Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Parsons
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 27 28 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I expect all the 2 bidders would open it in all seats. I guess it is worth an upgrade.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would you open this hand in first seat?
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 4 bidder's hand was:
KJ975
QT872
8
J9
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner's hand was:
Q43
KJ
KQ63
A874
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the actual hand, pass was the winning bid.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the actual hand, partner had Qxx of spades and 4 made. I passed, with the idea that 4 making was improbable when we had the balance of power.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DD simulation shows that opposite the hand you describe, 3NT makes only 45% of the time.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul, I didn't mean it to apply to you…you have been quite fair in your acceptance of simulation results. Sorry, I now realize it did sound like I was applying it to you. :-(

Nevertheless, the simulation I ran was heavily biased (probabilistically, it is likely that partner has the SA but unlikely he has the DK AND I included hands that would not bid Jacoby 2NT in the result). That heavy bias must more than outweigh any claimed bias for declarer. And, because the lead of the A against a slam at matchpoints would be so heavily influenced by knowledge of the position of all 52 cards, I do find it hard to believe that it is valid to claim the DD simulation has any bias towards declarer in a slam when two aces are missing.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, thanks for noting your abstention and thanks for your comments…as you suggest, my partnership uses the “jump to 4S” to show a minimum NLTC=7.5 hand, with no extras (like a 30-point deck) given the shown shortness. And yes, you are right that North should not have had to face that decision.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul, I've heard challenges to double dummy analysis galore, and I'm not at all convinced that it is biased over single dummy analysis. Put it this way – when determining a lead in matchpoints against a slam, do you lead your lone Ace? Don't you wish you could see all the hands before choosing? So, seeing all the hands is biased against the declarer, in that case, right?

Mostly, I just hear challenges to any simulation analysis because people are really reluctant to believe that bridge analysis can be improved by computers.
June 22
David Parsons edited this comment June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The OP did not disclose South's hand and the discussion of South's hand was a distraction from the original question, which is whether my distain of “Pass” after South's 4S bid was correct. Upon getting a unanimous “Pass is correct” response, I decided to do some time consuming number crunching so as to prove that bidding on after South's 4S bid is indeed correct.

At the table my bidding on was based on the NLTC evaluation that my hand is 2.5 tricks better than an opening hand, and should explore slam even if there is wastage by my partner in diamonds (in which case my partner's hand would be downgraded to be worth 0.5 tricks worse than an opening hand). My partnership agreement is that Jacoby 2NT is not bid unless the 2NT bidder has an opening-hand-equivalent losing trick count. That might be “our adjustment” to Jacoby 2NT, as you suggested it needs adjustment Richard. Perhaps others would bid Jacoby 2NT on less.

Ultimately, I'm happy to see the computer simulation confirm our NLTC system and confirm my bid.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Someone asked me for another simulation of partner's hand, with the following constraints:

– Contains the A
– Contains the K
– Contains exactly 12 HCPs
– Contains no singleton or void

The results are that 6 makes 53% of the time, double dummy. The results include hands that would not bid 2NT (in my partnerships) because of minimum losing trick count restrictions.

This is again pretty compelling against a “Pass” in the above OP auction.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, I can also criticize partners bid (I personally would have bid 4 instead of 2NT), but I’m interested in a “better auction” starting with alternatives to 4.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So under your modified Jacoby 2NT, how would you bid the OP hand and partner's hand to the end, Richard?
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me, partner's actual hand is a minimum after adjustment for the wasted diamond honor opposite opener's diamond shortness. But I'm willing to listen – how would you bid the two hands to the end? And, would you bid the same:

– If the Q were the 6
– If the Q were 6
– If the J were the 6
– Any combination of the above

Take it as a challenge to those who criticize partner's bid.
June 19
David Parsons edited this comment June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The lead of an Ace against a slam contract is standard at matchpoints (see “Matchpoints” by Kit Woolsey).

Partner's actual hand was:

: AQT63
: Q
: KT963
: J5
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to the DD bridge simulator, the first hand in your reply, Eric, has a 97% chance of making 5 and a 40% chance of making 6. In the actual hand (which did make 6), LHO led his A (wouldn't you at matchpoints, if we don't show our hearts?), and after that the top hand has more than a 50% chance of making 6S, doesn't it?

According to the simulator, when partner has a hand with exactly 12HCPs and at least four spades (in other words a hand that would bid 4 opposite the OP), and even including hands that wouldn't bid Jacoby 2NT (like :Qxxx :QJ D:KQJx C:Jxx, where my partners would NEVER bid Jacoby 2NT…we have losing trick count requirements for Jacoby 2NT) and including hands that don't have a single keycard:

– 6 makes 61% of the time
– 5 makes 92% of the time

That's pretty compelling for a poll that has everyone (except for my NLTC-playing partner, David Libchaber) passing!
June 19
David Parsons edited this comment June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this hand, 2NT makes exactly and so does 2. At the table, 2 was bid and passed, and it wasn't a winner.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the actual hand, 4 happens to make while 5 goes down one.
June 18
David Parsons edited this comment June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 is NOT one-round forcing by a passed hand, according to BWS.
June 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 27 28 29
.

Bottom Home Top