Do you open this hand?
Josh and Anne Sinnett
I passed a 13-point hand as dealer for the first time ever
last night. Playing matchpoints, low-level club game,
everyone vul:
S. Q754
H. K863
D. QJ
C. KQ5
We ended up playing 3H making 3 with a combined 25 HCP
between my and my partner's hands, and opponents hold
A-A-AK. Opponents both thought I was crazy to pass a 13
points hand. Thoughts?
Josh
Robert Lipton
Not in the least. It's just that partner needs to understand that you
can pass this sort of hand.
Me, I think I passed a 12-point hand in 1998.
Bob
Ville Likitalo
I pass and balance later if necessary. (or I hope that partner does)
Opening this hand will only help declarer if the board belongs to
opponents and if it's ours we'll find about it later. I consider
this hand as only ~11hcp now and try to find out from bidding wether
it grows or shrinks in value.
--
"Nielsen's first law of computer documentation
is that users don't read it."
Julian Lighton
It's not irrational. On the one hand, this isn't really a 13-count;
it's aceless with a doubleton QJ and mediocre long suits. On the
other hand, you have both majors, and whatever suit partner has
improves it noticably.
I'd open it, but can't fault not doing so if your agreement isn't to
open light. (If your agreement is to open sound, it's a pretty easy
pass.)
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all different.
John R. Mayne
Josh and Anne Sinnett wrote:
>
I'd pass without breathing hard. It's a garbage scow of a hand. I expect
this to be right very often, and I'll swallow a zero with no regrets if
it doesn't work out.
--JRM
Harry Rich
news:3A64CBE3...@qwest.net...
If your opponents tell you you're crazy after a good result, don't bother to
straighten them out. It will probably give you at least one good board the
next time you run into them. I want 2 QT to open a 13 point balanced hand
in 1st or 2nd position, and I'll open
S A54
H 63
D AK32
C 7652
a weak NT in 1st or 2nd position (though I'll want some 10's and 9's
vulnerable).
Even if partner passes 12 point hands in 3rd position there's very little
chance of missing a game on the hand you had. There's a really good chance
of getting too high or having partner count on you for too much defense if
you open.
Hands like this can sometimes make 9 tricks at no-trump when everybody else
is taking 9 tricks in a major suit fit. But, you don't need to worry about
it unless you're in a strong field. Most of the time there will be enough
people going down in 4 hearts.
Best,
Harry Rich
Dayton Ohio USA
Martin Ambuhl
>
You were not crazy, although I would open 1NT. If my parner had
KJx QJTxx xx AJx or so, he would not open that hand 1H (but 2H in 3rd
seat, pass in 4th seat). He would also not force to game over 1NT, but
invite and we would end in 3H also.
Sandy Barnes
Sandy Barnes
"Josh and Anne Sinnett" <sinn...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3A64CBE3...@qwest.net...
>
Karen Allison
>> H. K863
>> D. QJ
>> C. KQ5
>>
This is a Goren eleven-point hand - subtract one point for 4-3-3-3 distribution
and one point for no aces. Works for me!
Karen
The Royal Magistrate
(and EX-Monitor)
Gordon Rainsford
> >S. Q754
> >> H. K863
> >> D. QJ
> >> C. KQ5
> >>
>
> This is a Goren eleven-point hand - subtract one point for 4-3-3-3
> distribution and one point for no aces. Works for me!
>
Works better for me if I save it for when I *have* 4-3-3-3
distribution:))
--
Gordon Rainsford
London, UK
Thomas Dehn
I'd open it a 12-14 NT, and I would also open
it 1H playing four card majors and strong NT.
However, I'd pass playing 5 card majors and
strong NT.
Thomas
Ian Payn
Gordon Rainsford <gordonr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1endnpo.wec8qv1op83k7N%gordonr...@btinternet.com...
Jim Dooley
Josh and Anne Sinnett wrote:
>
I pass without regrets. For all of the obvious reasons. Even at
matchpoints.
--
Jim Dooley
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Karen Allison
>distribution:))
Hmmm.. good point <g>
Karen>
Anna Marie Rost
Anna Marie
Anna Marie Rost
minimum opoening, then I would open a club.
Anna Marie
DavJFlower
>> I passed a 13-point hand as dealer for the first time ever
>> last night. Playing matchpoints, low-level club game,
>> everyone vul:
>>
>> S. Q754
>> H. K863
>> D. QJ
>> C. KQ5
>>
>> We ended up playing 3H making 3 with a combined 25 HCP
>> between my and my partner's hands, and opponents hold
>> A-A-AK. Opponents both thought I was crazy to pass a 13
>> points hand. Thoughts?
>>
>> Josh
>>
Personally, I would open 1NT(12-14), as this describes the hand quite well.
Pass is anything but 'crazy', and could well be the winning bid,
Dave Flower
Sandy Barnes
Sandy Barnes
"DavJFlower" <davjf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010117122049...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
Bruce...@nospam.akamail.com
routine (and I open very agressively).
The hand is aceless and honors are only clustered in short suits. In
terms of shape, it looks like it will play like a 4333. This looks to
be about a 10.5 point hand; Kaplan-Rubens say it's 10.35.
Hands like this are what judgement is all about; you and your
partner judged well to avoid 4H. Classier opponents would have
complimented you and moved on to the next board. Next time try
for the brass ring with 3N.
Bruce
Josh and Anne Sinnett <sinn...@qwest.net> wrote:
: I passed a 13-point hand as dealer for the first time ever
: Josh
--
Bruce Moore
Mentor on the Lake, OH
Bruce...@NOSPAM.akamail.com
David Watson
Harry Rich <harr...@donet.com> wrote in message
news:t6a6rcb...@corp.supernews.com...
and a half quick tricks and a comfortable rebid to open a hand. Today, they
would subtract 1 point from your 13 point hand for being an Aceless hand.
But, of course a lot of folks would still open this dog with the adjusted 12
and most would go down. Occasionally you will get a bad result when the
pushers get lucky with distribution or a break from defenders. But, more
than half the time your pass with pay off and thats a good strategy at
matchpoints. At IMP scoring, it pays to be a bit more aggressive. David
Watson - Berryville, VA
Harry Rich
news:3a68f...@news1.prserv.net...
Counting quick tricks may sound old-fashioned, but I suspect if you check
some of the more sophisticated hand evaluations, you'll find they take
quick-trick structure into account in one way or another. Total point
count being equal (on most standard evaluations) hands with more quick
tricks are superior because you need controls as well as playing tricks to
establish long suits and cash winners before the opponents cash theirs, and
because you are in a better position to punish the opponents if they outbid
you.
Hands rich in quick tricks justify risky actions such as opening 1 NT on 11
HCP, or overcalling in a four card suit, because they greatly improve the
partnership's chances of making game.
By the way, I'd pass the hand in question at IMP scoring too. Partner, if
holding the values to make game facing this kind of pudding, will usually
find a way into the auction one way or another.
Best,
Harry
Alex Martelli
> "David Watson" <dow...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3a68f...@news1.prserv.net...
> >
> > Harry Rich <harr...@donet.com> wrote in message
> > news:t6a6rcb...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Josh and Anne Sinnett" <sinn...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3A64CBE3...@qwest.net...
> > > >
> > > > I passed a 13-point hand as dealer for the first time ever
> > > > last night. Playing matchpoints, low-level club game,
> > > > everyone vul:
> > > >
> > > > S. Q754
> > > > H. K863
> > > > D. QJ
> > > > C. KQ5
The 'right' scale of evaluation of honor strengths is close to:
A=4.5
K=3
Q=1.5
J=0.75
T=0.25
(also well approximated by the classic 4 Aces' 3-2-1 count,
but this scale has the practical advantage of keeping the
10-points-per-suit total typical of the Milton-Work count).
I've only published somewhat early research results on this
(in the February 2000 issue of The Bridge World, analizing
a rather specific case), but I have enough further research
confirming them to consider this scale 'established' -- and
practical experience agrees (also see an article, not by me,
in the December 2000 Bridge World, same subject).
[I like to call this scale BUM RAP -- Burnstine-Uchida-Martelli
Reality-Adjusted Pointcount -- but that's just my own name
for it... Burnstine published the equations in the '20s (an A
is worth a K plus a Q, etc), Uchida thought of scaling this up
to a 10-points-per-suit total, I provided some proof and thought
up a nifty acronym... and the resulting pointcount is 'reality
adjusted' wrt Milton-Work because it's closer to the honors'
actual trick-taking value, and wrt 4 Aces because it lets you
express overall hand value on the scale all players tend to
use today:-)].
On BUM RAP, this hand is worth 1.5+3+1.5+0.75+3+1.5 =
11.25 points as a first approximation (it's further depreciated
by the D QJ being bare). Passing is an excellent idea.
> > > in 1st or 2nd position, and I'll open
> > >
> > > S A54
> > > H 63
> > > D AK32
> > > C 7652
> > >
> > > a weak NT in 1st or 2nd position (though I'll want some 10's and 9's
> > > vulnerable).
This is a full 12 (BUM-RAP) with no minuses for bare honors,
so I fully agree with your evaluation (12.5, i.e. an extra couple
of 10's, would make it a mandatory opening bid IMHO; as it is,
it's marginal, but OK).
> Counting quick tricks may sound old-fashioned, but I suspect if you check
> some of the more sophisticated hand evaluations, you'll find they take
> quick-trick structure into account in one way or another. Total point
'Quick tricks' suffer from one serious defects: all sort of complications
to take into account whether honors are grouped or divided -- and
*unwarranted* complications, which often end up correcting the
wrong way 'round. Axxx in one suit and Kxxx in another are NOT
worth a lot less than AKxx in one suit and xxxx in another: overall
hand value is sensibly equal in both cases, yet quick tricks have you
go out of your way to compute the second combination as worth
1/3 as much as the first (2QT vs 1.5QT). And Kxxx+Axx is worth
measurably MORE (for purposes of making tricks in offense) than
xxxx+AKx -- here, all of the QT complications end up with a number
that's _farther_ from reality than simple BUM RAP (or 4 Aces) points.
Alex
Thomas Andrews
Alex Martelli <ale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > "Josh and Anne Sinnett" <sinn...@qwest.net> wrote in message
>> > > news:3A64CBE3...@qwest.net...
>> > > >
>> > > > I passed a 13-point hand as dealer for the first time ever
>> > > > last night. Playing matchpoints, low-level club game,
>> > > > everyone vul:
>> > > >
>> > > > S. Q754
>> > > > H. K863
>> > > > D. QJ
>> > > > C. KQ5
>
>11.25 points as a first approximation (it's further depreciated
>by the D QJ being bare). Passing is an excellent idea.
>
In my evaluators, this hand is actually worth less than your average
10-count in suit contracts (about a jack less,) while it is worth
about 1/4 a trick more in notrump than your average 10-count,
or somewhere between 11 and 12 points.
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"What's a man like me supposed to do,
With all this extra savoir-faire?" - TMBG
Harry Rich
news:94c5u...@news2.newsguy.com...
I'm not suggesting abandoning point count as primary evaluation. Given the
choice between using the Milton Work scale and Quick Tricks, I'll take the
Work scale any day. And, by the time I finish adjusting it, I'm not sure
I'm that far off from BUM RAP. Perhaps, I don't promote aces quite as much,
and I tend to ignore jacks and tens unless there're together with something
else, either in my hand or partner's. I'm not saying I'm right and BUM RAP
is wrong. I just have a hard enough time adding up whole numbers at the
bridge table without taking on quarter point increments too.
On the hand Josh (I think was Josh) was presenting, I was calling it 13
points because of the de facto standard, but I realized it adjusted to less.
Less than 2 QT is another way of indicating the hand will devalue. If the
hand had had 2QT but no aces, then I probably would have adjusted the point
count.
What I do advocate is looking at the QT structure in the case of somewhat
risky actions, opening on minimum values, overcalling with a less than solid
suit, etc. When a hand has better than average concentrations of high cards
as indicated by QT it has a better than average potential to support a high
contract in an optimum fit, or to punish the opponents for getting in your
auction when the fit is bad. And it is such a hand that merits taking on
some added risk.
Best,
Harry
John R. Mayne
Thomas Andrews wrote:
>
> In article <94c5u...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Alex Martelli <ale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > "Josh and Anne Sinnett" <sinn...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> >> > > news:3A64CBE3...@qwest.net...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I passed a 13-point hand as dealer for the first time ever
> >> > > > last night. Playing matchpoints, low-level club game,
> >> > > > everyone vul:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > S. Q754
> >> > > > H. K863
> >> > > > D. QJ
> >> > > > C. KQ5
> >
> >On BUM RAP, this hand is worth 1.5+3+1.5+0.75+3+1.5 =
> >11.25 points as a first approximation (it's further depreciated
> >by the D QJ being bare). Passing is an excellent idea.
> >
>
> In my evaluators, this hand is actually worth less than your average
> 10-count in suit contracts (about a jack less,) while it is worth
> about 1/4 a trick more in notrump than your average 10-count,
> or somewhere between 11 and 12 points.
Caveat: I have not done any of the data crunching at all. However,
Thomas's comments reflect closely my evaluation of the subject hand,
although I like it a touch better than Thomas does for suit play.
These slow dogs tend to play OK in NT, but wretchedly in a suit; if I
open this 1C and partner rebids 1N, I won't feel annoyed with myself for
opening it at MPs. If partner returns with 1M, I'll be real nervous that
my simple raise won't buy the contract, as partner will be unable to
take a joke.
I suspect also that Thomas's data does not place another hand in this
thread, Axx xx AKxx xxxx at quite 12 points *for the purposes of playing
in NT.* I think the BUM RAP pointcount overvalues prime cards and
significantly undervalues lower honors for the purpose of NT play. For
suit play, the subject hand is great. I routinely open hands like Axx
Axxx Kxx Axx 1C, intendeng to raise 1M to 2M, partly for these reasons.
Of course, opening 1N doesn't mean you'll be playing in NT....
Thomas, could you share your methods for your evaluators?
--JRM
Will
kral...@aol.com (Karen Allison) wrote:
> >S. Q754
> >> H. K863
> >> D. QJ
> >> C. KQ5
> >>
>
> This is a Goren eleven-point hand - subtract one point for 4-3-3-3
distribution
> and one point for no aces. Works for me!
>
Looks like 4432 to me but I am very old. And I would have lost on this
hand as I would not have passed it. That is not the same as saying that
I want to criticize the pass. It is a close decision but MY partners
would start to wonder about my stability if I passed it. That is, they
would think I HAD some stability. Can't have that.
--
Will
Slow pairs, please go home
Will
"Sandy Barnes" <sandyb...@home.com> wrote:
> Playing 12-14, I also would open it, but pass if I can not open 1NT.
>
> Sandy Barnes
This hand is 25% or so of the reasoning behind the KS adoption of the
Weak NT, I believe. If one cannot avoid opening that hand, and I
cannot, then the best thing is to limit ones bid on the first call. It
might not work on this particular hand but I open 1NT. A fair
percentage of the hands that would not be opened in Roth-Stone were
opened 1NT in KS.
--
Will
This hand will raise now.
There is not "I" that does this,
The cards themselves act.
ewleongu...@my-deja.com
Will <willre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <n1v96.188322$I5.42...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com>,
> "Sandy Barnes" <sandyb...@home.com> wrote:
> > Playing 12-14, I also would open it, but pass if I can not open 1NT.
> >
> > Sandy Barnes
>
> This hand is 25% or so of the reasoning behind the KS adoption of the
> Weak NT, I believe. If one cannot avoid opening that hand, and I
> cannot, then the best thing is to limit ones bid on the first call. It
> might not work on this particular hand but I open 1NT. A fair
> percentage of the hands that would not be opened in Roth-Stone were
> opened 1NT in KS.
>
Well if this hand was not safe to open 1C playing Standard American, I
don't see how making a 1NT bid five bids higher is any safer now even
if you are vulnerable. Even Edgar Kaplan stopped playing vulnerable
weak one notrump openings 30 years ago.
Eric Leong
Alex Martelli
news:94f6rp$ohr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[snip]
> if you are vulnerable. Even Edgar Kaplan stopped playing vulnerable
> weak one notrump openings 30 years ago.
Only when playing with Kay (because Kay insisted); in all other
partnerships, Edgar Kaplan always played weak NT at all colors.
Alex
Harry Rich
news:94cveh$4ou$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
KS does try to open all balanced minimums 1NT if they are opened at all. I
don't think the hand is good enough for a weak no-trump in first or second
position. Partner is going to insist on game with a decent 12 HCP and you
won't like the way this hand plays in four of a major. The hand will be
less disappointing in 3NT, but even that can go down for lack of controls.
DavJFlower
>> >
>> > Sandy Barnes
>>
>> This hand is 25% or so of the reasoning behind the KS adoption of the
>> Weak NT, I believe. If one cannot avoid opening that hand, and I
>> cannot, then the best thing is to limit ones bid on the first call. It
>> might not work on this particular hand but I open 1NT. A fair
>> percentage of the hands that would not be opened in Roth-Stone were
>> opened 1NT in KS.
>>
>
>Well if this hand was not safe to open 1C playing Standard American, I
>don't see how making a 1NT bid five bids higher is any safer now even
>if you are vulnerable.
It is safer because (a) It is a strictly limited bid and (b) You promise at
least 2 cards in every suit.
Note that many responses to a weak no trump are sign-offs (eg 1NT - 2C - 2D -
2H), whereas most responses to 1C are forcing at least 1 round, if not to game.
Dave Flower
Will
ewleongu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94cveh$4ou$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Will <willre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <n1v96.188322$I5.42...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com>,
> > "Sandy Barnes" <sandyb...@home.com> wrote:
> > > Playing 12-14, I also would open it, but pass if I can not open
1NT.
> > >
> > > Sandy Barnes
> >
> > This hand is 25% or so of the reasoning behind the KS adoption of
the
> > Weak NT, I believe. If one cannot avoid opening that hand, and I
> > cannot, then the best thing is to limit ones bid on the first call.
It
> > might not work on this particular hand but I open 1NT. A fair
> > percentage of the hands that would not be opened in Roth-Stone were
> > opened 1NT in KS.
> >
>
> Well if this hand was not safe to open 1C playing Standard American, I
> don't see how making a 1NT bid five bids higher is any safer now even
> if you are vulnerable. Even Edgar Kaplan stopped playing vulnerable
> weak one notrump openings 30 years ago.
It isn't an issue of immediate safety. Opening 1C is certainly SAFE
enough. The problem is that opening 1C and raising partner's major may
cause optimism on partner's part that could be avoided by opening 1NT.
As for Kaplan not playing Weak NT when Vul. He stopped because it made
Norman Kay "uneasy." As any sensible player would play ANY damn method
that Mr. Kay wanted in order to have him as a partner, I don't think
that had much to do with Mr. Kaplan's opinion on Weak NT. He liked and
admired his partner and went along with his wishes. I don't think that
they ever had a major disaster opening the Weak NT vul. I know that the
five or six that I have had in over thirty years of playing the thing
are not going to stop me now. Despite the GOOD results that we got when
someone Doubled and caught partner with less than expected or
overcalled and walked into a firestorm (we do NOT play negative Doubles
when people come in over 1NT) the advantage that partner KNOWS that we
don't have a balanced piece of garbage when we open something else is
the chief reason for playing the Weak NT.
--
Will
Big Slick's Song
This hand will raise now.
There is no "I" that does this,
Will
"Harry Rich" <harr...@donet.com> wrote:
> "Will" <willre...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:94cveh$4ou$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <n1v96.188322$I5.42...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com>,
> > "Sandy Barnes" <sandyb...@home.com> wrote:
> > > Playing 12-14, I also would open it, but pass if I can not open
1NT.
> > >
> > > Sandy Barnes
> >
> > This hand is 25% or so of the reasoning behind the KS adoption of
the
> > Weak NT, I believe. If one cannot avoid opening that hand, and I
> > cannot, then the best thing is to limit ones bid on the first call.
It
> > might not work on this particular hand but I open 1NT. A fair
> > percentage of the hands that would not be opened in Roth-Stone were
> > opened 1NT in KS.
> >
> > --
> > Will
> >
> >
> > This hand will raise now.
> > The cards themselves act.
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
>
> KS does try to open all balanced minimums 1NT if they are opened at
all. I
> don't think the hand is good enough for a weak no-trump in first or
second
> position. Partner is going to insist on game with a decent 12 HCP
and you
> won't like the way this hand plays in four of a major. The hand
will be
> less disappointing in 3NT, but even that can go down for lack of
controls.
>
> Best,
>
> Harry Rich
> Dayton Ohio USA
>
>
That is very likely true. I am pretty sure I shouldn't open that hand
but I very well might.
If we always do what we should in the bidding, we would have fewer
really interesting hands to declare.
--
Will
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
Sandy Barnes
partners expect less from a weak no-trump in terms of defense since one of
the benefits of the bid is preemption. There is no promise of 2 defensive
tricks in my regular partnerships, in fact, we expect a lot of slow cards.
We tend to pass 3 aces and out for lack of body in 1st or 2nd seat. I'm
sure Kaplan would turn over in his grave at this suggestion, and current
Acolites are gagging at the thought.
Sandy Barnes
<ewleongu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94f6rp$ohr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
ewleongu...@my-deja.com
You have quite answered the question. If there is no gun pointed to
your head, what compelling reasons are there to volunteer to risk
opening a vulnerable minimum balanced piece of garbage 1NT?
Eric Leong
DavJFlower
>partners expect less from a weak no-trump in terms of defense since one of
>the benefits of the bid is preemption. There is no promise of 2 defensive
>tricks in my regular partnerships, in fact, we expect a lot of slow cards.
>We tend to pass 3 aces and out for lack of body in 1st or 2nd seat. I'm
>sure Kaplan would turn over in his grave at this suggestion, and current
>Acolites are gagging at the thought.
>
>Sandy Barnes
I have never liked three aces and garbage; however, I always open such hands,
as otherwise I will never convince partner of my defensive values. A closely
related point: KS calls for an opening of 1NT on a flat hand containing AK A.
Dave Flower
jan kamras
Harry Rich wrote:
>
> KS does try to open all balanced minimums 1NT if they are opened at all. I
> don't think the hand is good enough for a weak no-trump in first or second
> position. Partner is going to insist on game with a decent 12 HCP and you
> won't like the way this hand plays in four of a major. The hand will be
> less disappointing in 3NT, but even that can go down for lack of controls.
>
I also don't open the hand in question, but just want to remark that 3NT
even on 12+12 often plays better than on 17+8.
John (MadDog) Probst
writes
snip
>
>You have quite answered the question. If there is no gun pointed to
>your head, what compelling reasons are there to volunteer to risk
>opening a vulnerable minimum balanced piece of garbage 1NT?
>
>Eric Leong
>
Pre-emption. Nothing more or less. In a session I'll open 1NT (11-13,
1st and 2nd seat) about 3 times as often as you will. If you're
clairvoyant then this becomes unsound, but you're not, so I've jammed
your bidding and created a lottery. I will play my best 2-level fit if
you go after me, so you've got to improve on that. Where we could have
a frank, free and fearless discussion is the merits of doing it 2nd in
at red (UK meaning).
Once in 20 or 30 times I pay off to the tune of 8/1100 and the rest of
the time we know what's going on and you have to guess. It's surprising
how often players get too high playing against it.
Don't knock weak NT Eric, it's high variance compared to 15-17 or such
antediluvian methods, but it's ok overall.
--
John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947
451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou
London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |jo...@probst.demon.co.uk
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk
Randy Hudson
Alex Martelli wrote:
> The 'right' scale of evaluation of honor strengths is close to:
> A=4.5
> K=3
> Q=1.5
> J=0.75
> T=0.25
> (also well approximated by the classic 4 Aces' 3-2-1 count,
> but this scale has the practical advantage of keeping the
> 10-points-per-suit total typical of the Milton-Work count).
Ron Klinger, in his great book "The Modern Losing Trick Count", in effect
proposes a similar scale. In the chapter on adjustments to the LTC,
he discusses comparing the expected number of controls (A=2,K=1) with
the actual number (basically, expect 3 controls per 10 HCP), and maps
the discrepancy into adjustments either to the LTC or the point count.
The point count adjustment involves scaling the controls to points
(i.e., counting 10/3 points per control), then adding a fifth of the
difference between these "control points" and the actual HCP count.
This works out to:
A: 4.5
K: 3.1
Q: 1.6
J: 0.8
-- Randy Hudson
Harry Rich
"jan kamras" <jka...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A6C6795...@home.com...
This is exactly why partner will insist on game holding a decent 12 when
we're playing (11)12-14 NT. The problem with the example hand is not that
it has only 12 HCP, but that is deficient in top cards.
Best,
Harry
Harry Rich
news:jICsbfAf...@probst.demon.co.uk...
I quite agree with you on the advantages and risks of getting into the
auction. With this hand, since we play a slightly stronger weak NT than you
do, I pass, not because I'm afraid of the opponents, but because I'm afraid
it's our hand and partner will expect better top cards.
The toughest moments for weak no-trump are when the hand marginally belongs
to your side and the opponents get in and stop at a low level. Then you can
wind up making close doubles and engaging in mind-tearing, and sometimes
unsuccessful, defense.
ewleongu...@my-deja.com
"John Probst" <jo...@probst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <94gjei$s40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ewleongu...@my-deja.com
> writes
>
> snip
> >
> >You have quite answered the question. If there is no gun pointed to
> >your head, what compelling reasons are there to volunteer to risk
> >opening a vulnerable minimum balanced piece of garbage 1NT?
> >
> >Eric Leong
> >
> Pre-emption. Nothing more or less. In a session I'll open 1NT (11-13,
> 1st and 2nd seat) about 3 times as often as you will. If you're
> clairvoyant then this becomes unsound, but you're not, so I've jammed
> your bidding and created a lottery. I will play my best 2-level fit
if
> you go after me, so you've got to improve on that. Where we could
have
> a frank, free and fearless discussion is the merits of doing it 2nd in
> at red (UK meaning).
>
> Once in 20 or 30 times I pay off to the tune of 8/1100 and the rest of
> the time we know what's going on and you have to guess. It's
surprising
> how often players get too high playing against it.
>
> Don't knock weak NT Eric, it's high variance compared to 15-17 or such
> antediluvian methods, but it's ok overall.
John, I can't help how much I admire you. How can I argue with you? I
can't deny your courage and enthusiam to preempt with 1NT when you are
vulnerable against not vulnerable. I confess I am slightly more
prudent. You insist that paying off 50%-100% more per trick when you
make a mistake then what I pay per trick when I make a mistake is an
investment bargain, how can I not admire you? I guess I am a tight
fisted tight wad. Finally, how can I not admire when you keep insisting
your best chance of winning a bridge tournament is the practical
equivalent of winning a high variance lottery? I freely admit I am more
ambitious. I concede. John (MadDog) Probst, you do a better imitation
of swinging from the trees than Tarzan himself.
Eric Leong
> --
> John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947
> 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou
> London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |jo...@probst.demon.co.uk
> +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk
>
Alex Martelli
news:3A6CCE7C...@inmet.com...
>
>
> Alex Martelli wrote:
>
> > The 'right' scale of evaluation of honor strengths is close to:
> > A=4.5
> > K=3
> > Q=1.5
> > J=0.75
> > T=0.25
> > (also well approximated by the classic 4 Aces' 3-2-1 count,
> > but this scale has the practical advantage of keeping the
> > 10-points-per-suit total typical of the Milton-Work count).
>
> Ron Klinger, in his great book "The Modern Losing Trick Count", in effect
> proposes a similar scale.
Except that, unfortunately, he makes an absolute mess of things --
the results of his formulas are sometimes not just wrong, but
*hilariously* wrong.
See http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=598724841 for an article
of mine, from March 2000, where I pointed out some of the details
behind these assertions; http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=613554288,
from April 2000, also has something about Klinger's book, in the
context of a wider discussion of hand-evaluation.
As I point out in the March article, for example, his formulas
evaluate AJTxx - JTxxx - xx - x at exactly 8 LTC, while
Axxxx - xxxxx - xx - x he evaluates to 7.5 LTC, *BETTER* than
the first one! Any formulas that tell you that your hand
becomes BETTER when J-T combinations are REMOVED from your
two long suits can sure make for a good laugh, but seriously
contradict the assertion that a book containing them is a
"great book", assuming it's meant to be a serious book and
not a zany comedy.
Alex
Alex Martelli
[snip]
> and I tend to ignore jacks and tens unless there're together with
something
> else, either in my hand or partner's. I'm not saying I'm right and BUM
RAP
> suit, etc. When a hand has better than average concentrations of high
cards
> as indicated by QT it has a better than average potential to support a
high
In other words, you're prey to the most *typical* misconception
shared by most players AND writes on bridge: that honor concentration,
honors being "together with something else", is a GOOD thing,
something which makes a hand stronger.
The only writers who (to my knowledge) have argued to the contrary
are myself and Jean-Rene Vernes; not surprising, because what we
have in common is that we *LOOK AT THE DATA* -- in his case, tens
of thousands of hands played in the Bermuda Bowl; in mine, hundreds
of thousands of hands 'played' by computers. Our results are
strikingly similar (just as mine are to those of Thomas Andrews,
who also uses computer-played-hands statistics, but in a way that
is completely different from my approach -- I don't think he's
published his results, except on his website, though).
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=598724841 is an article of mine
(from March 2000) where I spell things out in more detail. But,
summarizing, AJx is basically the only honor combination that is
a plus (to both offensive AND defensive strength) wrt A and J in
two separate suits; others are indifferent *OR MINUSES* -- a J
*loses* about 0.1 tricks' worth when joined to a Q, a K, or both,
for example!
And *THAT* is what makes 'quick tricks' just about worthless:
they depend crucially on honor-togetherness, which *DOES NOT
MATTER* to hand-strength (AJx combination excepted).
An Ace and a King have the *SAME TOTAL WORTH*, both in offense
and in defense, whether they are in the same, or separate, suits.
Their worth is correlated to the *length* of the suit[s] they
are in, but NOT to their 'togetherness'. This is what THE CARDS
say -- and it's thus not surprising that Jean Rene Vernes, Alex
Martelli, and Thomas Andrews, all read the same truth, if they
are "reading from the same book" (the reality of card-play), even
though we may be reading from different pages.
Players' intuition is just wrong about this -- it SEEMS that
having honors togethers should be a plus; in this case, what it
seems, and what IS, are not correlated (when one considers a
large-enough number of hands). I suspect that, out of all
results that have come from statistical studies, this is the
single most significant one *because it contradicts intuition
and tradition*; others, such as the fact that the Four Aces'
3-2-1 count is a good match for reality and Work's 4-3-2-1 is
not, or that a 7-2-2-2 is a substantially weaker shape than
7-3-2-1, etc, etc, basically tend to _confirm_ the intuition
of most good players.
Alex
Alex Martelli
news:3A69DF8A...@mindspring.com...
[snip]
> in NT.* I think the BUM RAP pointcount overvalues prime cards and
> significantly undervalues lower honors for the purpose of NT play. For
See Thomas's page: 6-4-2-1 (roughly same as BUM RAP) has a correlation
of 0.5110 for NT offense, versus HCP's (4-3-2-1)'s 0.5071; for suit
offense, 6-4-2-1's correlation is 0.4729, HCP's is 0.4669 (and CCCC
really shines, with an incredibly beautiful correlation of 0.5182 --
but of course that's apple-to-oranges, let's stick to comparing
point-per-card shall we:-).
In other words: BUM RAP is superior to 4-3-2-1 "for the purpose of
NT play" just as it's superior when considering play in a suit, and
the _amount_ of superiority is similar -- difference of correlations
being 0.004, resp. 0.006 (rations, 1.008 resp 1.013).
In other words: BUM RAP _does_ beat Milton-Work *even more* for
suit-play than it does for NT-play; but that hardly indicates that
BUM RAP "overvalues" Aces for NT play when compared to HCP -- if
it did, it would not show substantially better correlation.
The difference between BUM RAP and 6-4-2-1 is that BUM RAP does
acknowledge a small value for a 10-spot, by the way (equivalent
to a bit more than 0.3 on the 6-4-2-1 scale) -- that suggests to
me that BR should have a tiny (perhaps unmeasurable) advantage
over 6-4-2-1 for NT play in particular.
> Thomas, could you share your methods for your evaluators?
He already has -- http://www.best.com/~thomaso/bridge/valuations.html
(pity his data don't include _variances_, allowing an estimate of
_error_ to be computed, but, oh well!-).
Alex
Bill Spight
>
> "Harry Rich" <harr...@donet.com> wrote in message
> news:t6ji2qr...@corp.supernews.com...
> [snip]
> > and I tend to ignore jacks and tens unless there're together with
> something
> > else, either in my hand or partner's. I'm not saying I'm right and BUM
> RAP
> [snip]
> > suit, etc. When a hand has better than average concentrations of high
> cards
> > as indicated by QT it has a better than average potential to support a
> high
>
> In other words, you're prey to the most *typical* misconception
> shared by most players AND writes on bridge: that honor concentration,
> honors being "together with something else", is a GOOD thing,
> something which makes a hand stronger.
>
That depends on what you mean by "stronger".
> The only writers who (to my knowledge) have argued to the contrary
> are myself and Jean-Rene Vernes;
I suspect that Milton Work would have agreed. ;-)
> not surprising, because what we
> have in common is that we *LOOK AT THE DATA* -- in his case, tens
> of thousands of hands played in the Bermuda Bowl; in mine, hundreds
> of thousands of hands 'played' by computers. Our results are
> strikingly similar (just as mine are to those of Thomas Andrews,
> who also uses computer-played-hands statistics, but in a way that
> is completely different from my approach -- I don't think he's
> published his results, except on his website, though).
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=598724841 is an article of mine
> (from March 2000) where I spell things out in more detail. But,
> summarizing, AJx is basically the only honor combination that is
> a plus (to both offensive AND defensive strength) wrt A and J in
> two separate suits; others are indifferent *OR MINUSES* -- a J
> *loses* about 0.1 tricks' worth when joined to a Q, a K, or both,
> for example!
>
You mean that Qxx - Jxx is worth more than QJx - xxx ?
(I am showing a single suit in partner's hands.)
Of course not. You mean that Qxx, Jxx in two suits in the same hand is
worth more than QJx , xxx in two suits. I suspect that that depends on
how you evaluate Ks and Qs, or on the question of stoppers for NT. Jxx
is decidedly better for providing a stopper than xxx, but QJx is not so
much better than Qxx. And perhaps at a suit contract the J is more often
wasted when it is with the K or Q than when it is alone.
> And *THAT* is what makes 'quick tricks' just about worthless:
> they depend crucially on honor-togetherness, which *DOES NOT
> MATTER* to hand-strength (AJx combination excepted).
>
Indeed. If you want to estimate the QT potential of a hand, in
combination with partner's hand, the 5-3-1 count is more accurate. (I
discovered that back in the 70s.)
> An Ace and a King have the *SAME TOTAL WORTH*, both in offense
> and in defense, whether they are in the same, or separate, suits.
>
I. e., W: xx E: AKx
xx xxx
is worth the same as
W: xx E: Kxx
xx Axx
? Not!
> Their worth is correlated to the *length* of the suit[s] they
> are in, but NOT to their 'togetherness'. This is what THE CARDS
> say -- and it's thus not surprising that Jean Rene Vernes, Alex
> Martelli, and Thomas Andrews, all read the same truth, if they
> are "reading from the same book" (the reality of card-play), even
> though we may be reading from different pages.
>
Well, we are in the same book, but not on the same page. The reality is
not that of card play, but of statistics. The reality of card play is
that honor location matters, sometimes a great deal. However, if you
want to estimate the trick-taking power of the combined hands when you
know nothing about partner's hand, as a rule the combination of honors
is irrelevant. Use a point count, and do not make corrections for honor
combination.
> Players' intuition is just wrong about this -- it SEEMS that
> having honors togethers should be a plus; in this case, what it
> seems, and what IS, are not correlated (when one considers a
> large-enough number of hands). I suspect that, out of all
> results that have come from statistical studies, this is the
> single most significant one *because it contradicts intuition
> and tradition*; others, such as the fact that the Four Aces'
> 3-2-1 count is a good match for reality and Work's 4-3-2-1 is
> not, or that a 7-2-2-2 is a substantially weaker shape than
> 7-3-2-1, etc, etc, basically tend to _confirm_ the intuition
> of most good players.
>
I think that player's intuitions are based on the idea that the best
estimate of the combined trick-taking potential of the combined hands of
a partnership is the sum of the trick-taking potential of each separate
hand. That is not so.
AKQJx, xx, xxx, xxx is likely to produce 5 tricks in hand.
Axxxx, Kx, Qxx, Jxx is more likely to produce 3 or 4 tricks in hand.
But the two hands are not so different in combining power. (The first
hand is worth a bit more, I think, because the value of the 5th spade is
greater.)
Let's double our pleasure.
AKQJx xx
xx xxx
xxx AKQJx
xxx xx
Axxxx Kx
Kx Qxx
Jxx Axxxx
Qxx Jxx
The first hand will probably make 9 tricks, the second hand will
probably make 8. Counting 3 points per trick, you might think that the
first hand is worth 1.5 points more than the second (each partner
contributes 1/2 trick to the difference). But if you know nothing about
partner's hand, you cannot expect the honors to be concentrated in a
long suit in his hand. So your estimate with the first hand should be
closer to that of the second hand. Maybe only 1 point more, maybe 0.5
point more.
The important point, though is to realize that the trick-taking
potential of the one hand, 5 tricks, does not add with the trick-taking
potential of partner's hand to find the trick-taking potential of the
combined hands. Two 5-trick hands add up to 8 or 9 tricks. Point counts
provide better estimates of combined potential, in most cases.
However,
AKQJx xx
Ax xxx
xxx AKQJx
xxx Axx
in this case, two 6-trick hands combine for a likely 12 tricks. But it
is a rare case. :-)
Best,
Bill
Alex Martelli
> "John R. Mayne" <jrm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3A69DF8A...@mindspring.com...
> [snip]
> > in NT.* I think the BUM RAP pointcount overvalues prime cards and
> > significantly undervalues lower honors for the purpose of NT play. For
>
> See Thomas's page: 6-4-2-1 (roughly same as BUM RAP) has a correlation
Thomas also publishes the (post-facto-optimal) 'counts' for his
data sets. Reducing them to 10-points-per-suit totals, and assuming
we don't want to count for anything lower than a Ten-spot:
Card Suit NT BR BR-S BR-N MW MW-S MW-N
A 4.56 4.34 4.50 0.06 0.16 4 0.56 0.34
K 2.83 2.79 3.00 0.17 0.21 3 0.17 0.21
Q 1.50 1.62 1.50 0.00 0.12 2 0.50 0.38
J 0.78 0.87 0.75 0.03 0.13 1 0.22 0.13
T 0.33 0.38 0.25 0.08 0.13 0 0.33 0.38
Summarizing: at suit-play, BUM RAP has a root-mean-square
'error' of about 0.09, at NT-play, one of 0.15. MW, on
the other hand, has a RMS 'error' of 0.39 at suit-play,
of 0.31 at NT-play. So, your perception is not fully
unfounded: BR is a little bit worse at NT, while MW is
a little bit _better_ at NT. But, BR is still far better
than MW in both cases.
You can't do better than MW if you only want to count full
points on a total-10-per-suit scale, except that you might
call A=5 and Q=1 at suit for a small benefit (RMS would
diminish to 0.35, versus MW's 0.39). If you count quarter
points, as BR does, then BR is closest for suit-play, but
4.25/2.75/1.50/1.00/0.50 (remove a quarter point wrt suit
play for each A or K, add a quarter point wrt suit play
for each J or 10), with an RMS of 0.11, *would* be a little
bit better for NT-play.
Of the two, however, BR is better if you want a single
count to be used for both NT and suit play. The benefit
you'd get from the alternative count for NT-play is
rather small -- close to what you'd get if you taught
people to count 5-3-1-1 rather than 4-3-2-1 for suit
play only, as it happens.
Incidentally, if one admits half-points but not quarters,
4.5/3.0/1.5 is surely best for A/K/Q, but it's a toss-up
whether to count J=1.0,T=0.0, or, rather, 0.5 for each.
Alex
John R. Mayne
Surely, though, this only applies to honors in same-length suits?
Axxx Qxxx Jxx xx vs.
AQxx xxxx Jxx xx?
Despite my considerable respect for Alex, I'm not believing him if he
tells me:
KQJ98x xx K9xxx --
isn't significantly better than:
KQ98xx Jx K9xxx --
(I see no reference to this in the deja cite, either.)
I believe this particular phenomenon to be the reason for valuing
grouped honors; they *are* normally more valuable, but that's because
they are in longer, rather than shorter, suits a priori. The
Kaplan/Rubens count doesn't adjust for grouped honors, but does for
honors in long suits, and this seems easily right to me; xxx AKx xx
xxxxx is significantly weaker than xxx xxx xx AKxxx.
--JRM
John R. Mayne
"John R. Mayne" wrote:
>
> I believe this particular phenomenon to be the reason for valuing
> grouped honors; they *are* normally more valuable, but that's because
> they are in longer, rather than shorter, suits a priori.
This is not quite true. K/R doesn't adjust for all grouped honors. I
wrote this too fast.
--JRM
Thomas Andrews
because it is based on double-dummy play. For example,
AKJT
xxxx
makes four tricks a lot more often when played double-dummy than single-dummy.
Single-dummy, it makes whenever the queen in onside or stiff queen is
offside (in best play,) while double-dummy it also makes four when Qx is
offside. So having the queen in addition in this holding increases
the value less, double-dummy.
Just something to be aware of.
In article <94kc4...@news1.newsguy.com>,
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"What's a man like me supposed to do,
With all this extra savoir-faire?" - TMBG
Thomas Andrews
>
>Axxx Qxxx Jxx xx vs.
>AQxx xxxx Jxx xx?
>
>Despite my considerable respect for Alex, I'm not believing him if he
>tells me:
>
>KQJ98x xx K9xxx --
>
>isn't significantly better than:
>
>KQ98xx Jx K9xxx --
>
>(I see no reference to this in the deja cite, either.)
>
>I believe this particular phenomenon to be the reason for valuing
>grouped honors; they *are* normally more valuable, but that's because
>they are in longer, rather than shorter, suits a priori. The
>Kaplan/Rubens count doesn't adjust for grouped honors, but does for
>honors in long suits, and this seems easily right to me; xxx AKx xx
>xxxxx is significantly weaker than xxx xxx xx AKxxx.
>
>--JRM
Actually, according to my evaluators, xxx AKx xx xxxxx and xxx xxx xx AKxxx
are about equal in value, at suit contracts, and the first is about 1/10th
of a trick better at notrump. Kxx xxx xx Axxxx is better than both, although
very slightly.
But I'll try a real simulation to check.
Thomas Dehn
I don't have to look at the data to know that you
are blatantly wrong. I'm quite sure that you failed to
incorporate various important side factors into your analysis.
Example:
I) You have Kxx Qxx, partner has Qxx Kxx
II) You have KQx xxx, partner has xxx KQx
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that I)
is about 1 full trick worse than II).
Thomas
Randy Hudson
Alex Martelli wrote:
>
> As I point out in the March article, for example, [Klinger's] formulas
> evaluate AJTxx - JTxxx - xx - x at exactly 8 LTC, while
> Axxxx - xxxxx - xx - x he evaluates to 7.5 LTC, *BETTER* than
> the first one! Any formulas that tell you that your hand
> becomes BETTER when J-T combinations are REMOVED from your
> two long suits can sure make for a good laugh, but seriously
> contradict the assertion that a book containing them is a
> "great book", assuming it's meant to be a serious book and
> not a zany comedy.
If you're going to use his adjustments, then to be fair you should use all
of them. The net effect of all the adjustments he suggests in section
3 (secondary honor combinations) of chapter 10 is to evaluate the first
hand at about 7.2 losers.
In any case, this is the twiddliest part of the book; I said it's a
great book, not a flawless one. The importance to me was presenting a
way of evaluating a hand in terms of its trick-taking potential
rather than adding up "points" of various flavors.
I mentioned his material on adjusting point count to show that yet
someone else thinks the Work count underevaluates aces and overevaluates
queens by about a half point.
-- Randy Hudson
Bill Spight
> Actually, according to my evaluators, xxx AKx xx xxxxx and xxx xxx xx AKxxx
> are about equal in value, at suit contracts, and the first is about 1/10th
> of a trick better at notrump. Kxx xxx xx Axxxx is better than both, although
> very slightly.
Sounds like the value of a stopper at NT. :-)
Best,
Bill
Thomas Andrews
>>
>>I believe this particular phenomenon to be the reason for valuing
>>grouped honors; they *are* normally more valuable, but that's because
>>they are in longer, rather than shorter, suits a priori. The
>>Kaplan/Rubens count doesn't adjust for grouped honors, but does for
>>honors in long suits, and this seems easily right to me; xxx AKx xx
>>xxxxx is significantly weaker than xxx xxx xx AKxxx.
>>
>>--JRM
>
>Actually, according to my evaluators, xxx AKx xx xxxxx and xxx xxx xx AKxxx
>are about equal in value, at suit contracts, and the first is about 1/10th
>of a trick better at notrump. Kxx xxx xx Axxxx is better than both, although
>very slightly.
>
>But I'll try a real simulation to check.
>--
>Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
> "What's a man like me supposed to do,
> With all this extra savoir-faire?" - TMBG
Okay, I did two 500-deal simulations and got these tables:
432 432 32 AK432
Tricks NT Max Major Clubs
0 13 0 3 0
1 14 0 9 0
2 36 0 32 2
3 76 4 35 17
4 87 22 63 48
5 69 50 79 74
6 79 94 79 106
7 56 102 68 92
8 39 92 54 70
9 24 67 38 48
10 3 34 14 25
11 3 22 17 11
12 1 9 8 4
13 0 4 1 3
Avg 5.0 7.4 6.0 6.7
AK2 432 32 65432
Tricks NT Max Major Clubs
0 13 0 0 4
1 10 0 0 3
2 35 0 6 14
3 61 7 23 30
4 78 19 62 46
5 91 49 75 78
6 67 74 92 78
7 63 107 89 90
8 55 85 65 56
9 15 79 46 57
10 10 47 25 29
11 1 30 15 15
12 1 3 2 0
13 0 0 0 0
Avg 5.1 7.5 6.5 6.4
"Max" refers to the maximum number of tricks makeable in any suit.
Note that NT amd Max are close, with "AK2 432 32 65432" slightly edging
"432 432 32 AK432."
Also note that the *shapes* of these tables is very different -
xxx xxx xx AKxxx is much more likely to make a suit slam, for example.
It is also more likely to make notrump games. On the other hand,
77 times, AKx xxx xx xxxxx makes ten or eleven tricks in some suit,
and there are only 56 which make that many in suit contracts.
One problem with this evaluation approach, though, is that we are
counting deals where we don't really care about the tricks - namely,
deals where we make five tricks or fewer are rarely of interest.
What we might prefer is some weighted average, so that getting the right
level is valued depending on the level.
I've actually started examining such weightings, but I'm at a
very preliminary stage.
Harry Rich
pull up some of your referenced articles. I don't know how well they
address overall outcomes of openings as opposed to tricks taken, and as such
my response was way premature.
Best,
Harry
Sandy Barnes
Winning Bridge". In it are chapters on the in and out valuation of high
cards and LTC. Great reading!
Sandy Barnes
"John R. Mayne" <jrm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A6DC224...@mindspring.com...
Thomas Dehn
"John (MadDog) Probst" <jo...@probst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <94gjei$s40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ewleongu...@my-deja.com
> writes
>
> snip
> >
> >You have quite answered the question. If there is no gun pointed to
> >your head, what compelling reasons are there to volunteer to risk
> >opening a vulnerable minimum balanced piece of garbage 1NT?
> >
> >Eric Leong
> >
> Pre-emption. Nothing more or less. In a session I'll open 1NT (11-13,
> 1st and 2nd seat) about 3 times as often as you will. If you're
> clairvoyant then this becomes unsound, but you're not, so I've jammed
> your bidding and created a lottery. I will play my best 2-level fit if
> you go after me, so you've got to improve on that. Where we could have
> a frank, free and fearless discussion is the merits of doing it 2nd in
> at red (UK meaning).
>
> Once in 20 or 30 times I pay off to the tune of 8/1100 and the rest of
> the time we know what's going on and you have to guess. It's surprising
> how often players get too high playing against it.
-800/-1100 once in 20 or 30 times???
How do you manage to go down so much
and so frequently?
The last time somebody scored 1100 against me
was in 1998 when partner opened a weak NT anti-systemically
on a 4333 11 count, and subsequently blew a
trick during the play.
Thomas
Thomas Andrews
In article <Plnb6.10679$1%2.46...@sjc-read.news.verio.net>,
Thomas Andrews <tho...@best.com> wrote:
>>
>>Actually, according to my evaluators, xxx AKx xx xxxxx and xxx xxx xx AKxxx
>>are about equal in value, at suit contracts, and the first is about 1/10th
>>of a trick better at notrump. Kxx xxx xx Axxxx is better than both, although
>>very slightly.
>>
>>But I'll try a real simulation to check.
>
Some additional analysis, not entirely available from the above data:
AKx xxx xx xxxxx xxx xxx xx AKxxx
Makes grand slam: 0 times 4 times
Makes small slam: 3 times 9 times
Makes game: 60 times 47 times
Makes 1NT-3S: 192 times 185 times
The last row means that it makes some contract between 1NT and 3S.
These are exclusive - that is, making game means making game but not
slam.
Makes game or better: 63 times 60 times
So these two numbers are very close to each other, but with the honors
in the long suit, the odds are significantly higher of making a slam.
That's not really surprising - our best chance at a fit is in clubs,
and in a *fit* we need most of the honors to avoid having two losers.
That's why, in the three cases AKx xxx xx xxxxx makes slam, it's
never in clubs, although once it is in diamonds(!) It is more likely
partner will have a stiff and a big fit for another suit than partner
will have a big fit and the top cards in clubs.
As usual, this is all double-dummy analysis, so it should be taken
with a grain of salt. For example, one of the making slams is:
S : Q
H : AKT865
D : AK7
C : QT9
S : JT76543 S : 98
H : 97 H : QJ
D : Q54 D : JT986
C : A C : KJ87
S : AK2
H : 432
D : 32
C : 65432
This is only a making slam because of the stiff ace, and still requires
some care. On the other side, we have:
S : AK987
H : A
D : AKJ9
C : J86
S : QJT65 S : ---
H : KJT8 H : Q9765
D : QT D : 87654
C : QT C : 975
S : 432
H : 432
D : 32
C : AK432
Very favorable lies in diamonds and clubs lets 6C make, even after
a spade ruff, but the more likely notrump and spade slams fail,
despite 12 top tricks, because there is no entry to south's hand
after playing the ace, king, jack of clubs.
Thomas Andrews
spots to be the smallest. So for AKx xxx xx xxxxx, the top x values can
be 8.
This alters the results significantly, mostly due to additional late-trick
entries in trump suits.
xxx xxx xx AKxxx AKx xxx xx xxxxx
Tricks NT Max Major Clubs | NT Max Major Clubs
0 20 0 10 0 | 15 0 0 5
1 15 0 10 0 | 13 0 0 7
2 22 0 22 3 | 34 0 8 14
3 86 2 34 10 | 69 4 30 27
4 84 24 61 49 | 87 22 73 63
5 70 53 75 73 | 79 47 63 69
6 83 85 75 103 | 69 85 90 74
7 61 110 73 98 | 61 80 68 73
8 33 99 63 74 | 41 104 77 69
9 13 57 33 45 | 21 81 53 46
10 8 36 24 28 | 7 49 23 35
11 2 27 15 14 | 2 21 11 11
12 3 6 4 2 | 2 6 3 6
13 0 1 1 1 | 0 1 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------
Avg 4.9 7.4 6.0 6.7 5.0 7.5 6.4 6.4
Both made 12 tricks 6 times, and 13 tricks 1 time.
xxx xxx xx AKxxx made game 50 time, versus 51 time.
xxx xxx xx AKxxx made some 1NT-3S contract 180 times, versus 208 times.
So the only big difference in this simulation was in the
partscores. In particular, the second hand made 8 tricks in notrump
25% more often than the first, and made 9 tricks in a suit 40% more often.
Again, this is double-dummy tricks, which is a very abstract view
of the world.
I should have probably mentioned earlier, as an acknowledgement
and plug, that I'm using GIB ( http://www.gibware.com ) with my
deal generator, Deal 3.0 ( http://www.best.com/~thomaso/deal/ ).
Andy Lewis
>>>Actually, according to my evaluators, xxx AKx xx xxxxx and xxx xxx xx AKxxx
>>>are about equal in value, at suit contracts, and the first is about 1/10th
>>>of a trick better at notrump. Kxx xxx xx Axxxx is better than both, although
>>>very slightly.
>
>Some additional analysis, not entirely available from the above data:
>
> AKx xxx xx xxxxx xxx xxx xx AKxxx
>Makes grand slam: 0 times 4 times
>Makes small slam: 3 times 9 times
>Makes game: 60 times 47 times
>Makes 1NT-3S: 192 times 185 times
>
>The last row means that it makes some contract between 1NT and 3S.
>These are exclusive - that is, making game means making game but not
>slam.
>
>Makes game or better: 63 times 60 times
>
>So these two numbers are very close to each other, but with the honors
>in the long suit, the odds are significantly higher of making a slam.
>That's not really surprising - our best chance at a fit is in clubs,
>and in a *fit* we need most of the honors to avoid having two losers.
The same kind of analysis is true, to some extent, for making game, so it
seems to me that your last set of numbers (63 v. 60 games or better) are
affected by the fact that in the former case your honors are in a major
(only 10 tricks for game) and in the latter they are in a minor.
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare, e.g.
AKx xxxxx xx xxx vs. xxx AKxxx xx xxx or
xxx xx AKx xxxxx vs. xxx xx xxx AKxxx
Andy
Thomas Andrews
Okay, I did that, and the results were:
AKx xxxxx xx xxx
Makes grand slam: 1
Makes small slam: 6
Makes game : 63
Makes 1NT or better: 196
xxx AKxxx xx xxx
Makes grand slam: 1
Makes small slam: 6
Makes game : 61
Makes 1NT or better: 169
So you are right, it's only between 1NT and 3S that these two
hands are different.
One thing I think we are missing from this equation, however, is
the fact that single-hand evaluators are not the ultimate goal.
If you open 1H on:
AKx xxxxx xx Axx,
partner is not going to value a stiff heart with his five spades.
In fact, that stiff will be devalued because, on average, he *expects*
you to have wastage. Similarly, he's gonna like his QJ in hearts if
you find a spade fit.
That re-evaluation is probably the real reason top bridge players value
concentration of cards in suits, particularly when considering light
openers. I suspect many more experts would open:
xxx AKxxx Axx xx
than would open the previous hand, because, while the hand is at the
low end of the range, it's honors are where partner would expect them,
so opener can show a minimum again and again, and partner can still
get to game with the "right cards."
That's the trick - I think it is premature to ditch expert practice
on hand evaluation for these reasons. The justification for expert
practice might be wrong - "AKxxx xxx xx xxx" might not be "stronger"
than "xxxxx AKx xx xxx" - but it might still be the right practice,
for other reasons.
Bruce...@nospam.akamail.com
I read Jeff Rubens' footnote in the December 2000 BW (with more interest
than the article it followed!). Jeff opines that, although lacking
rigorous proof, he has data that strongly suggests that 6-4-2-1-1/3
works very well. He then suggests some arithmetic to allow reasonable
disclosure to one's opponents.
Some slightly different arithmetic led me to a 4.5/3.0/1.5/0.75/.25
scale with the advantage that it's on the same scale that most players
already use. This looks suspiciously like what you call BUM RAP.
It was then a very short step to determine that:
BUMRAP = MW HCP + 1/2 * (aces - queens) + 1/4 * (tens - jacks)
Although a small insight, it means I don't have to reprogram my
automatic HCP counter; I just need to add a line to it :-).
Bruce
Alex Martelli <ale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: "John R. Mayne" <jrm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
: Alex
--
Bruce Moore
Mentor on the Lake, OH
Bruce...@NOSPAM.akamail.com
Csaba Raduly
Jan 2001 wrote <3A64CBE3...@qwest.net>:
>
>I passed a 13-point hand as dealer for the first time ever
>last night. Playing matchpoints, low-level club game,
>everyone vul:
>
>S. Q754
>H. K863
>D. QJ
>C. KQ5
>
>We ended up playing 3H making 3 with a combined 25 HCP
>between my and my partner's hands, and opponents hold
>A-A-AK. Opponents both thought I was crazy to pass a 13
>points hand. Thoughts?
>
Your opponents need a lesson in hand evaluation. This hand is worth:
2+3+1(J=0, dbltonQ=1)+5-1(no Aces)=10 HCP
Playing 12-14 NT, I doubt I'd be able to resist the temptation to open 1NT.
--
Csaba Raduly, Software Developer (OS/2), Sophos Anti-Virus
mailto:csaba....@sophos.com http://www.sophos.com/
US Support +1 888 SOPHOS 9 UK Support +44 1235 559933
You are in a maze of twisted little minds, all different.
Alex Martelli
...and now, 20 years later, I've found yet another major author "reading from the same book" wrt hand evaluation:
Kevin Cadmus, author of the book "BFUN" (now in the 6th edition, with a 7th edition soon to come). Whatever you
think about the system (weak NT, canape, strong club, relays, ...), the "TTS" (trick-taking score) adjustments to
4-3-2-1 for balanced hands are pretty good (and proven through an even larger number of simulations than either I
or Andrews ran). A and 10 are a +, Q and J a -; some -'s for short suits headed by Q or J; for honor combinations,
AQx, AJx, and KJx (and longer) are a +, any suit headed by AK gets a MINUS -- the only evaluation system I know
of that considers Axx in a suit plus Kxx in another BETTER than AKx in a suit and xxx in another...
Alex