[mikeh]

han, on 2011-September-02, 07:30, said:

No, in that case your calculation was incorrectly described and incorrectly done.

Consider a bag with 2 red balls and 2 white balls. Suppose that our RHO randomly takes two of the 4 balls out of this bag, and we learn that he must have at least 1 red ball. What is his expected number of white balls?

Using your empty space method, you would get 2/3. After all, he has 1 "empty space", and 2 of the "remaining" 3 balls.

If we number the red balls A and B, and the white balls C and D, then we see that there is 1 way to draw two red balls (A+B) and there are 4 ways to draw a red ball and a white ball (AC, AD, BC, BD). Hence of the 5 possible drawings with at least one red ball, 4 have one white ball and 1 has no white ball, for an average of 4/5 white balls.

Where is your mistake? The answer you get would be correct if you knew that RHO had a specific red ball. For example, if we knew that RHO has ball A, then the expected 2/3 white balls is correct. But we don't know this, we know he has at least 1 red ball, a very different statement.

So what's the exact expected number of diamonds for RHO? I don't know, it is a very difficult computation. To get the right answer we would need to take HCP into consideration as well, which makes the question impossible to answer without knowing RHO's opening tendecies. Rounded to the nearest integer I am pretty sure that the answer is still 3 though. I don't know why this is actually interesting, but when somebody starts posting incorrect mathematics I feel a strong urge to correct them before anybody gets harmed.

Thanks for the correction

Without detracting from that thanks, which I mean, and fully (I think) understanding Helene's additional point about integers, the purpose of the exercise is not to calculate with precision how many cards any player 'holds' in a suit, but, rather, to estimate the likelihood that we will find adequate or inadequate support. Thus is doesn't matter, at all in the context of at the table bridge, as opposed to being presented as a math exercise, if the calculation would reveal the expectation to be 3.0762 or 2.9263. We can live with '3'.

If it were 2.49, then we'd expect '2-3' and if it were 3.49 we'd expect '3-4'. while knowing all along that it could be 0 or (f we held 5 in the suit) 8 or anywhere inbetween.

So as long as my incorrect math will give me something that is going to be within a workable margin of error, I'll keep doing it, while never elevating the result beyond an estimate.

Btw, I do understand and empathize with the urge to correct 'obvious' (obvious, that is, to you...not, as it happened, to me!) errors such as the ones I made. When I see television or movies about lawyers, I often get irritated by actions or dialogues attributed to lawyers that would never happen. So when those of us who are mathematically literate see a post by someone such as me in which it is clear I don't understand the topic I am spouting off on, I should and do expect correction, and I appreciate it.

[JLOGIC]

aww mikeh and han getting along is so sweet

[mikeh]

JLOGIC, on 2011-September-02, 10:24, said:

aww mikeh and han getting along is so sweet

It's the new me (well, except for responding to VM)

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2011-September-02, 10:36, said:

It's the new me (well, except for responding to VM)

I think you were as patient and as polite as u can be with the VM debates, i myself replied couple times and had to delete my own posts couple times.

[han]

Darn, I've been missing out on all the VM-action.

[whereagles]

Ok I did the simulation. Here's the outcome on 10 000 hands.

Count=10000
Average spades = 1.4424
Average hearts = 3.6456
Average diams =  4.7963
Average clubs =  3.1157

CONCLUSION:

In theory 2♣ should be safe, as you're in for a fit most of the time (can give you standard deviations as well if you want lol).

In pactice here are some examples so you can figure out whether it actually has a play for.

--------------------------         
          S: J2
          H: AT9
          D: T842
          C: 6542
 S: 9              S: K8763
 H: J54            H: K862
 D: QJ973          D: AK65
 C: Q987           C: ---
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
--------------------------
          S: 98
          H: 98652
          D: AT83
          C: 92
 S: 3              S: KJ762
 H: KT4            H: AJ
 D: J94            D: KQ7652
 C: Q87654         C: ---
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
--------------------------
          S: K7
          H: KJ62
          D: 632
          C: Q964
 S: 6              S: J9832
 H: T95            H: A84
 D: JT9854         D: AKQ7
 C: 752            C: 8
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
--------------------------
          S: 972
          H: J984
          D: T976
          C: 85
 S: ---            S: KJ863
 H: KT62           H: A5
 D: AJ42           D: KQ853
 C: Q9742          C: 6
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
--------------------------
          S: 3
          H: KJ9654
          D: 7542
          C: Q6
 S: 7              S: KJ9862
 H: A2             H: T8
 D: QJ9863         D: AKT
 C: 8742           C: 95
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
--------------------------
          S: 8
          H: KJ86
          D: JT2
          C: Q8764
 S: 96             S: KJ732
 H: T952           H: A4
 D: K9763          D: AQ854
 C: 95             C: 2
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
--------------------------
          S: ---
          H: 98542
          D: AQT86
          C: 865
 S: K83            S: J9762
 H: K6             H: AJT
 D: J9742          D: K53
 C: 974            C: Q2
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
--------------------------
          S: J
          H: 86542
          D: 964
          C: 9874
 S: 9              S: K87632
 H: AT9            H: KJ
 D: AQT7532        D: KJ8
 C: Q2             C: 65
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
--------------------------
          S: 87
          H: J865
          D: KJ62
          C: 986
 S: 9              S: KJ632
 H: AT9            H: K42
 D: Q9743          D: AT85
 C: Q754           C: 2
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
--------------------------
          S: 3
          H: 8
          D: KJ8764
          C: Q8764
 S: 86             S: KJ972
 H: KT65           H: AJ942
 D: QT95           D: A32
 C: 952            C: ---
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
--------------------------

[VM1973]

Free, on 2011-September-02, 03:56, said:

This is a forum, it's purpose is to share knowledge and experiences, discuss thought processes behind certain decisions, learn from each other's successes, learn from each other's mistakes,..., and have fun.

When there are 2 clear choices (2♣ and pass) for 99% of all bridge players, you come up with a simple "I'll try 1NT". While your choice is appreciated and may have merit, people are interested in the thought process behind this at-first-sight crazy call. Maybe you're looking at the matter from an interesting point of view, who nows, maybe we can learn something. It's obvious that some sort of discussions will start when there are no valable arguments, what else did do you expect? Or do you prefer to be ignored by everyone?

It seems the only argument you've given is that you're allowed to misdescribe your hand completely because it's matchpoints. Matchpoints is still taking percentage actions, and doing so consistently will give you a good score most of the time. Personally I don't see the point in taking a huge risk for little reward. It's like playing in a casino: you'll win occasionally due to luck, but in the long run the house always wins.

Well, Free, I want to thank you for writing to me. You are, basically, asking why I would consider 1NT instead of 2♣ ... well, there are several reasons.

Firstly, I expect both my partner and LHO to be weak. I figure each one of them probably has around 5 points and it's entirely possible that 1NT will end the auction. Assuming a spade lead (which is what I would consider normal) and partner having as little as ♥A I expect to take 9 tricks on the go (2 spades, 2 hearts, 5 clubs) (+150) which will beat 2♣. If partner has as little as ♣Q and ♦Jxxxx I have a shot at 5 clubs, 2 spades, and a successful finesse of the ♥K should make 8. This also beats a club contract.

Secondly, it occurs to me that partner might have a weak hand with 5+ hearts. Over 2♣ partner might be reluctant to enter the auction with 5-6 points and ♥9xxxx but over 1NT he will feel comfortable transferring and passing.

Thirdly, it occurs to me that LHO might not sit for this 1NT business especially if he holds long diamonds. Holding as little as: ♦KQJxx with nothing outside he might decide to bid diamonds. If my partner is sitting with A10xxx that might get hit and to go down a trick. Since the opponents are vulnerable +200 should be a top. Even if partner doesn't hit it right away RHO might raise or I might reopen with a double that could get passed or again partner might bid hearts.

Finally, it occurs to me that it might go 1♠-1NT-X-P-P and I will have an obvious runout.

So I figure there are several ways I could win. However, it's possible that I might do badly. Let's think of the ways this bid could go wrong.

I think the biggest risk is that LHO will double and partner will run out to diamonds. That would be quite bad, but at these colors I think it's entirely possible that opponents may decide to try for 3NT figuring +600 will beat whatever penalty they might get. As I know the cards lie badly for them (my partner's diamonds behind RHO's theorized diamonds) and my spades behind RHO's known spades, it is likely to fail. They may not be aware that I have a near-solid club suit to run against them, which bidding would tip them off to. Still, if it goes double and my partner bids 2♦ I think I'm going to regret my decision.

The second real risk is that partner may hold AKQJ10(x) of diamonds and bid 3NT and I never reach the board.

The chances that 5♣ or 6♣ is making seem remote to me considering that RHO has opened. My partner is not likely to have enough strength to bid that and there is likely to be a lot wasted in diamonds.

So while 1NT is apparently a controversial decision, I disagree with those who claim that it has no merit at all.

[han]

I see what you guys are talking about, good stuff!

[VM1973]

whereagles, on 2011-September-02, 14:26, said:

Ok I did the simulation. Here's the outcome on 10 000 hands.

--------------------------         
          S: J2
          H: AT9
          D: T842
          C: 6542
 S: 9              S: K8763
 H: J54            H: K862
 D: QJ973          D: AK65
 C: Q987           C: ---
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
--------------------------  1NT doesn't do badly.  LHO is likely to bid diamonds and RHO will raise.
          S: 98
          H: 98652
          D: AT83
          C: 92
 S: 3              S: KJ762
 H: KT4            H: AJ
 D: J94            D: KQ7652
 C: Q87654         C: ---
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
-------------------------- 1NT doesn't have much play, but partner is likely to transfer to hearts.  2[cl] people get killed.
          S: K7
          H: KJ62
          D: 632
          C: Q964
 S: 6              S: J9832
 H: T95            H: A84
 D: JT9854         D: AKQ7
 C: 752            C: 8
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
-------------------------- 1NT will surely fail if they lead a diamond.  If they lead a spade you're gin for +150.
          S: 972
          H: J984
          D: T976
          C: 85
 S: ---            S: KJ863
 H: KT62           H: A5
 D: AJ42           D: KQ853
 C: Q9742          C: 6
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
-------------------------- I can't imagine opponents not bidding diamonds.  2[cl] people get killed.
          S: 3
          H: KJ9654
          D: 7542
          C: Q6
 S: 7              S: KJ9862
 H: A2             H: T8
 D: QJ9863         D: AKT
 C: 8742           C: 95
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
-------------------------- Partner will almost certainly bid (or transfer) to hearts over 1NT.
          S: 8
          H: KJ86
          D: JT2
          C: Q8764
 S: 96             S: KJ732
 H: T952           H: A4
 D: K9763          D: AQ854
 C: 95             C: 2
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
-------------------------- 1NT doesn't have much hope but RHO is likely to bid diamonds.
          S: ---
          H: 98542
          D: AQT86
          C: 865
 S: K83            S: J9762
 H: K6             H: AJT
 D: J9742          D: K53
 C: 974            C: Q2
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
-------------------------- 1NT would do fine.  Partner is likely to transfer to hearts.  LHO might bid diamonds.
          S: J             RHO doesn't have an opening hand.
          H: 86542
          D: 964
          C: 9874
 S: 9              S: K87632
 H: AT9            H: KJ
 D: AQT7532        D: KJ8
 C: Q2             C: 65
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
-------------------------- LHO will probably double and partner will rescue to hearts.  Opponents will       
          S: 87            likely play some number of diamonds.
          H: J865          
          D: KJ62
          C: 986
 S: 9              S: KJ632
 H: AT9            H: K42
 D: Q9743          D: AT85
 C: Q754           C: 2
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
-------------------------- 1NT doesn't have much of a chance.  If 1NT gets doubled you will run out to 2[cl]
          S: 3             and probably do no worse than the 2[cl] people.  If opponents bid diamonds you
          H: 8             might get to play 3[di] doubled.
          D: KJ8764
          C: Q8764
 S: 86             S: KJ972
 H: KT65           H: AJ942
 D: QT95           D: A32
 C: 952            C: ---
          S: AQT54
          H: Q73
          D: ---
          C: AKJT3
-------------------------- Depending on your system your partner might bid some sort of pick-a-minor bid.  RHO will bid hearts.

In conclusion, I want to note that I didn't generate ANY of these hands.
1NT definitely doesn't get killed on 50% or more of these hands.
Controversial? Sure. Wrong? Maybe. Diasterous? No.

[han]

Quote

S: 98
H: 98652
D: AT83
C: 92
S: 3 S: KJ762
H: KT4 H: AJ
D: J94 D: KQ7652
C: Q87654 C: ---
S: AQT54
H: Q73
D: ---
C: AKJT3
-------------------------- 1NT doesn't have much play, but partner is likely to transfer to hearts. 2♣ people get killed.

The auction would go:

1S - 2C - PENALTYDOUBLEPARTNER - all pass

[Zelandakh]

VM1973, on 2011-September-03, 07:02, said:

1NT will surely fail if they lead a diamond. If they lead a spade you're gin for +150.

On Hand 4 your partner has 9hcp so presumably will Stayman and then settle for 3NT. This will not be a huge success when West leads their DJT9854 suit...

mikeh, on 2011-August-31, 22:29, said:

I'm starting to suspect that he and Lurpoa are one and the same....he has a reputation in the 50's and I think 95% of his votes come from Lurpoa

95% of my votes come from Lurpoa too. Do you think I am also a clone? Forums have cliques, that is just the way of online communities. The voting system extends this cliquiness further and even incentivises it. It also puts new posters off who can see that they are unlikely to ever break into the senior echelons of a forum like BBF. Of course that probably suits some posters who would like to see (almost) only experts posting (quality over quantity) but I tend to be more inclusive by nature and it is my feeling that when BBF was created it was meant that way too.

Let me just say a word about the 2 beleagered posters mentioned here. VM is obviously going through a stage of his bridge development where he wants to try things out. There is nothing wrong with this and I daresay he will grow out of it in due course. It is certainly not trolling. Yes I do understand the frustrations from senior posters here when they are saying what they know to be true and it falls on deaf ears. Just like having a difficult pupil that seems not to want to learn what is likely to be on an exam and instead fixates on a particular side issue in the syllabus. Sorry, but you either patiently work the student around or you give up on teaching them - what you cannot do is give them a smack. Comments like those from han and co in this thread are the forum equivalent of a smack.

Lurpoa is someone who came on these forums as a beginner asking questions about 2/1. I know because I answered and I have kept the thank you reply in my profile. At that time the posting style was normal. A short while later something had changed. She was now proclaiming to be a BWS expert and posts were either stylised or broke the rules of netiquette such as one word posts and posts with longer fluff (symbols) than actual content. I do not know what happened in this time but suspect from the random down-votes that accompanied the change that it had something to do with the voting system. Personally I wold like to see the old Lurpoa back, either directly or under a new account name. I find it painful to see the "why?" posts and similarly unconstructive comments. It is clear that she has upset pretty much everyone here and that is difficult to come back from. But I also hope that if she did decide to become a constructive member of the community that the vast majority would support this. And to Lurpoa, hopefully you know by now that I am not against you; however I do think the time has come for you to show everyone here that the person who joined the forums is the real you and therefore to avoid posts with only a single word in them. It is ok to ask a poster why they have their opinion if this is not clear from other posts in a thread; but in that case please be specific about what you need to know as single word posts are irritating and apt to be misunderstood in an online environment. Whatever you decide to do I wish you well.

OK, side discussion over. Apologies to anyone who thinks I have disrailed the thread. I will add another vote for 2C even though I think it is superfluous at this stage. I tend not to reply in "obvious" bidding threads but having seen the 9hcp hand and started to post I felt the rest probably needed saying too and this was not too bad a time for it to be said.

[VM1973]

Zelandakh, on 2011-September-06, 15:58, said:

On Hand 4 your partner has 9hcp so presumably will Stayman and then settle for 3NT. This will not be a huge success when West leads their DJT9854 suit...

I think you mean hand 3.

How do you think I should respond to a Stayman inquiry? Certainly I have no intention of fessing up to a spade suit. I'd sooner bid hearts and play the 4-3 fit myself.

If you think North's hand is worth a 3NT bid at matchpoints, I suggest you work on your hand evaluation again. Aceless, tenless 9 counts don't normally bid 3NT over 1NT on their own... unless your range for a 1NT overcall is 17-19 and if that's the case, I apologize. Personally I don't even think it has invitational values at MPs, although other people's opinions may differ.

Even if that hand goes disasterously (debatable), one bad hand out of 10 at matchpoints isn't catastrophic.

On the other hand, thank you for defending me against the charge of being a troll.

[JLOGIC]

Zel, I think it's obvious that VM tries to get a rise out of people and start some controversies by throwing out some strange views and defending them. This is the exact same thing kenrexford did when he started posting here (I don't know if he has ever admitted it on the forums), because he enjoyed it. I actually like ken now, but that's pretty much the exact definition of trolling. It does generate amusing conversations though. I was a VM fan when I thought he was just experimenting, but now I suspect him of doing the same thing as Ken used to do. Do I have proof? No, but I think you are wrong or naive to say that it is obvious that VM is just going through a phase. If that was not true, he would not always have a contrarian view, always speak authoritatively, always make inflammatory statements, etc. Ken is now a respected member of the forum and has knocked that off mostly, and he is undoubtedly an interesting thinker when he posts his weird but non trolling views, I'm sure the same can happen for VM.

As usual, I disagree with the assumption that people who post inflammatory things consistently and are likely just trying to be a devils advocate/get a rise out of people do not deserve what they get. I thought ken deserved it, and he was a bridge expert. To expect there to be no very benign sarcastic comments like the ones han and mikeh have given to someone is unrealistic. Maybe if they were paid to teach VM, you would be right, but we are all posting on a discussion board and people who post authoritatively, are dismissive of any conventional wisdom or arguments that don't involve a simulation or flawed math, and despite being an inexperienced player assume that nobody knows anything other than themselves even when they are the only one who hold the view they hold, they are going to get some "smack."

I also do not understand why you do not hold lurpoa accountable at all. I think this is a problem with the world, we are quick to blame the process, or the system, or others, for a change in someone or the negative reactions to their negative behavior. No one ever wants to hold the person involved accountable. Having a post downvoted is not a reason to become the biggest forum troll ever and outcast yourself. It is not a reason to begin to claim you are a BWS expert, a few months after saying you were just learning 2/1.

I get that you are a genuinely nice guy and want the best for everyone, and don't like to feel that others have been victimized. But seriously, do you place any accountability on the people who receive the negative reactions? I mean, if you're going to say 1N is the right bid here and defend it to the death, after taking the contrarian solo view in every other thread you post in, you should expect to get some smack! If you downvote every single post in a thread and everyone who downvotes you after receiving a legit downvote, people will not respect that and will probably downvote you to hell! I truly believe Lurpoa will be given another chance if she begins to post positively and/or apologizes, that is one of the good things about life, people are quick to give second chances (or in my case 9th and 10th chances). But people who troll will be trolled, and I don't see that as a negative.

And dude, the comment about lurpoa and vm was obviously a joke, lighten up! We all know you and lurpoa are really the same person, and vm is different.

[Free]

No way, Justin is lurpoa. Justin hated downvotes so much he decided to create an alter-ego and start a votewar against himself. Result: downvotes are gone. Way to go Justin!

Note: he still hates upvotes, that's why lurpoa keeps upvoting random posts hoping to achieve similar results.

[farrnbach]

2C describe your hand

worst case p - 2d - p or p p X (normally negative) with clubs in lho

[whereagles]

Trolling is a part of the internet experience. Usually the "cure" is

DONT FEED THE TROLLS.