[fuburules3]

http://tinyurl.com/7sbc4df

[pigpenz]

nice hand

DM PRO analysis
3♠34%
4♦49%
5♦18%
4♥36%

so 66% you will go +200 by 3♠x-1
4♦ keeps you plus 50% of time but probably will lead to 5♦

maybe statistically sitting for 3♠ is best shot for most matchpoints

[fuburules3]

pigpenz, on 2012-April-21, 10:32, said:

nice hand

DM PRO analysis
3♠34%
4♦49%
5♦18%
4♥36%

so 66% you will go +200 by 3♠x-1
4♦ keeps you plus 50% of time but probably will lead to 5♦

maybe statistically sitting for 3♠ is best shot for most matchpoints

I don't quite understand your statistics. I'm willing to accept that it's possible that 3SX is the best contract, but it seems like when GIB passes a takeout double it makes quite often (this of course could be that I remember when it fails and not when it works).

[pigpenz]

all i did was feed the south hand into the simulator
and gave east weak two bid hands and west raise hands with 2-3 card support
it generated 300 hands I can do more.
It then runs deep finesse on them
you can set it up to tell you how many tricks are available for each suit by a certain
declarer...in these case spades by east, diamonds by south, hearts by north.

I can run some more hands, I can only tell you what the statitics say.

so I use the actual south hand
east contraints....6 card suit 5-10 hcp 2-3 honors
weast contraints...2-3 card support 0-1 honors 0-13hcp

Ill run another 1000 hands and lets see what we get
total 1300 hands done

3♠467/1300 36%
4♦590/1300 45%
4♥449/1300 35%

so
+200 64%
+130 45%
+620 35%

[Stephen Tu]

pigpenz, on 2012-April-22, 09:02, said:

all i did was feed the south hand into the simulator

For the purpose of the decision in debate (passing the 2nd takeout double), don't you want to feed the NORTH hand into the simulator, fix the North hand, then give everyone appropriate hands?
(east weak 2, west 3 spades, south a roughly 17+ total point takeout double).

It doesn't make sense to fix the south hand. North doesn't know what South has, and it's North with the decision. It needs an estimate of how often 3s goes down (and how much on average), and how often 4h makes, even better would be an IMP average over all samples, comparing 3s-x vs. 4h. I doubt diamond contracts are relevant since if you are going to pull presumably one pulls to hearts.

[pigpenz]

in the simulator the unknown hand that has no constraints is the north hand
knowns:
1.south hand(given hand)
2.east weak two bid
3.west raise of two bid

so all we are doing is spinning the rest of the cards into what north can have
then analyzing the results.

you tell me what you want the constraints to be and I will run it for you.
we have south hand
you tell me what you want for east and what you want for west....and well go from there.
When I set the constraints for West I actually allowed for possibility of 2 spades.
Dealmaster Pro then deals out 1300 hands according to the constraints you set then
runs deepfinesse on them.

I could run an analysis with
West 2 card support
West 3 card support
West 4 card support
and I assume as length of support goes up % of making would go up...but for 2-3 card support it was 34% making

I only set for 2-3 card support, i'll try that and see how it changes

[Stephen Tu]

pigpenz, on 2012-April-22, 10:55, said:

in the simulator the unknown hand that has no constraints is the north hand
knowns:
1.south hand(given hand)
2.east weak two bid
3.west raise of two bid
so all we are doing is spinning the rest of the cards into what north can have
then analyzing the results.

This is backwards, because North is the one making the decision, not South. North is the one who decided to pass the 2nd takeout double. It has to decide whether it's right to pass over a random strong takeout double by South. Your sim isn't this situation, your sim is looking at what South should do if partner is barred, and it has to unilaterally place the contract over 3s. Fix the *NORTH* hand, give south some random takeout double with extra values [2(443), 2452, 2425, 2(533)], 17+ pts, and I'd say exclude hands where South has say AK of spades or AQ of spades, since then they might have overcalled 2nt.

Fix west with 3 cd support, since 2 cd support shouldn't be raising, and 4 cd support should be bidding 4. Can do a 2nd run allowing West to have 4 cd support (and expanding South's distributional range to include hands with stiffs).
Then compare imp of 3s-x E vs. 4h N, for each random deal, if possible. (If you can't figure out how to do this, I can do it tomorrow.)

[pigpenz]

Stephen Tu, on 2012-April-22, 11:21, said:

This is backwards, because North is the one making the decision, not South. North is the one who decided to pass the 2nd takeout double. It has to decide whether it's right to pass over a random strong takeout double by South. Your sim isn't this situation, your sim is looking at what South should do if partner is barred, and it has to unilaterally place the contract over 3s. Fix the *NORTH* hand, give south some random takeout double with extra values [2(443), 2452, 2425, 2(533)], 17+ pts, and I'd say exclude hands where South has say AK of spades or AQ of spades, since then they might have overcalled 2nt.

Fix west with 3 cd support, since 2 cd support shouldn't be raising, and 4 cd support should be bidding 4. Can do a 2nd run allowing West to have 4 cd support (and expanding South's distributional range to include hands with stiffs).
Then compare imp of 3s-x E vs. 4h N, for each random deal, if possible. (If you can't figure out how to do this, I can do it tomorrow.)

I understand it looks backwards, because most people usually just look at what they had for their hand (south) but i can run it your way with the north hand and see where it goes from there....so what I am saying that from the point of view of south the passing of the double stands to gaine...but I will run it with the north hand instead.

Usually most people are mad cause GIB didnt do something that they expected.

[Stephen Tu]

pigpenz, on 2012-April-22, 11:37, said:

I understand it looks backwards, because most people usually just look at what they had for their hand (south) but i can run it your way with the north hand and see where it goes from there....so what I am saying that from the point of view of south the passing of the double stands to gaine...but I will run it with the north hand instead.

Usually most people are mad cause GIB didnt do something that they expected.

It looks backwards, because it is backwards. North looks at his own hand when he decides to pass the takeout double. It's not "I'm barred from looking my own hand, South lets me look at his, I decide what I want to be in based looking at South's hand only". That leads to the ridiculous comparison of North passing 3s-x vs. say bidding 4h on only 2 or 3 heart cards, which would never happen in real life, but does if you fix the South hand and make North's hand random, and are looking at North's results in 4h. Of course at MP if North has no idea how many hearts it has, it's probably right to pass 3s rather than bid 4h. But that isn't how bridge works.

We are examining North's decisions, thus we know the North hand, not the South. If North is looking at South's hand, they aren't playing bridge anymore. If people are criticizing North's decisions based on knowing the South hand instead of the North hand, they aren't thinking straight.

Also wasn't clear whether original problem was MP or IMP, probably should analyze for both.

[pigpenz]

Stephen Tu, on 2012-April-22, 12:00, said:

It looks backwards, because it is backwards. North looks at his own hand when he decides to pass the takeout double. It's not "I'm barred from looking my own hand, South lets me look at his, I decide what I want to be in based looking at South's hand only". That leads to the ridiculous comparison of North passing 3s-x vs. say bidding 4h on only 2 or 3 heart cards, which would never happen in real life, but does if you fix the South hand and make North's hand random, and are looking at North's results in 4h. Of course at MP if North has no idea how many hearts it has, it's probably right to pass 3s rather than bid 4h. But that isn't how bridge works.

We are examining North's decisions, thus we know the North hand, not the South. If North is looking at South's hand, they aren't playing bridge anymore. If people are criticizing North's decisions based on knowing the South hand instead of the North hand, they aren't thinking straight.

Also wasn't clear whether original problem was MP or IMP, probably should analyze for both.

Ok did it with north as known hand
west 3 card support
east weak 2♠

south constraints
♠2 no AK,but AX, KX
♥2-4
♦2-5
♣2-5
17up on points

results:
4♣8%
4♦17%
4♥11%
3♠37%

I can tweak the south hand further if you like

[Stephen Tu]

I don't think I would allow 2 cd hearts by South. South should be adverse to doubling with doubleton heart. Do we disallow 5 heart by south? What does he do with say xx AQxxx AKQ KQx?

Also, instead of looking at percentage of what contract makes, it's more accurate to simply tally (score in 4h) vs. (score in 3s) for each deal, MP & IMP. Especially at IMPs, where going down in 4h is a large IMP gain vs. letting 3s doubled make. It wouldn't be surprising to me if it turned out leaving it in is winning at MP but losing at IMP.

Running with more conservative wests who might raise to only 3 sp with 4 (probably a mistake, but possible) would also be interesting. I'll probably run my own sims later tonight or tomorrow when I get access to my computer with sim tools on it, see how it looks vs. yours. I use dealer + GIB instead of dealmaster.

[cloa513]

fuburules3, on 2012-April-20, 21:36, said:

http://tinyurl.com/7sbc4df

You can't blame GIB for not taking the contract down- where else but clubs can partner hold much strength- KCthen JC was obvious for the ruff which GIB opponents gave to you.

[pigpenz]

Stephen Tu, on 2012-April-22, 13:08, said:

I don't think I would allow 2 cd hearts by South. South should be adverse to doubling with doubleton heart. Do we disallow 5 heart by south? What does he do with say xx AQxxx AKQ KQx?

Also, instead of looking at percentage of what contract makes, it's more accurate to simply tally (score in 4h) vs. (score in 3s) for each deal, MP & IMP. Especially at IMPs, where going down in 4h is a large IMP gain vs. letting 3s doubled make. It wouldn't be surprising to me if it turned out leaving it in is winning at MP but losing at IMP.

Running with more conservative wests who might raise to only 3 sp with 4 (probably a mistake, but possible) would also be interesting. I'll probably run my own sims later tonight or tomorrow when I get access to my computer with sim tools on it, see how it looks vs. yours. I use dealer + GIB instead of dealmaster.

I tightened it up some more and gave south hand constraints of 3-5♥
3♠ 40%
4♥ 21%
4♦ 13%

[johnu]

cloa513, on 2012-April-22, 15:20, said:

You can't blame GIB for not taking the contract down- where else but clubs can partner hold much strength- KCthen JC was obvious for the ruff which GIB opponents gave to you.

After 3 rounds of clubs, ruffing the 3rd round, and a diamond trick, what other tricks are you expecting to take on defense?

[cloa513]

johnu, on 2012-April-22, 23:58, said:

After 3 rounds of clubs, ruffing the 3rd round, and a diamond trick, what other tricks are you expecting to take on defense?

You forgot that GIB had already given him a diamond trick and heart trick so 2 top clubs tricks plus a ruff come rolling in.