[Cyberyeti]

MrAce, on 2011-July-28, 15:09, said:

IF you think after giving a long lecture about the percentage of ♣J, frequencies of a flat 5-6 hcp hand, asking for simulations which has to apply all the hands generated to all the different openings, overcalls and then plays and defends for you, as if you have a laptop available at the table, AND THEN using words like "At the table..Real Bridge" in same post is common sense

And this is pretty close to how a decent bridge player's brain works. I looked at my hand and went through this thought process:

1: It's a 20 count
2: It has pluses and minuses, I don't know how big it really is
3: If partner has a flat hand, how many points does he need for me to make game in NT ? I'll treat it as 25 minus that.
4: Are we likely to miss game if partner has 4 spades and 4 hearts ?

For point 3 I guessed 6-7 hence my valuation of 18.5 and did this in a time frame I could take at the table.

Thought process (snap assessments, very rough)
Most of the missing points are in the majors so start there then try diamonds.
A♥/Q♠ not good
Q♥/A♠ better, but probably no better than 50:50
3 queens chances, but again not great
♥AQ nope
♠AQ nope
Edge cases J♣ makes a big difference but only hold that 1/3 of the time, ♥J109x or similar and useful cards outside might do it.

For point 4 I answered no given the system I play

I called for simulations to see if the evaluation of 6-7 points needed for 3N was correct.

The sources of hand evaluation you used are only as good as the people who programmed the algorithms. Without knowing the code I wouldn't begin to trust them, and in a case like this I'd trust the human brain more.

I'd be very interested to see how other bridge players approach the "at the table" evaluation process (and it might be quite informative for B/Is)

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-29, 03:14, said:

The sources of hand evaluation you used are only as good as the people who programmed the algorithms. Without knowing the code I wouldn't begin to trust them, and in a case like this I'd trust the human brain more.

I'd be very interested to see how other bridge players approach the "at the table" evaluation process (and it might be quite informative for B/Is)

O.K. here is one alleged mind at work at the table:

1. 4-4-4-1 distributions are often awkward in the play, suggesting devaluation.
2. With any reasonable alternative, I want partner to think I have 2+ support for everything when I bid NT.
3. I have never understood the part of Goren evaluation where opener adds points for shortness. Side shortness with support for partner's suit is a plus, but partner's suit is not established, yet. I, instead, add for extra lengths when opening. This hand doesn't have any.

With that, I guess this is a hand I want to open 1m and make sure we get to game if partner has a legitimate 1/1 response. This leads to style issues about what minor to open, and whether 1/1/1 is forcing on a legitimate response (already debated, here).

None of the above takes very long at the table for me to select a minor suit opening and plan what to do if pard responds 1H. This evaluation process is the best I would be able to come up with at the table; and it doesn't involve a specific number (point count) at this moment.

[mikeh]

When I pick up this hand, my first thought is that I don't like strong 4441 hands.....I don't have to consciously think of this....I've played long enough to know that, apart from the couple of years when I played a strong roman component to multi, this is a tough hand-type.

I then see I have 20 hcp and the heart K, which makes me think of 2N, much as I hate 2N offshape. I also count controls....I like hands rich in controls and this one is...so much so that while I downgrade 4441 hands, and stiff honours, I still see this as 20.

Since I hate it, I quickly think of alternatives. My default opening here is 1♦ and since I am a strong believer in 1♦ on 4-4 minors, I would give thought to 1♣ only as my thinking progressed. I would start with thinking of 1♦ and then consider my next round choice assuming, as seems reasonable, that partner bids 1♥. I would briefly consider other possibilities, such as LHO bidding, cho surprising me with some other call, and all pass, but I can probably handle those developments as well after 1♦ as I can after 1♣, and some of them better (imagine 1C P P 1H...now it's tough to suggest equal minors)

After 1♥, I have a real problem. 2N is inadequate, in my view....I refuse to downgrade a hand with this many controls. 2♠ distorts the hand: it is in my view better, for bidding purposes, to agree that this shows at least 4=5....having to cater to the rare 4=1=4=4 so complicates life as to be not worth it. And to me, 1minor then 3N describes a fairly narrow hand type, which this hand doesn't remotely resemble.

And I won't ever jumpshift into 3♣....doing so effectively kisses spades goodbye...3♠ by partner is a probe for 3N, not an attempt to check back for 4 spades in my hand!

This is where my mind would turn to opening 1♣. If I were to jump into 2♠, and partner were inclined to put us into a minor contract, I'd rather (if his holdings are equivalent) that he bid clubs.

But I wouldn't like any of these options, so I would go back to what struck me when I first saw the hand: 2N. It is the least of the distortions and causes the least amount of risk for the future....note, I am NOT saying that 2N is perfect....all I am saying is that my analysis, which would take less time at the table than it takes to read this, would go in this fashion and lead to this conclusion.