[MrAce]

---

Scoring : Imps

Do you balance with that hand ?

[rduran1216]

i think if I dbl partner is bidding 2S for a 4-3 fit and I'd rather take my chances setting this two tricks at these colors.

[mtvesuvius]

No

[psyck]

As pd did not overcall spades, either immediately or after both opps limited hand, it would be more natural to balance with 2N than with X, if choosing to balance.

[jukmoi]

It is close but I would not. There is no guaranty of a decent fit or finding the right part score. 2NT could work very badly if partner is 4423. And after double he would often bid ♠ when 3minor is right.

[MrAce]

rduran1216, on 2010-December-14, 00:50, said:

i think if I dbl partner is bidding 2S for a 4-3 fit and I'd rather take my chances setting this two tricks at these colors.

Pd won't bid 2♠ unless it is 4+, it is common agreement among good players to balance 2♥ with 2♠ with 4 and double with 3♠ to avoid to play 3-3 fit. With less than 3 ♠ 2 NT is the bid. I admit it is designed for and works better when balancer had a chance but failed to bid 1♠ earlier like;

---

We use it almost all 2♥ balances though.

[hotShot]

No, if partner had something, he would have acted over 1♥ and it is likely that ♥ is his best suit. I won't dbl 2♥ into game .....

[655321]

I would double, partner will keep in mind that I didn't double 1NT when deciding whether to pass this for penalties.

rduran1216, on 2010-December-14, 00:50, said:

i think if I dbl partner is bidding 2S for a 4-3 fit and I'd rather take my chances setting this two tricks at these colors.

IMPs is not matchpoints, there is nothing magical about 200 at IMPs, if 2♥ is going 2 down (not so likely) partner will be delighted to pass the double and collect 500, and the reason for doubling is to try to turn a minus score into a plus score.

[rduran1216]

MrAce, on 2010-December-14, 02:16, said:

Pd won't bid 2♠ unless it is 4+, it is common agreement among good players to balance 2♥ with 2♠ with 4 and double with 3♠ to avoid to play 3-3 fit. With less than 3 ♠ 2 NT is the bid. I admit it is designed for and works better when balancer had a chance but failed to bid 1♠ earlier like;

---

We use it almost all 2♥ balances though.

I understand, thats why I'm not liking the 4-3 fit. With 5 spades and this color and the 11ish points he has, he'd bid 2S directly over 2H with 5. This is why I pass now, cause if I double he's 4432 and we're missing a chance to put 200 on our side.

just noticed this was IMPS, but I dont think it matters, plus score is plus score.

[dake50]

MP automatic reopen X. Likely S:3-5 as no 1S to 1H.
Likely bonanza if I double? NO!
3m making? This is close and it's a 5-6 IMP decision.
I want to tell partner much better hand
when I force a borderline play on him.

Pass.

[pooltuna]

MrAce, on 2010-December-13, 23:24, said:

---

Scoring : Imps

Do you balance with that hand ?

I would not. You could possibly push opps into a making V game.

[Phil]

655321, on 2010-December-14, 02:25, said:

I would double, partner will keep in mind that I didn't double 1NT when deciding whether to pass this for penalties.

Preparing the post-mortem in advance I see

Agree, and would double now.

[mikeh]

Been a quiet day: I was scheduled to be in trial but the parties settled:)

Anyway my instinct had been to pass, and I was troubled by the strong preference for taking action here, so I ran a simulation.

The constraints were LHO 12-15 hcp, with 6-7 hearts, and no 4 card minor, with RHO 5-9, fewer than 4 spades and at most 2 hearts and no 7 card minor.

I generated 175 hands and eliminated those on which I thought that partner had a reasonably clear non-pass over 1♥.

These constraints are imperfect for several reasons. Some openers might well rebid hearts with a weakish 6-4 heart/minor, and some responders might hold a sub-minimum 2♥ raise or a 7 card minor willing to play 2♥. And my choice of partner's actions will not meet with unanimous approval...such would nver happen amongst any group of players, let alone those as disparate in their views as BBF posters


And the analysis of outcomes was double dummy with all of the flaws that entails.

Of the 114 hands that survived the weeding process, I then had to choose what action partner would take over a hypothetical double. I made him pull unless he had what looked like 3 trump tricks or more....one hand saw him with AKQ106 in hearts.....2♥ made on that one!

I have him pull to spades with 4+ spades....he didn't ever have 4 spades and a 6 card minor and only a couple of times did he have 4 spades and 5 clubs....never 4 spades and 5 diamonds....I made him bid 2♠ on the black hands...the spades were chunky.

The result of all of this, flawed tho it may be, was interesting.

Partner pulls to 2♠ more than half the time: 68 out of 114....but 2♠ fails 43 times or 63% of the time.

Now, most of the time it fails while 2♥ makes and at imps this is usually no big deal...often a push in fact. When it makes, sometimes 2♥ fails, but on many occasions, both make for a useful pickup.

Partner pulls, usually but not always via 2N, to a minor far less often. We would reach 3♣ (by partner bidding it) 10 times, of which we fail 7 times, and 3♦ 17 times, of which we fail 12 times or 70%.

All of this suggests that doubling is the right action....while I didn't specifically test for this, my impression from reviewing the hands is that 2N commits to 3minor far too often...many of the hands making 2♠ failed in 3minor, and virtually none of the hands failing in 2♠ made 3minor.

However it seemed to me that doubling got partner passing too often. I hate doubling partscores into game at imps and strained to find a reason to pull....as I said, one passing hand was on AKQ106 of trump...with a side K...and at least double dummy, 2♥ was cold.

On that approach, we doubled a making 2♥ into game 7 times while beating it, usually 1 trick, 12 times. Assuming our choices were to collect 100/go -110 or collect 200/-670, the math was clear...double was a high risk. Over my 114 hands, doubling cost 77 imps for a gain of 36.

OTOH, it seems probable that doubling picked up enough imps on the making partials to which it gave rise to offset this.

Thus, my simulation persuaded me that in a long match, I double and in a short match I pass....in the long match I hope to recover from the -670s but in the short match, the loss of 11 imps on about 6% of the hands makes me too nervous.

The simulation did mean that I am convinced that balancing 2N for the minors is wrong. Even on the hands where partner chooses a minor over the double, 3minor is a losing option....it becomes overwhelmingly so if we force partner to bid a minor....in my simulations, for example, we always played diamonds with 3-3 minors over there....if we bid 2N, we play clubs...and that is usually very bad.

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2010-December-14, 13:41, said:

Been a quiet day: I was scheduled to be in trial but the parties settled:)

Anyway my instinct had been to pass, and I was troubled by the strong preference for taking action here, so I ran a simulation.......

How do u run simulations ? Can u suggest me a software for this ? Easy to get ? ( money is not big deal) Most importantly, can u help me to learn how to run statistics on it ?

[wyman]

MrAce, on 2010-December-14, 15:08, said:

How do u run simulations ? Can u suggest me a software for this ? Easy to get ? ( money is not big deal) Most importantly, can u help me to learn how to run statistics on it ?

A thread to this end would be very cool and should probably be stickied, though admittedly I've never searched for one, so one may exist.

[mikeh]

I use Dealmaster Pro: I bought it from the developer at a tournament in Las Vegas more than 10 years ago...I gather it has been upgraded but I still use the version I bought. It includes deep finesse as the double dummy analyser. it is easy to use. I suspect the more recent versions are even better. Google Dealmaster Pro and you'll useful links....I'm pretty sure you can buy it online.

It's great for forming a partnership, especially where one or both partners are going to be using methods they may not have played before.

Edit: having visited the dealmaster website, I learned that I could upgrade my version 2.2 to version 6 free of charge and have done so....not sure if the new features will be useful, but it's a nice touch when the developer offers free upgrades...and it only took 5 minutes or so.

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2010-December-14, 16:24, said:

I use Dealmaster Pro: I bought it from the developer at a tournament in Las Vegas more than 10 years ago...I gather it has been upgraded but I still use the version I bought. It includes deep finesse as the double dummy analyser. it is easy to use. I suspect the more recent versions are even better. Google Dealmaster Pro and you'll useful links....I'm pretty sure you can buy it online.

It's great for forming a partnership, especially where one or both partners are going to be using methods they may not have played before.

Edit: having visited the dealmaster website, I learned that I could upgrade my version 2.2 to version 6 free of charge and have done so....not sure if the new features will be useful, but it's a nice touch when the developer offers free upgrades...and it only took 5 minutes or so.

Dealmaster Pro. Ok thanks. I may ask you questions after i get it if u don't mind.

[han]

If you are good with computers you might like Thomas Andrews' Deal. This is a free download and more flexible than Dealmaster Pro, and I think it is also faster. However, if you have no experience with programming languages than you will probably prefer Dealmaster Pro.

The work mikeh had to do shows some of the difficulties of simulations. It sounds like he was checking all the hands manually to see if partner's pass was reasonable, and this takes quite a bit of time. You could use specifications instead, but then you'd have to use a lot of specifications.


Let me address mikeh's specifications for a bit.

Those for LHO strike me as too conservative. Holding a 6- or 7-card minor, I think most opponents will open 1H with 11 HCP, and many people will jump to 3H on many 15-counts. By giving LHO the heavy 12-15 HCP, we make acting less attractive. The problem that LHO might have a 4-card minor is difficult to deal with, as one would need to know the preferences of these opponents. I'd probably go with the same specifications as mikeh there, although you could argue that you might allow 11-13 HCP with 6-4 (especially when the heart suit is strong) but not 14-15 HCP with 6-4.

If you want to be more precise about RHO you could allow RHO to hold 3 hearts when minimal, and to disallow a 7-card minor or a strong 6-card minor. I would also disallow partner to hold 5 spades, partner will hold some values so I think that white against red holding a 5-card spade suit is pretty much impossible for my partner. Doing so would mean you have to throw away fewer hands afterwards.

No specification will be perfect, and usually you will just do something simple to get a rough idea. The fact that you are using double dummy results is often a bigger factor than the fact that the specifications are not perfect.

When you do a simulation and post about it here, please state your specificiations as mikeh did here.