is very poor. It is not based on my reading hands
while playing dummies, which is dreadful.
So what is it based on? Well, I think my strongest ability is
judgement of hands especially in low level competitive situations, and
the knowledge of the basis for a good competitive approach. So, yes,
you may be right, that I cannot tell a good opening from a bad one.
But I doubt it.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
>They do BUT not a priori when considering opening a strong NT !
>Anyway even if you consider (based on your experience) that it is a
>minus factor there are other considerations that are more essential
>This is why all in all a priori they do not downgrade (and dowgrading
>one point is a non sense)
Oh, don't be silly. You only downgrade two points or more? What
planet are you on?
Judgement is part of what separates the good players form the poor
ones. Good players downgrade for poor features, of which 4333 is one,
and upgrade for good features.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Thomas Andrews
Even if double-dummy analysis is correct about the trick-taking value
of various patterns, it still doesn't mean that common bidding wisdom
is inaccurate.
For example, experts suggest that you count values in your long suits
as better than values in your short suits. Double dummy data suggests
otherwise.
But even if the double dummy data is correct, , part of the point of
bidding is to find the fit with partner, and if you open 1H with AKx-
xxxxx-KJx-xx, partner will over-value Qxx in hearts and de-value
shortness in hearts, because the odds are that you have high cards in
the heart suit. So he's going to push to game with precisely the
wrong sort of hands and avoid games with precisely the right sort of
hand.
Also, let's recall, although the bid of 1NT is in the notrump
denomination, we are suggesting that the hand has a certain playing
strength in suits as well. This hand, double dummy, is about 14.6
points in suit contracts and almost exactly 15 points in NT
contracts. I'd still open it 1NT because I have to round 14.6
somehow, and it's 15 points in NT. If partner makes any invite,
though, I'm not accepting.
Finally, the double dummy notrump advantage of 4333 over 4432 over
5332 is so tiny, compared to the suit-taking advantage of the latter
two shapes. The difference is about 1/6th a point in notrump, and
about 1 point in suit contracts.
vincit
I do not know of any good players downgrading one point a 4333 shape
when considering opening a strong NT or not ! You seem to discard the
fact that a 4333 is very good at stopping the defense to run a 5 card
suit and is superior for instance to a 4432 in this context
So it seems to me that the good players I know focus would focus on
the following factors:
- Intermediaries
- Right siding the contract
-The combination of honors
-The premptive effect of 1NT
- The fact of giving key informations in one single bid
IMHO these are the relevant factors regarding the choice of their
bids and tactics a priori ref to a 1NT strong opening, the shape is
indeed totally irrelevant, you have time to adjust later
Should you bother to study how multi World and European Champions bid
these hands you'll find out they do not give a hoot about the 4333
shape a priori
especially some of your compatriots in the UK national team and all
scandinavian players, the alternative, according to your statement is
whether they are poor players or whether a priori evaluation is not
what you think.
So if you decide (based on your experience) to deduct or downgrade a
15HCP 4333 because of the shape, it sounds more like a "gambit" to me,
you decide it will be a negative factor based on your 40 years of
experience, nothing to do with facts, period.
Vincit
David Stevenson
>So if you decide (based on your experience) to deduct or downgrade a
>15HCP 4333 because of the shape, it sounds more like a "gambit" to me,
>you decide it will be a negative factor based on your 40 years of
>experience, nothing to do with facts, period.
Ok, you are right, I have no idea what I am talking about, the good
players I know and play with have not a clue, we all just try pointless
gambits.
Or maybe not.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
vincit
wrote:
> vincit wrote
>
> >So if you decide (based on your experience) to deduct or downgrade a
> >15HCP 4333 because of the shape, it sounds more like a "gambit" to me,
> >you decide it will be a negative factor based on your 40 years of
> >experience, nothing to do with facts, period.
>
> Ok, you are right, I have no idea what I am talking about, the good
> players I know and play with have not a clue, we all just try pointless
> gambits.
>
> Or maybe not.
>
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Very funny indeed ! Obviously we do not know the same players !
So am I to understand that you deduct one point with a 4333 a priori,
in other words that you will never open a 15HCP 4333 with a strong
1NT?
I am always interesting in learning new systems and good gambits
Obviously you did not check out the 4333 hands that were duly opened
1NT strong or weak by a "brochette" of World and European Champions
Please advise as finally you have never answered the question
I think you know perfectly what you are talking about, you are ironic
instead of backing up your opinion, maybe if you do I will change my
mind ....
Vincit
Travis Crump
> Steve Willner wrote
>> As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
>
> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much
> as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an
> error.
>
Just to be clear, are you[and your subsequent posts] just commenting on
the sentence you quoted and not the actual hand[T62 KQ3 AQ87 A63] which
would seem to me to have plenty of positive adjustments to balance out
the 4333 negative adjustment[no jacks, all queens in combination]?
Travis
Martin Ambuhl
> Very funny indeed ! Obviously we do not know the same players !
> So am I to understand that you deduct one point with a 4333 a priori,
It's time to stop this.
1) You continue to speak of devaluation in terms of "points". While
books for learners may express things this way, this is not the way a
good player describes hands. A good player may describe a hand as a
"bad 5332 12-count", which means it has 12 HCP in a 5332 shape and with
some poor features. Talk about adding or subtracting points is for
children.
2) There is no such things as what a hand is worth "a priori". All
evaluation is based on accumulation of experience "a posteriori", on the
results of playing various contracts after various kinds of bidding.
Anyone who talks of "a priori" evaluation is either grossly abusing the
language or is hopelessly confused.
> in other words that you will never open a 15HCP 4333 with a strong
> 1NT?
This is just another stupid abuse of the "points" language. There are
many evaluation factors (the term Marshall Miles used consistently).
Some of these may be positive and some of them are negative. They need
to be judged, and that judgment has never been captured by any gross
evaluation method.
> I am always interesting in learning new systems and good gambits
> Obviously you did not check out the 4333 hands that were duly opened
> 1NT strong or weak by a "brochette" of World and European Champions
> Please advise as finally you have never answered the question
> I think you know perfectly what you are talking about, you are ironic
> instead of backing up your opinion, maybe if you do I will change my
> mind ....
I doubt it. You still write as if the crutches given to first-week
players are magical.
SCya...@gmail.com
Hey Martin,
I completely agree with you :). (and of course, Mr. Stevenson
as well).
Rich Regan
David Stevenson
>On Dec 22, 1:54 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> vincit wrote
>>
>> >So if you decide (based on your experience) to deduct or downgrade a
>> >15HCP 4333 because of the shape, it sounds more like a "gambit" to me,
>> >you decide it will be a negative factor based on your 40 years of
>> >experience, nothing to do with facts, period.
>>
>> Ok, you are right, I have no idea what I am talking about, the good
>> players I know and play with have not a clue, we all just try pointless
>> gambits.
>>
>> Or maybe not.
>Very funny indeed ! Obviously we do not know the same players !
>So am I to understand that you deduct one point with a 4333 a priori,
>in other words that you will never open a 15HCP 4333 with a strong
>1NT?
>I am always interesting in learning new systems and good gambits
>Obviously you did not check out the 4333 hands that were duly opened
>1NT strong or weak by a "brochette" of World and European Champions
>Please advise as finally you have never answered the question
>I think you know perfectly what you are talking about, you are ironic
>instead of backing up your opinion, maybe if you do I will change my
>mind ....
I have said straight more than once, so do not pretend I have not.
Good players downgrade 4333 hands because they do not play well.
No, saying they do not open any 4333 15 count shows a lack of
understanding for other factors: 4333 shape is not the *only* factor a
good player ever looks at.
My experience is that this is the correct thing to do.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
I had not even looked at the actual hand, true. Yes, I think you are
right. I merely reacted ot the word 'irrelevant'.
vincit
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Yes indeed but we all know that, we are adressing the issue of 4333 in
general
A 4333 shape is not a negative factor in this situation and at that
stage of the auction
The above statement is backed by sound independent studies
A 15 HCP 4333 without intermediaries is "systematically" opened 1NT in
the events quoted (see by yourself)
Vincit
vincit
> vincit wrote:
> > Very funny indeed ! Obviously we do not know the same players !
> > So am I to understand that you deduct one point with a 4333 a priori,
>
> It's time to stop this.
>
> 1) You continue to speak of devaluation in terms of "points". While
> books for learners may express things this way, this is not the way a
> good player describes hands. A good player may describe a hand as a
> "bad 5332 12-count", which means it has 12 HCP in a 5332 shape and with
> some poor features. Talk about adding or subtracting points is for
> children.
When you first discover your cards, it is a "a priori" evaluation,
you adjust when you gain additional information
I think you are the one who is totally confused
>
> 2) There is no such things as what a hand is worth "a priori". All
> evaluation is based on accumulation of experience "a posteriori", on the
> results of playing various contracts after various kinds of bidding.
> Anyone who talks of "a priori" evaluation is either grossly abusing the
> language or is hopelessly confused.
>
> > in other words that you will never open a 15HCP 4333 with a strong
> > 1NT?
>
> This is just another stupid abuse of the "points" language. There are
> many evaluation factors (the term Marshall Miles used consistently).
> Some of these may be positive and some of them are negative. They need
> to be judged, and that judgment has never been captured by any gross
> evaluation method.
Yes this is evident, we all know that, what are you talking about ?
It seems you have just discovered what Hand Evaluation is all about !
Does it have anything to do with the discussion ?
I pointed out that 4333 is a neutral not a negative factor in the hand
quoted
>
> > I am always interesting in learning new systems and good gambits
> > Obviously you did not check out the 4333 hands that were duly opened
> > 1NT strong or weak by a "brochette" of World and European Champions
> > Please advise as finally you have never answered the question
> > I think you know perfectly what you are talking about, you are ironic
> > instead of backing up your opinion, maybe if you do I will change my
> > mind ....
>
> I doubt it. You still write as if the crutches given to first-week
> players are magical.
Please study how first class players bid in the last World and
European championships !
4333 is a flat hand not a bad hand when considering a 1NT opening and
not taken into consideration as a negative factor by most of these
players
The question of "deducting a point" was made to assess how many
posters would consider that it is silly to do so because silly it is.
Do you get the picture now ?
Finally you do not bring anything concrete to this thread and you
comments are irrelevant at best
The question was to choose an opening from a 15 HCP 4333, I was saying
4333 is NOT a negative factor in this situation, period, maybe you
have a thousand years of experience on trillion of hands to state the
contrary
Vincit
Martin Ambuhl
> On Dec 22, 9:55 pm, Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> vincit wrote:
>>> Very funny indeed ! Obviously we do not know the same players !
>>> in other words that you will never open a 15HCP 4333 with a strong
>>> 1NT?
>> This is just another stupid abuse of the "points" language. There are
>> many evaluation factors (the term Marshall Miles used consistently).
>> Some of these may be positive and some of them are negative. They need
>> to be judged, and that judgment has never been captured by any gross
>> evaluation method.
>
> Yes this is evident, we all know that, what are you talking about ?
> It seems you have just discovered what Hand Evaluation is all about !
> Does it have anything to do with the discussion ?
> I pointed out that 4333 is a neutral not a negative factor in the hand
> quoted
The above dishonesty is the same as you pulled in your response to
David. Your
>>> in other words that you will never open a 15HCP 4333 with a strong
>>> 1NT?
is in no way consistent with your supposed claim that every knows about
other evaluation factors. You made it clear: you were treating HCP and
pattern as your only criteria.
No, I played the evaluation games you are doing back when my
grandmother, one of those cerified by both the Culbertson and Goren
organizations as a teacher, was teaching me this game in the 1950s.
Your "It seems you have just discovered what Hand Evaluation is all
about !" was obviously unrelated to the real world, and only served as
an attempted distraction from your complete lack of understanding of
hand evaluation. And your "Does it have anything to do with the
discussion ?" is just laughable.
vincit
> vincit wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 9:55 pm, Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> vincit wrote:
> >>> Very funny indeed ! Obviously we do not know the same players !
> >>> in other words that you will never open a 15HCP 4333 with a strong
> >>> 1NT?
> >> This is just another stupid abuse of the "points" language. There are
> >> many evaluation factors (the term Marshall Miles used consistently).
> >> Some of these may be positive and some of them are negative. They need
> >> to be judged, and that judgment has never been captured by any gross
> >> evaluation method.
>
> > Yes this is evident, we all know that, what are you talking about ?
> > It seems you have just discovered what Hand Evaluation is all about !
> > Does it have anything to do with the discussion ?
> > I pointed out that 4333 is a neutral not a negative factor in the hand
> > quoted
>
> The above dishonesty is the same as you pulled in your response to
> David. Your
> >>> in other words that you will never open a 15HCP 4333 with a strong
> >>> 1NT?
> is in no way consistent with your supposed claim that every knows about
> other evaluation factors. You made it clear: you were treating HCP and
> pattern as your only criteria.
Because you've not read my other postings where all other factors are
clearly stated, you obviously cannot read !
I stated the shape 4333 is irrelevant when assessing the hand for an
opening of 1NT
Consequently if you consider 4333 is a negative factors, it is logical
to say that you would not open a 4333 15HCP with no intermediary of
1NT, which is IMHO fallacious
The formulation of my question in the first place was to make a point
and prove that deducting a point is silly (BTW comes from Goren)
Should you have read them all you would not have written the above,
reference to Hand evaluation, it is weird you think you know best,
just prove it (have a look on Thomas Andrews Web site to start
with ....)
Anyway this is not important !
Vincit
>
> No, I played the evaluation games you are doing back when my
> grandmother, one of those cerified by both the Culbertson and Goren
> organizations as a teacher, was teaching me this game in the 1950s.
> Your "It seems you have just discovered what Hand Evaluation is all
> about !" was obviously unrelated to the real world, and only served as
> an attempted distraction from your complete lack of understanding of
> hand evaluation. And your "Does it have anything to do with the
> discussion ?" is just laughable.
This "ad hominem" statement is very poor (and not related to the real
world lol), again you have added nothing to the discussion so far
except we know your hand Evaluation principle date back to Goren and
Culbertson as though we had not made any progress since that time !
I gave true facts based on examples and sound research : 4333 shape is
irrelevant when deciding to open 1NT, I made it clear in extenso
previously
If you disagree, just come up with the real thing .... Yes indeed
your comments had nothing to do with the specific point we were
addressing as all other factors are very well known and a prerequisite
for system designs, my interest was in one factor only the 4333 shape
and whether or not it is considered by the Forum as a negative factor
It seems it is not .... "deducting one point" is for children, I
entirely agree with you ...
Vincit
vincit
> > Very funny indeed ! Obviously we do not know the same players !
> > So am I to understand that you deduct one point with a 4333 a priori,
>
> It's time to stop this.
>
> 1) You continue to speak of devaluation in terms of "points". While
> books for learners may express things this way, this is not the way a
> good player describes hands. A good player may describe a hand as a
> "bad 5332 12-count", which means it has 12 HCP in a 5332 shape and with
> some poor features. Talk about adding or subtracting points is for
> children.
>
> 2) There is no such things as what a hand is worth "a priori". All
> evaluation is based on accumulation of experience "a posteriori", on the
> results of playing various contracts after various kinds of bidding.
> Anyone who talks of "a priori" evaluation is either grossly abusing the
> language or is hopelessly confused.
Martin !
Do you really believe there is no such thing as a priori Evaluation,
that is one of the most hilarious thing I have ever read !
We are talking about first hand opener, even shoul you be talking
about a second hand opener (for instance if RHO passes), it would most
certainly not change the results of the simulation either.
We are talking about distributional effects here and we have no "a
posteriori" information on shape when we open, so in conclusion, you
statement is totally incorrect (euphemism), you said after "various
kind of bidding", I strongly advised you look up the meaning of "a
priori" as well
Actually should we have info on RHO shape for instance, I believe the
results would even be stronger
Conclusion : 4333 shape is not a negative factor and is irrelevant
when considering opening 1NT A PRIORI
Now you can oppose hundred years of experience, it would not be
significant, this is why I said it is a gambit to take this factor in
consideration
The relevant factors (very well known) are :
- Combination of Honors
- Texture of the Hand (10's and 9's)
- Honors in Long and Short suits
- Right siding of the contract
The above can be best assessed using Fifth Count (again very well
known) as explained on Thomas Andrews Site as his formula is a very
good approximation for NT purposes
My opinion is to follow a "modern trend" and open all 4333 15 HCP, 1NT
even if all above factors are negative because I privilege a tactic
that focuses on the following :
- Occupying space
- premption
- making life difficult to opponents (always more uneasy to interfere
over 1NT)
Cheers
Vincit
Andrew
This is a reasonable argument for why, even though 4-3-3-3 does not
hurt playing strength in NT, it is still a minus for the purpose of
opening 1NT (i.e., that if the hand is played in a suit, the 4-3-3-3
shape may reduce the trick-taking potential to less than what
responder will expect). But it does not support David's position that
4-3-3-3 is an unambiguous negative factor any time, anyplace,
anywhere.
Andrew
Andrew
Thomas Andrews
That's true, but I was also trying to point out that there are often
subtle reasons why expert practice might be correct, even if double-
dummy data is accurate.
One way to debunk this is to realize that the 'a priori' number
includes all hand types that partner has, and the number of tricks you
expect to make in notrump on those hands. But if you open 1NT and
partner has a six-card major, you probably won't be playing in
notrump. Similarly in many instances with 5-card majors, or even a
four-card major and some distribution (unless you intend to lie in
response to Blackwood when you are 4333 with a four-card major.)
So you really need to filter these out from your 'a priori' evaluation
of notrump, because they don't really count.
Also, while 4333 is more likely to make nine tricks in notrump than
other shapes, it is less likely to take 12 or 13 tricks in notrump,
according to my data. That's not surprising, because to make 12 or 13
tricks with a 4333 pattern, you need a source of a lot of tricks in
partner's hand, or a considerably larger quantity of the high cards.
Ultimately, I find vincit's argument lacking. Typical number-
crunching arrogance without much thought on the actual world. Bridge
is a very complicated game, as the recent discussion on the objective
of bidding has revealed.
[ For an interesting example of 'the objective of bidding,' there is a
recommended rule of thumb in matchpoints bidding to try to be in the
same contract as the field, and win via card play (if your card play
is good, of course.) How do you determine 'being with the field,' if
everybody else follows this rule? :) It becomes a circular
definition. I dislike this rule, not because I think it is wrong, but
because it irks the part of me that wants to develop superior bidding
methods and judgement. ]
Adam Beneschan
> That's true, but I was also trying to point out that there are often
> subtle reasons why expert practice might be correct, even if double-
> dummy data is accurate.
One possible factor that just occurred to me is that 1NT openings
often lead to auctions that are less revealing. If you decide your
hand isn't strong enough to open 1NT, then you open one of a minor,
and your choice of minor usually tells the opponents something about
your hand (unless you play Polish club). Of course, if you open 1NT
and partner goes through Stayman, you'll tell the opponents something
about your hand that you might not have told them if you had opened
one of a minor, so perhaps this cuts both ways. But on the other
hand, Leandro Burgay's challenge match attempting to show the
superiority of his non-Stayman methods in which opener wouldn't reveal
anything didn't work favorably for his methods, so I guess it cuts
three ways. But on the other hand... all right, I'm out of hands, so
I'll have to start using my feet, or maybe my nose...
But the point here is that even a double-dummy statistical analysis
isn't necessarily going to get you a correct answer, because we don't
play double dummy at the table.
I dunno. I think there's no way to get a conclusive answer and it's
just best to follow my intuition. Then again, if we were able to get
conclusive answers to all of the great questions of bridge, it
probably wouldn't be fun any more.
-- Adam
vincit
Double-dummy will never replace Bridge in the real world, it is just a
tool that gives you the general picture
Vincit
>
> One way to debunk this is to realize that the 'a priori' number
> includes all hand types that partner has, and the number of tricks you
> expect to make in notrump on those hands. But if you open 1NT and
> partner has a six-card major, you probably won't be playing in
> notrump. Similarly in many instances with 5-card majors, or even a
> four-card major and some distribution (unless you intend to lie in
> response to Blackwood when you are 4333 with a four-card major.)
>
> So you really need to filter these out from your 'a priori' evaluation
> of notrump, because they don't really count.
>
> Also, while 4333 is more likely to make nine tricks in notrump than
> other shapes, it is less likely to take 12 or 13 tricks in notrump,
> according to my data. That's not surprising, because to make 12 or 13
> tricks with a 4333 pattern, you need a source of a lot of tricks in
> partner's hand, or a considerably larger quantity of the high cards.
>
> Ultimately, I find vincit's argument lacking. Typical number-
> crunching arrogance without much thought on the actual world. Bridge
> is a very complicated game, as the recent discussion on the objective
> of bidding has revealed.
Yes I know my argument was "arrogant", I was answering to an even more
"arrogant" argument stating that you had to downgrade 4333 Shape all
the time and in the hand quoted, which was against expert's practices
as shown in the last interrnational events
Objective of bidding implies system design, and for example
>
> [ For an interesting example of 'the objective of bidding,' there is a
> recommended rule of thumb in matchpoints bidding to try to be in the
> same contract as the field, and win via card play (if your card play
> is good, of course.) How do you determine 'being with the field,' if
> everybody else follows this rule? :) It becomes a circular
> definition. I dislike this rule, not because I think it is wrong, but
> because it irks the part of me that wants to develop superior bidding
> methods and judgement. ]
This is why depending on the field, conditions of vulnerability and
whether you are playing MP or IMP you have to adjust your strategy and
tactic, coming back to the 4333 15 HCP it seems to me your targets are
assessing the premptive effects and minimizng the info disclosed to
the opponents (1NT vs 1m), right siding the contract (but you need a
"system"), stopping in 2M when the field is playing 3M focus on a PoB
strategy, relaying and have a complete picture of the shape and
strength, being able to detect "mirror hands" and avoiding playing 3NT
with xx facing xx, being able to find out when play 3NT instead of 4M
Reference to the different part of your strategy and targets you'll
take advantage or not of the double-dummy analysis, I doubt very much
you can achieve all of the above opening 1NT, so the targets you
privilege should determine whether or not you open 1m or 1NT. The
taking trick potential of the shape and how you deal with it, being
conservative for instance, is linked to your strategy and system
But the discussion was in "general" and whether or not a 4333 should
be downgraded a priori, being aware of the above and convinced it is
best to open 1NT when you can, having in mind a 4333 is not a minus in
this situation in general.
I have collected many examples and It seems to me, this is confirmed
by expert's practice when the field is strong in International events
Cheers
Vincit
vincit
> On Dec 23, 1:39 pm, Thomas Andrews <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's true, but I was also trying to point out that there are often
> > subtle reasons why expert practice might be correct, even if double-
> > dummy data is accurate.
>
> One possible factor that just occurred to me is that 1NT openings
> often lead to auctions that are less revealing. If you decide your
> hand isn't strong enough to open 1NT, then you open one of a minor,
> and your choice of minor usually tells the opponents something about
> your hand (unless you play Polish club). Of course, if you open 1NT
> and partner goes through Stayman, you'll tell the opponents something
> about your hand that you might not have told them if you had opened
> one of a minor, so perhaps this cuts both ways. But on the other
> hand, Leandro Burgay's challenge match attempting to show the
> superiority of his non-Stayman methods in which opener wouldn't reveal
> anything didn't work favorably for his methods, so I guess it cuts
> three ways. But on the other hand... all right, I'm out of hands, so
> I'll have to start using my feet, or maybe my nose...
Indeed you do not want to facilitate the defence and it is also much
more difficult for the opponents to determine their potential when
interfering over 1NT
Burgay's method was tested extensively by Levy-Mouiel with no probant
result, but the idea is interesting
Vincit
>
> But the point here is that even a double-dummy statistical analysis
> isn't necessarily going to get you a correct answer, because we don't
> play double dummy at the table.
true for the 4 players, so the final results are a strong indication
Thomas Andrews
That's merely an assertion, not a logical reason.
In fact, we do double-dummy analysis not because we know it mirrors
real world bridge, but because double dummy data is much easier to
generate and analyze than single-dummy data is. We hope it is good
enough to refine our understanding of bridge.
But it could be that double dummy is 'off' just enough that it isn't
any more valuable than Work Point Count for understanding hand
evaluation. I really don't know, and, in my research, I try hard to
avoid making claims like this.
Again, even if DD data is useful...
If you want to say that 4333 hands are a priori better in notrump than
4432 hands, you might be correct. But what if they are better in
notrump only on hands where you ought to be playing in a suit anyway?
What if 4333 hands make on average more notrump tricks because
opposite distributional hands, they make more notrump tricks, but in
those hands, you can often make 1 or 2 more tricks in a suit? The
value of the 'a priori' number is then not useful at all for making
bidding decisions.
=thomas
mark...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
If I were a referee I would stop the fight. David is killing Vincit.
vincit
Yes I agree, but it seems to me you are now addressing another
issue : system design and judgment
If you have datas ref to the behaviour of 4=3333 facing any other
balanced distribution, then when assessing xNT, I believe it is a
help when it comes down to focus on your system and what targets you
want to study
The point was to use your analysis to emphasize that there was not
reason to downgrade a 4333 a priori in the conditions of the hand
quoted
Other factors must be taken in consideration and are much more
essential)
Finally that downgradin a 4333 (again in the context of the hand) was
not "modern" expert practice as extensively shown in International
Events
Despite english is not my native language, I expect the above makes
sense and duly convey what I want to express
Do you agree on the above or not ?
Cheers and Merry Xmas
Vincit
>
> =thomas
vincit
There is no fight ! (except someone who could not read and
misinterpreted what I was saying quoting out of context)
David ? Suppose you mean Thomas, even tough, I am not certain now who
is answering to whom !
Cheers
Vincit
Thomas Andrews
Well, not really, the point was the answer the question about whether
to open this as 1NT.
Somebody noted that 4333 was a negative, for notrump, and you decided
to note that the double dummy data said otherwise.
But the double-dummy data does not say otherwise. It certainly says
that double-dummy increases the playability in notrump, on average,
but that isn't useful information for the purpose of bidding, because
a lot of those hands don't belong in notrump.
It's certainly possible for years and years of expert practice to be
wrong, but I have seen no evidence that this particular expert
practice is wrong, even assuming that double dummy data is a useful
measure.
(I think of double-dummy as the measure of hand strength being similar
to using 'testing scores' to determine how well a school is doing.
Both are horribly insufficient for any rigorous argument, and both are
often the best we can do in a systematic way.)
=thomas
KWSchneider
>
> - Show quoted text -
I take exception to the statement "double-dummy data does not say
otherwise".
Limiting this discussion to DD analysis, 4333 shape and notrump - DD
clearly shows that "a priori" 4333 is the best shape to hold when
comtemplating a contract in notrump WHEN NO OTHER RESTRICTIONS ARE
IMPOSED [ie all have average hands].
While I highly respect your work and agree with much of what you say,
the statement that is not supportable here in this thread is
"downgrade 4333 shape for notrump". A priori [you are opening bidder],
this is simply not true whether it is SD or DD.
Expert thinking "downgrades" 4333 hands because of the lack of long
suits [good in notrump] but forgets that with a long suit comes a
short suit [bad for notrump]. They adjust for this by imposing
"stopper" requirements [naturally] - but then this is no longer "a
priori".
Now - we could simulate opening hands and impose the restriction that
they must have an Ace/King in their shortest suit and see what
happens. A priori we may have a different shape be best. It is
probably a simulation worth doing.
Nonetheless, my point - without any constraints imposed, 4333 shape
will produce the most tricks in a notrump contract opposite an unknown
and unconstrained a priori dummy. This can't be argued, it is fact.
Hence the need to downgrade is unsupportable and in fact, quite the
opposite of reality.
Thomas Andrews
I did a crude analysis of deals where it is better to play in notrump
than in a suit.
When I did this, I computed the difference between the notrump tricks
available to the north/south hands and the binky points values of the
deal, and computed the averages of these for each hand shape, sorting
the majors and minors (3-4-3-3 and 4-3-3-3 are the same for purposes
of determining whether you belong in a suit or notrump.)
Pattern Count Average
{3 3 4 3} 22038 0.5163835193756212
{4 3 3 3} 19758 0.5797023990282412
{3 2 4 4} 11424 0.6705470938375335
{4 2 4 3} 20701 0.7542993092121183
{4 3 4 2} 19753 0.7659373259758043
{3 2 5 3} 16348 0.7800568876926882
{3 3 5 2} 7615 0.8041300065659914
{4 4 3 2} 8945 0.8382392397987732
{5 2 3 3} 6027 0.9052480504396891
{5 3 3 2} 11967 0.9395144982033932
So we can see that on average, when we belong in notrump with a
3-3-3-4 or 3-3-4-3 shape, we expect to take 0.52 tricks more in
notrump than Binky points would expect. 4-3-3-3 and 3-4-3-3 is
slightly better for notrump.
Now, in notrump, a HCP is worth about 1/2 a trick, so the difference
between 3-3-4-3 and 5-3-3-2 is about 0.8 points. But this table does
show what I expected was the case, which is that the notrump advantage
of 4-3-3-3 shape is mostly due to hands where you don't want to be in
notrump.
This still isn't a perfect simulation, so I'm not going to make a
clear claim about the inferiority of the 4333 pattern, but this does
match my intuition why expert practice doesn't jibe with the 'a
priori' double dummy values of shapes.
chakri23
DD is still better than nothing ! I noted you have opened 1NT using
fifth Count with the quoted Hand, so all in all it seems we are in
agreement and despite you said the hand is worth 14.6 you are not
prepared to deduct further and open 1m because of the 4333 shape
Cheers
Vincit
Travis Crump
At least when I'm 4333 I know my doubleton isn't opposite partner's
five/six card suit...
Travis
vincit
Expert's practise when opening 1NT strong with a 4333 15HCP
Experts and 4333
S AQ6
H 875
D KJ7
C AJ76
PILON-ZALESKI
Dominique Pilon is a former World Champion, he is a very conservative
and sound bidder, they play NT strong (15-17)
Board 12, International Teams Tournament Monte-carlo 2008
Dealer, Fav Vuln
Very strong opposition (Bocchi-Madala)
The opening was ………. 1NT
No intermediaries + 4333
European Championship in Pau
Board 16
KQ105
A96
KJ6
Q76
Versace for Italy opens 1NT
Wrang for Sweden opens 1NT
Levy for France opens 1NT
Hackett for England opens 1NT
Board 16: Norway vs Denmark
J96
AKQ
QJ106
Q82
Helgemo (maybe one of the best player in the World) opens 1NT
Note that one these 4333 are really BAD (lol)
It does not prove anything, still I cannot find any expert downgrading
1NT (4333 15HCP) in International events even with no intermediaries !
Vincit
KWSchneider
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thomas,
You seem to be missing the point - all Vincit is saying is that
"devaluing" a 4333 hand for notrump is wrong. Not that it may play
better elsewhere [which I have grave doubts about] - simply that
downgrading it is incorrect.
You have enough experience in simulations to recognize that if you run
an unconstrained [except for shape] series of deals [I ran 1,000,000
for each shape except for 8 card+ suits] in notrump and compare them
to the totally unconstrained average, you will get a measurement of
each shape's performance relative to that average. [And from there you
can calculate the impact of each suit length independently.]
4333 is the best - this is not subject to discussion, it is fact. Now,
is it better for all point counts? Not necessarily. Is it better for
all contracts? Not necessarily. Is it better when one knows that
partner has a specific shape? No - it depends on that shape - and then
it is is no longer "a priori".
Your analysis of notrump vs suit is all well and good but it does
bring in the SD vs DD issue, whereas the simple simulation I discussed
above is independent of this, since the impact of DD will be the same
across the simulation.
Kurt
Thomas Andrews
> > =thomas- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I take exception to the statement "double-dummy data does not say
> otherwise".
>
> Limiting this discussion to DD analysis, 4333 shape and notrump - DD
> clearly shows that "a priori" 4333 is the best shape to hold when
> comtemplating a contract in notrump WHEN NO OTHER RESTRICTIONS ARE
> IMPOSED [ie all have average hands].
>
> While I highly respect your work and agree with much of what you say,
> the statement that is not supportable here in this thread is
> "downgrade 4333 shape for notrump". A priori [you are opening bidder],
> this is simply not true whether it is SD or DD.
>
> Expert thinking "downgrades" 4333 hands because of the lack of long
> suits [good in notrump] but forgets that with a long suit comes a
> short suit [bad for notrump]. They adjust for this by imposing
> "stopper" requirements [naturally] - but then this is no longer "a
> priori".
>
> Now - we could simulate opening hands and impose the restriction that
> they must have an Ace/King in their shortest suit and see what
> happens. A priori we may have a different shape be best. It is
> probably a simulation worth doing.
>
> Nonetheless, my point - without any constraints imposed, 4333 shape
> will produce the most tricks in a notrump contract opposite an unknown
> and unconstrained a priori dummy. This can't be argued, it is fact.
> Hence the need to downgrade is unsupportable and in fact, quite the
> opposite of reality.
Well, the 'a priori' value is not necessarily useful for bidding, is
it?
A priori, I tend to respect expert practice as something that has
evolved over time, like a genetic algorithm.
As I've shown with my rough simulation, when a pair belongs in notrump
(that is, when they don't have a higher-scoring suit contract) the
disadvantage of 4333 is quite pronounced.
My point is that the raw 'a priori' data is virtually meaningless for
actual bidding questions, and that it is a bit presumptuous to sneer
at expert practice because you have "the data" on your side.
In general, when I see results in my data that contradicts expert
practice, I don't immediately think "expert practice is wrong," but
rather, use it as a way to explore the data further and wonder what is
really going on. I don't think expert practice is always correct,
only that when raw data and expert practice are in conflict, that I
ought to look further, rather than assume expert practice is wrong.
Some times 'expert practice'' is correct, even when 'expert reasons'
are wrong. In the case of treating high cards in your long suits as
more valuable than cards in your short suits, for example, I think
'expert practice' is correct, but 'expert reasons' is wrong.
Now, I don't think 4333 should be discounted a whole point for
notrump. I think the 'subtract a point for 4333' is about opening
hands in notrump, and it's because the hand is worth about a point
less in a suit contract than corresponding 5332 and 4432 hands. But
even that is surely too aggressive, and I haven't heard of any expert
who subtracts a whole point from 4333 hands.
Data is a wonderful tool for analyzing the world, but only if we look
at data with a clear eye, and recognize the flaws of the approach.
The 'a priori' number we've been throwing around include very weak
pairs of hands. In those cases, we can see how 4333 might raise the
average notrump tricks, just by keeping the opponents from having
taking too many tricks off the top. But these are not the sort of
hands we really care about playing notrump with. There's a reason
people playing 10-12 notrump range have escape sequences over doubles
- because it's often wrong to be in notrump on these hands. 4333
gives a very tiny addition to the value of notrump play in these
cases, but we almost always can play better in a suit.
=thomas
David Stevenson
>Expert thinking "downgrades" 4333 hands because of the lack of long
>suits [good in notrump] but forgets that with a long suit comes a
>short suit [bad for notrump]. They adjust for this by imposing
>"stopper" requirements [naturally] - but then this is no longer "a
>priori".
No, I do not think so.
I believe experts downgrade 4333 hands because experience tells them
that on average they do not play so well. Not because of detail like
shortages and such.
[s]
>Nonetheless, my point - without any constraints imposed, 4333 shape
>will produce the most tricks in a notrump contract opposite an unknown
>and unconstrained a priori dummy. This can't be argued, it is fact.
>Hence the need to downgrade is unsupportable and in fact, quite the
>opposite of reality.
Of course it can be argued, because it is not true.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
How do you know? Have they told you their thought processes? Do they
open good 14 counts?
Experts do not just play ht every simple valuation you seem to think,
nor do they necessarily mean the same thing by 15-17 as a beginner.
The evidence you have given us shows nothing except that these experts
apparently include bad 15 in a 15 to 17. Nothing in this evidence
proves they have not downgraded the hand because it will not play well.
vincit
Yes many of them did, especially Pierre Ghestem for a very long time
and at length, every day, every week, every month, he was very
"territorial"
I have played Division Nationale 1 (Premier League) for years so I
know some of them (lol)
Even 13-14 can be opened 1NT as you perfectly know under some
cirscumstances
>
> Experts do not just play ht every simple valuation you seem to think,
> nor do they necessarily mean the same thing by 15-17 as a beginner.
Yes indeed they do not, this is why they do not downgrade
>
> The evidence you have given us shows nothing except that these experts
> apparently include bad 15 in a 15 to 17. Nothing in this evidence
> proves they have not downgraded the hand because it will not play well.
Nothing proves nothing and conversely !
All had the option of bidding via 1m - 1x - 1NT, they did not ....
Yes bad 15 is a 15HCP without intermediaries nothing to do with 4333
which is just "flat" and has the advantage of increasing safety from
attack because you are at harm length from the opponents attacking
your doubleton (lol)
Some I played with (Ghestem) have an opening for 15-17 suit oriented
vs NT oriented (1D vs 1NT)
- You stated 4333 do not play well, this is a very General statement,
4333 will play very bad in suit contracts, this is not the issue here
- Still I do not know yet whether you open the quoted hand 1NT and
what 4333 15HCP you think should be downgraded, please give an example
Stating that "they" include "bad" (or flat) 15 in 1NT and would
upgrade a good 15 to emphazise that the examples I gave are not an
evidence sounds rather "fallacious" to me, doing so knowing 4333 are
so bad as per your opinion must be a kind of "masochist" attitude
Anyway for our problem 4432/5332/4333 we do NOT give a hoot, like you
said somewhere else the other factors are more essential
>
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
> <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
vincit
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
You say it is not true, just prove it ! I find you authoritative
statement incredible
Why is it not true ? How is is not true ? When is it not true ?
Vincit
Eric Leong
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would open 1D instead of 1NT because I would welcome the
opportunity:
1. To avoid a nearly hopeless 2NT contract when partner has S KJxx H
Axx D xxx C Jxx
2. To avoid a nearly hopeless 3NT contract when partner has S Axx H
AJx D xxxx C Jxx
3. To avoid a very inferior 4S contract when partner has S KJxxx H>
Axx D xx C Qxx
4. To improve the partnership chances of getting to 4H when partner
has S xx H Axxxx D KJxx C xx
5. To double the opponents in a low level part score when partner has>
S xxx H Axxx D xx C KJxx.
Surely, if the opponents get to 2S you would not> mind doubling 2S
especially at pairs.
Opening 1D instead of 1NT has many ways to gain.
Eric Leong
vincit
This is most interesting, thanks for your precision
What about all the other hands ?
Vincit
David Stevenson
I base my answers pretty much on the article to which I am replying. I
have already told you why 4333s are downgraded, and I see no reason to
repeat it.
But here I was replying to someone who produced an unjustifiable and
unjustified statement with no backing whatever. I hardly need any
backing to disagree with it!
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
vincit
Sorry I do not understand your reasons neither do I understand your
argument
You told me you were spending your time doing pointless gambits and
you kept downgrading because as a good player you are weak when
playing with dummy
This is exactly what you wrote.
It is pretty clear why 4333 "in general" are downgraded, why this
would apply to this situation is less than clear
Your statement is very UNFAIR to Kurt, his argument is very sound if
you care to visit his blog you will see it is very well documented
http://www.bridgeruminations.com/
On the contrary you do not document your position
"I hardly need any backing to disagree with it!" .... you mean you
disagree based on your experience only ?
Fair enough, this kind of patronizing argument is the end of all
discussions, I respect your opinion, it seems there is no need to
comment further, it is like god's words
Still do you open 1D or 1NT with the quoted hand, you said you
normally answer to the posting but you did not on this one
Pilon's hand is one of the worst 4333 ever, what do you open?
Vincit
KWSchneider
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anyone can play the "under the right circumstances" game and provide
examples. Perhaps I'll give it a whirl.
How do you get to 3N after opening 1D with the following hand! Give
responder a decent 4card major and how can he move forward after a 1N
rebid by opener? - for example any style of hand similar to:
JTxx
AKxx
Tx
Qxx
ie any 10-11 point hand with 44 in the majors
Or how about any hand with 10 points, a 4 card heart suit and 5
diamonds?
Or how about the problems when responder bids 1N over your 1D opening
and you end up playing 1N from the wrong side?
All bids are wrong under limited circumstances - the idea is which bid
is right more often. 1N is the best option for all of the reasons
given above.
KWSchneider
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not sure that I've seen substantiated reasons for downgrading 4333
hands [as a 1N opener] from you - other than "experts" do so - and
this evidence is strictly anecdotal. Much of this has been debunked by
offsetting examples of more recent vintage.
On the other hand, I stipulated that I had run millions of hand
simulations, had explained the basis of these, and expounded on the
obvious conclusion.
So I'm not sure where the unjustified/unjustifiable allegations stem
from but when something new is offerred up for discussion, most
sensible adults read it, think about it and then respond with
objective, quantitative arguments. I cannot alter the results of the
simulation, they are fact. Lose the subjective rhetoric and produce
some data of your own.
KWSchneider
vincit
You are absolutely correct, this is why after defining your objectives
and targets, a priori analysis is a useful tool
Vincit
Eric Leong
>
> - Show quoted text -
Given that that original hand in question was S 1062 H KQ3 D AQ87
C A63,
I hope even you would doubt partner could have: S JTxx H AKxx D Tx
C Qxx.
Eric Leong
David Stevenson
>On Jan 1, 1:11 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I base my answers pretty much on the article to which I am replying. I
>> have already told you why 4333s are downgraded, and I see no reason to
>> repeat it.
>>
>> But here I was replying to someone who produced an unjustifiable and
>> unjustified statement with no backing whatever. I hardly need any
>> backing to disagree with it!
>>
>> --
>> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
>> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
>> <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
>> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>
>Sorry I do not understand your reasons neither do I understand your
>argument
>
>You told me you were spending your time doing pointless gambits and
>you kept downgrading because as a good player you are weak when
>playing with dummy
>This is exactly what you wrote.
Please do not be childish.
>It is pretty clear why 4333 "in general" are downgraded, why this
>would apply to this situation is less than clear
>
>Your statement is very UNFAIR to Kurt, his argument is very sound if
>you care to visit his blog you will see it is very well documented
>http://www.bridgeruminations.com/
>On the contrary you do not document your position
I replied to a post as written. I am not interested in something I
have not read nor wish to.
>"I hardly need any backing to disagree with it!" .... you mean you
>disagree based on your experience only ?
No, I mean you have clearly not read what I wrote.
>Fair enough, this kind of patronizing argument is the end of all
>discussions, I respect your opinion, it seems there is no need to
>comment further, it is like god's words
Please do not be childish.
>Still do you open 1D or 1NT with the quoted hand, you said you
>normally answer to the posting but you did not on this one
>Pilon's hand is one of the worst 4333 ever, what do you open?
While it is not a particularly bad 4333, I am not going to be bullied
by you into answering something I do not wish to.
------------------------------------------
You do not produce logical arguments: you just try to get people to
sound in the wrong by little tricks, misquoting, quoting out of context,
and by using a mixture of condescension and childish tricks.
Furthermore, when you get an answer you do not like you ignore it, and
ask again, pretending it has not been answered.
I do not think your arguing style adds to discussions on RGB.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
>I'm not sure that I've seen substantiated reasons for downgrading 4333
>hands [as a 1N opener] from you - other than "experts" do so - and
>this evidence is strictly anecdotal. Much of this has been debunked by
>offsetting examples of more recent vintage.
>
>On the other hand, I stipulated that I had run millions of hand
>simulations, had explained the basis of these, and expounded on the
>obvious conclusion.
>
>So I'm not sure where the unjustified/unjustifiable allegations stem
>from but when something new is offerred up for discussion, most
>sensible adults read it, think about it and then respond with
>objective, quantitative arguments. I cannot alter the results of the
>simulation, they are fact. Lose the subjective rhetoric and produce
>some data of your own.
Sorry, no-one made you god, nor the moderator of this NG. We do have
the right to post what we want, not what someone else wants.
I have given my reasons for downgrading 4333s three times. I am not
going to be bullied into changing them.
Simulations are interesting, but not of much importance to playing
practical bridge.
The unjustifiable/unjustified came from a specific post that gave no
evidence whatever, just made an assertion. I could assert that Bush was
a better President than Obama [for example]: that is fine, it is my
opinion. But if I said it could not be argued with that would be
arrogant beyond belief, and I do not like such posts. In the case of
the specific post it stated a position over which we have been
disagreeing, and stated that the position could not be argued because it
was fact. A very dislikable post that added nothing except arrogance:
of course such a view can be argued.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
vincit
> vincit wrote
>
>
>
> >On Jan 1, 1:11 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I base my answers pretty much on the article to which I am replying. I
> >> have already told you why 4333s are downgraded, and I see no reason to
> >> repeat it.
>
> >> But here I was replying to someone who produced an unjustifiable and
> >> unjustified statement with no backing whatever. I hardly need any
> >> backing to disagree with it!
>
> >> --
> >> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> >> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
> >> <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
> >> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>
> >Sorry I do not understand your reasons neither do I understand your
> >argument
>
> >You told me you were spending your time doing pointless gambits and
> >you kept downgrading because as a good player you are weak when
> >playing with dummy
> >This is exactly what you wrote.
>
> Please do not be childish.
And your sense of humour suddenly evaporates ..... exquisite !
Vincit
>
> >It is pretty clear why 4333 "in general" are downgraded, why this
> >would apply to this situation is less than clear
>
> >Your statement is very UNFAIR to Kurt, his argument is very sound if
> >you care to visit his blog you will see it is very well documented
> >http://www.bridgeruminations.com/
> >On the contrary you do not document your position
>
> I replied to a post as written. I am not interested in something I
> have not read nor wish to.
What an open mind !
>
> >"I hardly need any backing to disagree with it!" .... you mean you
> >disagree based on your experience only ?
>
> No, I mean you have clearly not read what I wrote.
I clearly read what you said and not said
>
> >Fair enough, this kind of patronizing argument is the end of all
> >discussions, I respect your opinion, it seems there is no need to
> >comment further, it is like god's words
>
> Please do not be childish.
Please try to be serious for a minute and bring a positive
contribution to the question
>
> >Still do you open 1D or 1NT with the quoted hand, you said you
> >normally answer to the posting but you did not on this one
> >Pilon's hand is one of the worst 4333 ever, what do you open?
>
> While it is not a particularly bad 4333, I am not going to be bullied
> by you into answering something I do not wish to.
Then why do you care to even read this thread ! If you downgrade 4333
shape in this circumstance, it should not be difficult to give a hand
with (15HCP 4333) you will not open 1NT because it is too weak in your
views.... nothing to do with bullying ....
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> You do not produce logical arguments: you just try to get people to
> sound in the wrong by little tricks, misquoting, quoting out of context,
> and by using a mixture of condescension and childish tricks.
> Furthermore, when you get an answer you do not like you ignore it, and
> ask again, pretending it has not been answered.
This is exactly what you are doing ..... I could not say it better
You did not answer the post, little tricks are those you play very
well
Sense Humour is two ways, when it bounces back, you are losing yours
About condescension you obviuosly know a lot, when it comes down to
the real "test" you escape using immature pathetic semantics
>
> I do not think your arguing style adds to discussions on RGB.
It is usually documented and I go by examples, exactly what you do not
do, examples are ALWAYS interesting
Why do you care commenting this thread ?
A style is better than no style at all based on authoritative/wrong
statements, you do not like my style and I do not like yours
Why dont you simply try to ignore my posts in the future?
This post was to understand the mechanisms and confirm that all
balanced dist 4333/5332/4432 are irrelevant when opening 1NT that is
it.
vincit
> KWSchneider wrote
>
> >I'm not sure that I've seen substantiated reasons for downgrading 4333
> >hands [as a 1N opener] from you - other than "experts" do so - and
> >this evidence is strictly anecdotal. Much of this has been debunked by
> >offsetting examples of more recent vintage.
>
> >On the other hand, I stipulated that I had run millions of hand
> >simulations, had explained the basis of these, and expounded on the
> >obvious conclusion.
>
> >So I'm not sure where the unjustified/unjustifiable allegations stem
> >from but when something new is offerred up for discussion, most
> >sensible adults read it, think about it and then respond with
> >objective, quantitative arguments. I cannot alter the results of the
> >simulation, they are fact. Lose the subjective rhetoric and produce
> >some data of your own.
>
> Sorry, no-one made you god, nor the moderator of this NG. We do have
> the right to post what we want, not what someone else wants.
Childish ... indeed post what you want .... but with this kind of post
it makes the thread unecessary long on remarks that have nothing to do
with the subject
Still you are right to protect and care for our Constitutional Rights
within RGB
>
> I have given my reasons for downgrading 4333s three times. I am not
> going to be bullied into changing them.
Childish and immature .... why aren't you prepare to change if you are
wrong (IMHO wrong you are)
Try to use the acronym IMHO and/or IMH : it may help you sometimes
(LOL)
We all downgrade 4333 in general
The point was in this particular situation
>
> Simulations are interesting, but not of much importance to playing
> practical bridge.
Maybe or maybe not ... still it is an indication ...
Depends what you simulate and how you do it ...
Another "free" assertion falling from the sky
>
> The unjustifiable/unjustified came from a specific post that gave no
> evidence whatever, just made an assertion. I could assert that Bush was
> a better President than Obama [for example]: that is fine, it is my
> opinion.
What a weird example .... no need to portray the situation in the
future
you can also think you should devalue 4333 one point
But if I said it could not be argued with that would be
> arrogant beyond belief, and I do not like such posts. In the case of
> the specific post it stated a position over which we have been
> disagreeing, and stated that the position could not be argued because it
was fact.
Do you disagree with the view or with the facts ?
The facts cannot be argued they are more stubborn than you are
Try to be consistent ....
A very dislikable post that added nothing except arrogance:
> of course such a view can be argued.
Finally every single post you made is an illustration of your position
and are objectable to you
thsi is a posteriori analysis
No, Sir, it was not arrogance, it was very well documented elsewhere,
you just have to make your homework
I think you know best about arrogance, your comments are both unfair
and untrue
Anyway it is always great fun reading you, if you dont mind, you may
consider ignoring this thread, so we can exchange ideas in a positive
way ....
Vincit
>
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
> <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Eric Leong
You are welcome, what specific hands are you playing for when you open
with the original hand?
Sure, other champions opened a lot of 15 hcp hands so opening a far
different hand must be right.
Even if they would open 1NT with the hand in question, perhaps they
might have won more championships by not opening the hand 1NT in
question. Finally, not opening 1NT has many ways to gain. I welcome
the chance to get a good board by doing something reasonably different
than the field.
Eric Leong
vincit
It has also many ways to lose, and one should try to maximize his
profit in the long terms
Frankly 1D is not bad (at least you do not give a bad lead), but still
I think 1NT is better for all reasons exposed before.
Regarding the hands you quoted, I can only agree with what you said,
still I can give you many hands where you will be wrong ....And I do
not think along those lines, I am not "imagining" possible Hands,
because I am the opener and I avoid "dreaming" (lol)
Now if you want to create a swing by doing something different, it
comes down to tactic and your position in the tournament, and how you
evaluate your opponents ability still you still have the card play to
do something different
My point was to question whether or nor a 4333 shape with a bad/
average texture and exactly 15HCP was to be downgraded or not
As you can read some posters said they would downgrade 4333 all the
time and some said shapes are irrelevant here
I agree with the latter, at this stage , I think it is better not to
downgrade and I tried to illustrate this point by giving examples of
"Real Bridge" bdecause I noticed a pattern that 15HCP are never
downgraded however bad the texture and Honnors combination may be.
Ref to 1NT strong : Upgrade YES/Downgrade NO
Vincit
Eric Leong
Well then produce some examples where opening 1NT gains over opening
1D.
If you feel that strongly about opening 1NT one would think it would
be easy for you to articulate some examples.
But frankly, my expectations are rather low that you are going to
produce anything specific.
Eric Leong
KWSchneider
Apparently, I have the wrong starting hand - I thought it was:
AQ6
875
KJ7
AJ76
hence my reply as stated. My comments, however are still relevant to
your post if I reverse the hearts and spades and clubs and diamonds in
my example hand.
KWSchneider
KWSchneider
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David,
From your post - "It is pretty clear why 4333 "in general" are
downgraded"
And this is more or less arrogant?
KWSchneider
David Stevenson
No, stating a personal opinion is fine, and what all the polite people
on this NG do from time to time. It is not arrogant.
Assuming that your opinion cannot be disagreed with is arrogant.
My views on 4333s are nothing more than my views: unlike the earlier
post which caused this sub-thread I accept that people can and will
argue with my views.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
vincit
Why dont you spare us your usual dialectic?
You said you did NOT wish to respond to the post ref to the opening
You said you will not be bullied (laughable) when you're respectfully
asked to give your opinion
You keep expressing yourself using semantic to twist and manipulate
people and issues
INDEED a view can be argued, but your intention was clearly to convey
a "look down" feel on hard facts as though that was BS
You keep being ironic, using a very doubtful sense of humour and when
I told you off with a "French sense of humour" (which is as evrybody
knows much more funny than its English counterpart), you become
upset,and obviously for an Englishman this is weird ! It tells a
lot ...
Frankly I think your non documented "views" on 4333's are not really
essential, we can leave without them, a more constructive purpose was
to determine that if you devalue 4333's all the time, wherever,
whenever and tutti quanti as you seem to do and repeat all along this
thread then you will devalue a bad 4333 = Only negative factors, like
this one :
S AQ6
H 875
D KJ7
C AJ76
If I follow what you said, you will open 1C because adding up to the
negative factors you are 4333 which in you views is another minus
factor, based on your
40 years of experience and inside and intimate knowledge of (UK?)
Expert's process of analysing 4333 15HCP.
This is what I was expecting you to say, indeed you need to focus, why
it is so HARD for you to express this view?
Still I have some ideas ...
I consider you've been rude, arrogant, and unfair with a constant care
of twisting and distorting both facts and quotes, so maybe you can
keep your "lessons" for yourself, still No offense, it was fun ....
Cheers
Vincit
Thomas Andrews
> Frankly I think your non documented "views" on 4333's are not really
> essential, we can leave without them, a more constructive purpose was
> to determine that if you devalue 4333's all the time, wherever,
> whenever and tutti quanti as you seem to do and repeat all along this
> thread then you will devalue a bad 4333 = Only negative factors, like
> this one :
>
> S AQ6
> H 875
> D KJ7
> C AJ76
>
I haven't seen your reply to my quick experiment. First, I guessed
that the reason the 'a priori' value of 4333 is not useful is that
most of the notrump advantage of 4333 pattern comes from when you
don't really want to play in notrump. When I ran the experiment, I
saw that, when you want to play notrump, 4333 hands are the worst
pattern. About 1/5 a point.
So, a priori, AQ6 87 KJ75 AJ76 plays worse in notrump than the above
hand, but it plays better when you *want* to be in notrump.
Another thing to consider is that 'average' 15 count hands with
doubletons include a lot of Qx and Jx, which obviously need to be
devalued. The a-priori value of 4432 is lower because the average
value of high cards in the doubleton will be discounted. But experts
do that all the time. So it might well be that the a priori value of:
S AQ6
H 87
D KJ75
C AJ76
is as good as the a priori value of the first hand. (Binky gives this
hand the exact same notrump value as the 4333.)
So the tiny a priori advantage for 4333 might entirely be due to the
fact that sometimes 4432 hands have to devalue cards. But since most
people already devalue such cards, the a priori advantage might well
vanish without even considering whether we want to play in notrump.
I think the 4333 hand is a dead average 15-count.
=thomas
vincit
Thanks for your analysis. This is most interesting
So 4333 is more or less equivalent a priori to 4432 in this situation
I suppose you open 1NT with the 4333 quoted dont you ?
If you do what conclusion do you draw ?
Vincit
chakri23
> > essential, we can leave without them, a more constructive purpose was
> > to determine that if you devalue 4333's all the time, wherever,
> > whenever and tutti quanti as you seem to do and repeat all along this
> > thread then you will devalue a bad 4333 = Only negative factors, like
> > this one :
>
> > S AQ6
> > H 875
> > D KJ7
> > C AJ76
>
> I haven't seen your reply to my quick experiment. First, I guessed
> that the reason the 'a priori' value of 4333 is not useful is that
> most of the notrump advantage of 4333 pattern comes from when you
> don't really want to play in notrump. When I ran the experiment, I
> saw that, when you want to play notrump, 4333 hands are the worst
> pattern. About 1/5 a point.
I understand your point BUT now you are thinking a posteriori as you
are determining a position
Vincit
>
> So, a priori, AQ6 87 KJ75 AJ76 plays worse in notrump than the above
> hand, but it plays better when you *want* to be in notrump.
Same remark as above
Vincit
>
> Another thing to consider is that 'average' 15 count hands with
> doubletons include a lot of Qx and Jx, which obviously need to be
> devalued. The a-priori value of 4432 is lower because the average
> value of high cards in the doubleton will be discounted. But experts
> do that all the time. So it might well be that the a priori value of:
>
> S AQ6
> H 87
> D KJ75
> C AJ76
>
> is as good as the a priori value of the first hand. (Binky gives this
> hand the exact same notrump value as the 4333.)
>
> So the tiny a priori advantage for 4333 might entirely be due to the
> fact that sometimes 4432 hands have to devalue cards. But since most
> people already devalue such cards, the a priori advantage might well
> vanish without even considering whether we want to play in notrump.
It seems to me you have added constraints and we are not more
discussing the original a priori proposition (still I understand your
point lol)
Cheers
Vincit
Steve Willner
> At no-trump, just as much
> as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an
> error.
I'm a little surprised by this, even having read the other followups.
(Thanks especially to Thomas!) Of course 4333 will be bad if partner
forces the contract to a suit, and some account has to be taken of that,
but I gather this is not what you mean. Can you or anyone say a bit
more about why 4333 plays badly in notrump?
[To answer someone else, I realize I often post to old threads. I try
to do it only when I have something new to contribute.]
David Stevenson
The reasons I gave [and got a lot of flak for, especially from two
people who do not think I should tell the truth, apparently] is
experience of myself and some good partners. I think not downgrading
4333s has lost me a lot of points one way or another. I think they play
worse at suit and worse at no-trumps.
For example, at no-trumps, you often try to establish the fourth round
of a suit: 4432s have twice as many suits in which this might be
possible.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Thomas Andrews
Look, you are obsessed with "a priori" and "a posteriori." You are
missing the point.
Compare the two hands:
AQx xxx KJx AJxx
AQx xx KJxx AJxx
Now, "a priori," it might be the case that the first hand plays better
than the second one in notrump, on average, opposite all possible
hands that partner can have.
But if partner has:
Kxxxxx xx Axxx x
You certainly make more tricks in notrump, on average, with (1) than
you do with (2), because in (1) the defense will be able to take more
tricks off the top on average in hand 2 than in hand 1. So part of
our "a priori" value includes this case.
But we just don't want to be in notrump on this sort of hand, so the
added value that it gives to our "a priori" number is meaningless.
So our "a priori" knowledge that 4333 makes more in notrump is
meaningless for any bidding purposes.
Our "a priori" average should, at least, exclude the hands partner can
have when you "obviously" don't belong in notrump, for some definition
of "obviously."
My experiment was cruder, so, as a cautious experimenter, I won't
claim it proved anything definitive, but I will say that it does lead
me to suspect that, when you exclude hands that "obviously" don't
belong in notrump, expert practice is redeemed.
=thomas
Thomas Andrews
I think you've misread my posts if you are implying that I disagree
with David.
=thomas
vincit
How do you know? Especially when you are aware your partner is 4333 !
"Obviously" is a dangerous word
>
> So our "a priori" knowledge that 4333 makes more in notrump is
> meaningless for any bidding purposes.
>
> Our "a priori" average should, at least, exclude the hands partner can
> have when you "obviously" don't belong in notrump, for some definition
> of "obviously."
Your earn a lot of points playing NT with a 8/9/10 major fit when it
is best to do so
So I am not sure what you mean by "obvious"
>
> My experiment was cruder, so, as a cautious experimenter, I won't
> claim it proved anything definitive, but I will say that it does lead
> me to suspect that, when you exclude hands that "obviously" don't
> belong in notrump, expert practice is redeemed.
>
> =thomas
What about :
AQx Kxx Jxx AJxx
Kxxxxx xx Axxx x
You dont want to be in NT or do you nothing has changed ?
Can you ? (Yes you can! Obviuosly)
Must you? (Yes you must! Obviously)
Vincit
vincit
We are only considering the 1NT strong opening here
I am not sure what you are agreeing upon, I have not been able to
decipher DS's opinion due to his conciseness (not sure its an english
word! lol)
I think he will downgrade 4333 and if added to other poor factors he
will not open 1NT a "poor" 4333 15HCP
I entirely disagree with this pratice, but like he said we dont "want"
to hear his truth !
When given the hand, he said he will not answer, but I guess if he
still opens 1NT, he will most certainly tells you he includes poor
4333 15HCP in 1NT opening
but it does not mean he does not downgrade them, it is a case of
"virtual" downgrading which indeed can be part of your system !
Cheers
Vincit
vincit
Look at all these type of hands (with a sligh increase potential for
Game purposes)
Kxxxxx xx AQxx x
According to you these hands should be eliminated as you think they
OBVIOUSLY do not belong to NT
Now take any 3334 hand exactly 15HCP + no spot + wasted value in the
shortnesses (cf Jean-René Vernes) > 5 pts (Ace = 1 point)
You are most of the time much better in NT, it happens all the time !
It creates big swings !
For instance take
AQx
KJx
xxx
KQxx
I prefer to be in NT
Bottom lines
- Your a priori analysis are a very good tool (same is Fifth Count)
and a good indication on what you need to focus
- I do not draw the same conclusions as you do (a little weird to me)
- I think your examples a posteriori do reinforce what I am saying
- I do not know of any players devaluing 4333 when opening 1NT , you
just have to know what you are doing and exercice caution, on the way
to Games and/or slams, in theory you should be able to know
"everything" and bid the right contract because you've got time to
investigate
It is strange to me that you stated a priori analysis was meaningless,
this is not what transpires from your Web site and if you think so,
why do you bother ?
It seems to me you are backing off obvious conclusions, you try to
"redeem" expert's practices, still I do not know what practices you
are talking about in this situation.
Cheers
Vincit
KWSchneider
Thomas,
First, I think that your crude experiment is very interesting and the
"conclusion" follows from the results. However, let me understand the
actual experiment [all results in tricks]:
1) you dealt a series of hands and played them both in no trump and
best suit contract?
2) with no discrimination for shape by opener or dummy?
3) with no point count constraints?
4) you determined which of these results were the superior MP result?
5) you then removed the "specific instances" where no trump was not
the best?
6) you then determined from the results still standing which shape was
the superior shape?
If this is, in fact, what you did - then I can support your
conclusion, although it does nothing to mathematically refute the
postulation that "a priori, a 4333 shape is the best shape for playing
a hand in no trump". Further, it does not support the devaluing of
4333 hands for no trump - as this thread is discussing.
However, help me out -
a) did you determine that the specific instances that you removed
followed a normal distribution of expected point counts? ie did you
remove the expected number of high point count and low point count
results?
b) how did you verify that binky points were comparable between no
trump and suit contracts?
c) MOST IMPORTANTLY, did you verify that the "removed results" were
not simply "bad fits" for no trump - for example, this experiment
couldn't possibly differentiate between the BAD result of xx opposite
xx in no trump and a double stopper result of Ax Kx - where the exact
same point count and shape would yield a great result occasionally for
no trump. This in effect "weights" the results to "stopper" hands -
and is FAR from an "a priori" analysis.
Let me postulate a position to refute your argument:
a) 4333 in general is best [as proved by DD analysis and agreed by TA]
but is “helped” by hands where you don’t want to be in no trump but in
a suit contract
b) Removing these hands would reduce the capability of 4333 shapes for
the purposes of playing no trump
c) This argument would also apply to ALL other shapes - all of whom
would be reduced as well for the purposes of playing no trump to a
greater degree – since they are MORE likely to play in a suit contract
NOW – is it possible that BAD no trump shapes opposite 4333 play
better in no trump and BAD no trump shapes opposite 4432 or 5332 play
better in a suit contract? I have a hard time accepting that premise.
This argument is fruitless…
Kurt
vincit
Thomas
Lets forget about a priori (rather a methaphysical issue), instead
lets focus on a posteriori results
Examples are not a proof and/or evidence (true it is just an
indication, still when it is reiterative and systematic it tends to be
a presomption)
An exhaustive Study was conducted by a team of French mathematicians
(Bernard Charles and Jerôme Gigault) and Experts named "Statistiques
et Bridge. Evaluation des mains" under the auspices of Maurice Panis
(President of the FFB). Bernard Charles was the Head of the
Montpellier University (now retired) and has been working in
conjunction with Jean-René Vernes (The Law of Total Tricks) on all
statistic and mathematic aspects of Bridge since 1974
Maurce Panis also wrote the addenda to Roudinesco's "Maniement de
couleur" (card combination) a 500-page-pdf-document, a very essential
piece of wokr for anything pertaining to this matter
The Hand Evaluation was made on deals played since 1974 by good
players, among other things it shows that 4432 and 4333 are equivalent
for NT purposes
and 5332 should be upgraded the equivalent of a 10 (0,5). Very weak
balanced hands should be downgraded 1 point (especially useful if your
partner opens 2NT), so if you have xxx/Q9xx/J93/J108, it seems it is
better to pass on an opening of 2NT (20-21)
On average a hand has one 10 and one 9 so you'll downgrade a hand with
no ten and no 9 and will upgrade consequently a hand containing n10's
by 0,5 (n-1) and a hand containing n 9's by 0,25 (n-1). No Colombus
Discovery ...Apparently you do not know this Study, anyway it confirms
your own datas a priori and those of Kurt Schneider.
You said I was obsessed by a priori, actually I like both ! If you
want I can send you (or anybody interested) these two files (pdf
format) unfortunately it is in French (but readable for any bridge
player), as you may be well be aware of, most French do not speak
english and prefer to keep their secrets secret ...
So if you downgrade 4333 you should also downgrade 4432 and 4441
(belong to the same group factor), again the key issues are the
texture and your strategy
Cheers
Vincit
Chris
I admit I haven't had a chance to read this entire thread, but some
practically important issues seem to have been ignored in the 25 or so
posts I was able to scan:
(1) Opening borderline 14+/15 point 4minor-3-3-3 hands in a suit gives
you more chance of playing in notrump rather than being dummy in a 5-3
major suit fit. As you say, this shape is good for notrump. You
increase your chances of getting there by opening in the minor and
rebidding 1NT. Then partner has the option of passing with a five
card major. (You also avoid getting to 1NT with an unstopped suit
when the opponents interfere.)
(2) Opposite issues apply with 17/18- point hands with four spades.
Missing a 4-4 spade fit with this much strength is rarely a good
thing, especially if you have a small doubleton. I upgrade a lot of
4432 17 counts with four spades and a worthless doubleton (or Ax)
because I want to get to spades whenever it's right, and 1NT-P does
not accomplish that.
(3) Even if 4432s on average are ever-so-slightly worse than 4333s for
notrumps, keep in mind that the average 4432 includes a lot of hands
with high cards in the doubleton. I think most of the folks saying
that they downgrade for 4333 are downgrading considerably more for a
doubleton honor. So on average they might not be rating 4432 higher
than 4333.
(4) You don't have a way to say your NT opening is suddenly out of
range, so you do have to worry how well your 4333 plays in a suit, as
partner may insist on a suit.
(5) Err on the side of a narrower NT opening range. Partner can
handle a slightly wider 1NT rebid range since information has already
been exchanged--your hand is better defined in terms of shape, and a
very slightly looser range is thus feasible. If you don't believe me,
try playing a full four point 1NT opening (like, say, 11-14, or 14-17)
for six months, and then try playing a four point 1NT rebid and a
three point 1NT range. You will find the latter much easier to deal
with, especially in judging competitive auctions.
(6) When partner competes on partscore deals over interference over
1NT, you will probably end up in a suit. Thus, how well your hand
evaluates for suit play is an important safety factor in opening 1NT.
That said, while I would not open the hand in the title of this thread
with a 12-14 NT, but would open 1D instead, I might well start with 1D
also when playing a 15-17 NT. (It's close.)
Christopher Monsour
Steve Willner
> For example, at no-trumps, you often try to establish the fourth round
> of a suit: 4432s have twice as many suits in which this might be possible.
The above is the sort of answer I was looking for. Any similar reasons
you have noticed?
Thomas: I understand you have not disagreed with David; your posts were
quite clear and helpful. Perhaps you or someone else would try another
simulation, if it makes sense. It won't answer the global question, of
course, but it should be unbiased in a common situation:
Give opener 15 HCP and standard notrump distribution (including 5m332
but not 5M332 just to simplify). Give responder the same set of
distributions and 10-11 HCP. Further require that _either_ responder is
4333 _or_ there is no 4-4 major suit fit. Ideally put in constraints
that the opponents don't bid, but maybe that's too hard; I wouldn't know
how to specify it. Also, I don't know what to do about responder's 5cM
hands, which will sometimes play in NT and sometimes in M. Ignoring
these, I claim that the final contract will be 3NT (no Stayman if 4333).
How often does 3NT make for each of opener's three possible
distributions? And many tricks are made on average for each?
Will in New Haven
> On Dec 19, 2:40 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:> Steve Willner wrote
>
> > >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
>
> > as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an
> > error.
>
> > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
> > Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>
> Mr Stevenson,
>
> With all due respect do you any datas and/or research to back up your
> statement (made in the context of the hand quoted) ?
> I remind you we are reasoning A PRIORI and not in general terms after
> having seen the four hands ...
> You would indeed agree with me that most experts would never downgrade
> a 4333 hand A PRORI for NT purposes
> because they consider the following : occupying space + tactical
> reasons + prempt-effect + conveying the structure and potential of the
> hand immediately AS the most important factor
> The reduced playing potential of the 4333 is offset by the safety of
> the shape in defense
> So the key factors are intermediaries and whether or not the hand is
> NT oriented that is it !
> A 4333 ok when facing a 4432/4333/5332 and does much better than a
> 324=4 facing a 324=4 (actually 4333 is one the best dist for NT
> purposes when facing a balanced hand)
> Now stating that you have to deduct a point for a 4333 a priori when
> deciding or not to open 1NT as some players keep advising is simply a
> non sense.
>
> Would you deduct a point with a 4333 when playing a Strong NT and
> downgrade the hand to a 1m opening a priori ? That is the core of the
> question ...
>
> Indeed at suit a 4333 is clearly a negative factor but this is another
> matter
It bears on this decision. When we have bid 1NT partner will expect
certain values and won't think that our hand is weaker once he decides
to play the hand in a suit.
When I played a Strong NT, I would have considered this hand to be a
poorish fiften and refrained. However, we opened some fifteens and
some eighteens, not the modern 15-17. Obviously, the hand is too
strong for the NT I play now. So, except with a pickup partner, I
would never have opened this hand 1N.
--
Will in New Haven
vincit
wrote:
I think 14-16 HCP would be the modern style !
Vincit
Thomas Andrews
Yeah, I should have given an even clearer example.
For example, when you have significantly less than the expected values
between you and partner, it is almost always right to play in a suit.
And such hands are included in the 'a priori data' for the value of
4333 hands in notrump. But if you have a 4333 hand with 8 points, and
partner has any five card suit and 6 points, you almost always belong
in a suit contract. It becomes even more pronounced the weaker your
hands. (This is why people play run-outs after doubles of 10-12
notrump, for example.)
So this "a priori" value is based in part on data that we just don't
care about - data where 4333 plays slightly better than 4432 in
notrump, but where we really hardly ever want to play notrump.
I also think that the very slight advantage, a priori, of the 4333
pattern versus 4432 in notrump is likely mostly due to the fact that
you can't have wasted values in 4333, so the "average" is lower
because in 4432, you can sometimes have Qx or Jx in the 2-card suit.
Since experts already discount such values as a liability, treating
4333 as better than 4432 is just repeating that devaluation, and
including it in cases where you don't have wasted values in the
doubleton.
I'm not saying there isn't a statistical 'a priori' advantage to 4333,
just that it is wrong to treat this statistical advantage as something
that contradicts expert practice. It doesn't. It's something worth
exploring, it's something interesting, but we have only just begun
looking at data. My experiment, for example, was quite crude, and
I'll be the first to say it is hardly definitive.
=thomas
Thomas Andrews
> a) did you determine that the specific instances that you removed
> followed a normal distribution of expected point counts? ie did you
> remove the expected number of high point count and low point count
> results?
> b) how did you verify that binky points were comparable between no
> trump and suit contracts?
> c) MOST IMPORTANTLY, did you verify that the "removed results" were
> not simply "bad fits" for no trump - for example, this experiment
> couldn't possibly differentiate between the BAD result of xx opposite
> xx in no trump and a double stopper result of Ax Kx - where the exact
> same point count and shape would yield a great result occasionally for
> no trump. This in effect "weights" the results to "stopper" hands -
> and is FAR from an "a priori" analysis.
As I said, it is a crude analysis. I'm not saying it is definitive.
>
> Let me postulate a position to refute your argument:
>
> a) 4333 in general is best [as proved by DD analysis and agreed by TA]
> but is “helped” by hands where you don’t want to be in no trump but in
> a suit contract
> b) Removing these hands would reduce the capability of 4333 shapes for
> the purposes of playing no trump
> c) This argument would also apply to ALL other shapes - all of whom
> would be reduced as well for the purposes of playing no trump to a
> greater degree – since they are MORE likely to play in a suit contract
>
This is where you are wrong.
I've taken a sample of all possible deals with no bias.
The original 'a priori' number is the average number of tricks you can
make in notrump given your hand's shape.
The new number is the average number of tricks you can make when you
belong in notrump.
There is nothing that says that the first number and the second number
bear any relationship. In fact, the second number is always larger
(because the filtering for the second number gets rid of lots of hands
where you can make 0 or 1 trick in notrump and more tricks in a
suit.) But the difference between (2) and (1) was greater for 4432
and even greater for 5332 than it was for 4333.
The result of my test:
Pattern (2)-(1)
{3 3 4 3} 0.56
{4 3 3 3} 0.60
{3 2 4 4} 0.70
{4 2 4 3} 0.77
{4 3 4 2} 0.79
{3 2 5 3} 0.81
{3 3 5 2} 0.84
{4 4 3 2} 0.85
{5 2 3 3} 0.92
{5 3 3 2} 0.95
These patterns are normalized by major/minor, so the 3343 means either
3-3-4-3 or 3-3-3-4 shape.
So when you belong in notrump and you have 5332 shape, you expect to
take 0.95 tricks more than Binky Points expect in notrump.
When you belong in notrump and you have 3343 shape, you expect to take
0.56 tricks more than Binky Points expect in notrump.
=thomas