[han]

Cyberyety, that is to be expected when you think about it. Say for simplicity that the number of tricks is always 8 or 9 tricks. Then you will make 3NT half the time when the average number of tricks is 8.5.

Of course that is a simplification, but it gives you a good idea for discrete datasets like this.

[han]

sfi, on 2012-May-07, 01:24, said:

I recently read somewhere that the 4333 pattern is actually a small plus for NT, according to simulations. The reason given is that it doesn't have the structural weakness of a doubleton, which means it's less likely that the opponents can run a suit.

Of course I can't remember the source, but it was recent. Hopefully someone else has seen it and knows where it's from.

I read this on the site of Thomas Andrews, apparently there was a rpg discussion about it. From what I remember Thomas Andrews discarded it as a double dummy anomaly.

[sfi]

han, on 2012-May-07, 11:39, said:

I read this on the site of Thomas Andrews, apparently there was a rpg discussion about it. From what I remember Thomas Andrews discarded it as a double dummy anomaly.

Thanks for the reference. It certainly seems that any advantage was theoretical rather than of practical use.

[Cyberyeti]

han, on 2012-May-07, 05:13, said:

Cyberyety, that is to be expected when you think about it. Say for simplicity that the number of tricks is always 8 or 9 tricks. Then you will make 3NT half the time when the average number of tricks is 8.5.

Of course that is a simplification, but it gives you a good idea for discrete datasets like this.

This is true, hadn't thought about it in that way. It means you can get some bizarre results potentially (on hands where opps could cash a lot of tricks, say a 3N with a stop of x opposite Kx) where the average number of tricks is well below 8, but game is still 50:50.

This says to me that average number of tricks is not what you really want to look at in judging contracts.

[Antrax]

Thanks again, I have to say that the simulation results are both surprising and enlightening.

[daveharty]

I finally downgraded a hand out of our 1NT range: ♠KJ8 ♥K97 ♦Q864 ♣KQJ. First time ever I think.

[diana_eva]

daveharty, on 2012-May-18, 06:46, said:

I finally downgraded a hand out of our 1NT range: ♠KJ8 ♥K97 ♦Q864 ♣KQJ. First time ever I think.

Did this have a happy ending?

[daveharty]

diana_eva, on 2012-May-18, 12:15, said:

Did this have a happy ending?

Sort of, although I can't claim my hand evaluation was the reason; we had an accident and just got lucky:

---

My partner thought we were playing XYZ. +130 was a pretty good score because 3NT fails on a (relatively) normal heart lead.

[Statto]

daveharty, on 2012-May-18, 06:46, said:

I finally downgraded a hand out of our 1NT range: ♠KJ8 ♥K97 ♦Q864 ♣KQJ. First time ever I think.

The ♣KQJ tight are def a negative, but ♠8 with KJ, ♥97 with K, ♦8 with Qxx are reasons to think twice.

Interesting thread and thanks Han for the research; there isn't that much between the 2 hands in the OP (½ HCP it seems).

[SteveMoe]

In spite of the nice intermediates, the 2nd hand counts to 8 losers and has no source of tricks if partner wants to play NT. The first counts to 6.5 losers, adjusting for the excess of top honors over Quacks. I would always bid the first as full value. 7 controls (21 control equivalent HCP) suggeest this hand is stronger than a mere 15. (Deck has 40 HCP. Max Hand has 37 HCP. Deck has 12 Control Points [A=2, K=1]. Ratio HCP to Cntl Points = ~3 to 3.3)

Bergen offers a good HCP adjustment: A: 4.5 K: 3, Q 1.5 J 0.75 10: 0.25