rhm, on Jun 14 2008, 02:51 PM, said:
jdonn, on Jun 14 2008, 02:15 PM, said:
rhm, on Jun 14 2008, 11:42 AM, said:
Since I seem to be alone in believing that 1NT is the right opening bid and opening 1D and rebidding notrump a clear underbid, I did a simulation (1000 deals).
I specified for partner a balanced hand with exactly 10 HCP. This should be a fair test.
If you open 1NT you will play 3NT while if you open 1D and rebid 1NT you are likely to miss game.
I also specified that partner will have at most 4 cards in a major.
Result:
Double dummy 3NT would make in 592 cases and fail in 408 cases. The average number of tricks available for declarer in a notrump contract was 8.7 tricks
Since double dummy analysis clearly favors the defense the result at the table would be even more in favor of 3NT making.
Did you consider getting too high if partner has 9 or 8? Most of us believe very strongly in being quite aggressive opposite a 1NT opener regarding inviting and bidding game.
Also it's quite wrong for your simulation to include 5 cards in the minor we open, partner would certainly invite opposite a minor suit opening with 5 card support and a 10 count.
Of course I considered that.
But your argument is like staying in bed, then your chance of being overrun by a bus is minimized.
If you underbid of course your chance of going down is less likely.
WTH I didn't even make an argument! It went like this.
You: If partner has 10 you will make 3NT 6 out of 10 times, therefore you should open 1NT.
Me: The first part of what you said doesn't support the conclusion you drew, since there are other factors. For example, you didn't consider how well or badly 1NT will work when partner has amounts other than 10!
You: Something I don't understand, then admitting that if partner has 8 or 9 you will go minus 30% of the time and gain nothing the other 70%, and chalking it up to essentially 'sometimes doing what is wrong works' instead of actually factoring it into your conclusion.
This is the discussion? You claim essentially that 10 should never invite opposite a 1NT rebid, even with a fit for partner. You completely ignore that it's often right to bid 3NT with 9, yes with 9! But heck let's ignore all that and just take what you have claimed so far. We will only consider if partner has 8 9 or 10. Let's say he has 8 33% of the time, 9 35%, and 10 32% of the time that he has one of those amounts (feel free to calculate exactly but I bet that's about true when you hold 14 since just under 9 is his average, actually a bit lower since he didn't open). Let's take your assumption that 10 will bid 3NT and 8 or 9 will invite. Say if you open 1
♦ you get to 1NT.
You lose .3*.68 + .4*.32 = about 42% of the time. You gain .6*.32 = about 19%. So by your own simulations opening 1NT is horrible. But instead of acknowledging that, you say about the losses that sometimes "the under bidders will have a field day" and you use the gains to claim that "1NT is the right opening bid".
If you argue that there are tons of other factors, such as partner might have less than 8, or 1NT has preemptive effect, you are right! Which is why you can't draw any conclusions based on your first simulation alone.
And people wonder why the forum regulars and statisticians are cranky lately...
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.