[ArtK78]

 nige1, on 2012-May-09, 13:32, said:

ArtK78 believes that we and those whom we quote are are liars. On that assumption, his argument is reasonable. I, of course, remain unpersuaded. Some additional factors: 15-17 HCP is already quite a wide range but If you assume that partner upgrades 14-HCP hands then, as Nigel-K says, you can assume that he downgrades 18-HCP hands. Also, some 23 HCP games are successful. (Although. you are more likely to make a low-HCP game, the more even the split of HCP between the two hands).

"Liars" is a strong term. I choose not to take it as gospel that the standard for bidding game has now been reduced to 24 HCP with a balanced hand facing a balanced hand.

[kenrexford]

While driving, I thought about this problem more generally. The relatively ordinary occurrence is an unbalanced major two-suiter (4441, 4414, 4405, 4450, 4351, 3451, 4315, 3451, etc) with not quite enough to invite 3NT but enough to invite a major game if a major fit is found. This hand is close to that description.

Another common theme, obviously, to these hand types is that the minor suit might also be a good strain (maybe better than notrump).

I also thought about how I like 1NT-2C-2D-2S as an unbalanced spaade GT and NF (five spades).

I now wonder if a better meaning for that last sequence might be the former instance. That would allow Opener to be cautious and might enable a stop in a minor. For instance, Opener with 16 HCP would bid only 2NT (and probably that with 17 too). But Opener might also bid 3C as pass-or-correct. 2NT by Responder instead would promise a true invite. Responder could also perhaps bid 2S and then insist on the minor.

If this sequence promised four spades (a possible variant), Opener might even try a 3-piece pass.

Alternatively, 2NT could be the unbalanced light hand (Opener passes or bids 3C as choice mostly), with 2S either a true invite or an unbalanced invite with five spades. In the latter, Opener would have some unwinding, as would Responder, but my thoughts are that this could be worked out if 2S is forcing. Loss of ability to stop in 2S, but more covered.

[mikeh]

 nige1, on 2012-May-09, 13:32, said:

ArtK78 believes that we and those whom we quote are are liars. On that assumption, his argument is reasonable. I, of course, remain unpersuaded. Some additional factors: 15-17 HCP is already quite a wide range but If you assume that partner upgrades 14-HCP hands then, as Nigel-K says, you can assume that he downgrades 18-HCP hands. Also, some 23 HCP games are successful. (Although. you are more likely to make a low-HCP game, the more even the split of HCP between the two hands).

quit being a twit....who called you, or anyone else on this thread, a liar?

Art and I and others think you are mistaken in your opinion on this hand. The fact that a balanced 24 count, between the two hands, will often make 3N isn't the same as saying that we should invite with what most seem to see as a bad 8 opposite a 15-17 1N, even assuming partner never upgrades into or out of range (and surely every good player knows how to do that?).

You are wrong: I have read and considered your arguments and the sources you cite, and have decided that, as far as I am concerned, your conclusion is incorrect. But I see no reason to infer that you don't mistakenly think otherwise.

[nige1]

 mikeh, on 2012-May-09, 16:00, said:

quit being a twit....who called you, or anyone else on this thread, a liar?
Art and I and others think you are mistaken in your opinion on this hand. The fact that a balanced 24 count, between the two hands, will often make 3N isn't the same as saying that we should invite with what most seem to see as a bad 8 opposite a 15-17 1N, even assuming partner never upgrades into or out of range (and surely every good player knows how to do that?).
You are wrong: I have read and considered your arguments and the sources you cite, and have decided that, as far as I am concerned, your conclusion is incorrect. But I see no reason to infer that you don't mistakenly think otherwise.

If you downgrade poor 15-HCP hands and upgrade about the same number of good 14 HCP hands, then I agree this should not affect the reults much.
I accept that Artk7 doesn't accuse me of deliberate lies; but he does write that he doubts that I (and the people I quote) are telling the truth. As an ordinary player I feel that I'm entitled to my views but I don't expect others to agree with all of my arguments or conclusions. The truth of quoted statements of fact by Bluecalm and Thomas Andrews deserve more respect. Of marginal relevance to this thread is an amazing deal discovered by John Beasely and Thomas Andrews, where 3N makes with any of the four players declarer, on any lead, and against any defence.

Now mikeh calls me a twit.
IMO resort to invective weakens argument

[Statto]

 kenrexford, on 2012-May-09, 15:56, said:

While driving, I thought about this problem more generally. The relatively ordinary occurrence is an unbalanced major two-suiter (4441, 4414, 4405, 4450, 4351, 3451, 4315, 3451, etc) with not quite enough to invite 3NT but enough to invite a major game if a major fit is found. This hand is close to that description.

 TimG, on 2012-May-03, 10:28, said:

I did some simulating with this sort of thing a few years ago.

I did some analysis recently, albeit for 10-11 HCP hands with a 4 card major, 4432, opposite a weak NT, and concluded that 3NT was often makeable, whereas 4M with a 4-4 fit generally wasn't. Which is why I'm not bothering to find a major fit here.

[blackshoe]

 nige1, on 2012-May-09, 16:24, said:

IMO resort to invective weakens argument

Then why did you accuse him of calling you a liar?

[BumJr]

The Kaplan-Rubens (KnR) evaluator and Kleinman point count (http://www.jeff-gold...J8+J965+Q974+82) agree that this is a good hand:

KnR considers it a good 6 -- (6.70).

Kleinman considers it a good 7 (7+).

It is simply not a good 8.

[Statto]

 BumJr, on 2012-May-09, 22:28, said:

KnR considers it a good 6 -- (6.70).

Kleinman considers it a good 7 (7+).

It is simply not a good 8.

Those evaluation methods are geared towards play in a suit contract, so I don't think applicable here. That is, if you're only considering playing in NT.

[BumJr]

 Statto, on 2012-May-09, 22:39, said:

Those evaluation methods are geared towards play in a suit contract, so I don't think applicable here. That is, if you're only considering playing in NT.

I am not sure where you are getting your information. Kleinman used Bennion's Little Jack Points which was specifically generated using two balanced hands intent on bidding 3NT. Kleinman modified it slightly to reflect his judgement (similar to the kind of judgement that Kaplan used in the CCCC count, with respect to honors working together in long suits plus some value for 10s and 10/9 combinations). Kleinman refers to his count in his book, "The No Trump Zone."

The Vugraph commentators use the KnR count all of the time when trying to make the point that a hand is or is not worth an upgrade/downgrade to a 1NT opener. If KnR is good enough to decide whether or not a hand is "worth" 15-17 HCP (equivalent), then it should be good enough to decide if the hand is really worth "8 HCP" in reply to 1NT.

[Cthulhu D]

 BumJr, on 2012-May-09, 22:56, said:

The Vugraph commentators use the KnR count all of the time when trying to make the point that a hand is or is not worth an upgrade/downgrade to a 1NT opener. If KnR is good enough to decide whether or not a hand is "worth" 15-17 HCP (equivalent), then it should be good enough to decide if the hand is really worth "8 HCP" in reply to 1NT.

Jeff Goldsmith (who wrote the tool natch), has remarked in his puzzle serious that the adjustments KnR makes to a hand are not net netural. Using KnR to evaluate hands and then comparing to HCP is not a good plan.

[the hog]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-10, 02:50, said:

Jeff Goldsmith (who wrote the tool natch), has remarked in his puzzle serious that the adjustments KnR makes to a hand are not net netural. Using KnR to evaluate hands and then comparing to HCP is not a good plan.

What is a "tool natch" and a "puzzle serious"?

[Cthulhu D]

 the hog, on 2012-May-10, 05:10, said:

What is a "tool natch" and a "puzzle serious"?

Whoops, I meant 'puzzle series' and tool naturally!

[nige1]

 bluecalm, on 2012-May-03, 10:37, said:

Probably most people who insta pass here don't play classical 15-17 1NT but popular 14+-17 one which is considerably weakier on average thus makes passing more attractive option.
This is very good 8. It makes 3NT opposite 16-17 hcp balanced without 5M 53% of the time dd which translates to probably about 58-60% in practice

Please would bluecalm or somebody else help me. A few years ago, I wrote a couple of dealer scripts but I don't know how to include a double-dummy analysis. I don't have GIB but I believe there is some way of using another DD solver. My initial crude attempt below fails

/****** ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* *******
    	Dealer script: 8never.ds: 10 May 2012: Nigel Guthrie.
    	North has a specific 8-count.
    	South has a 15-17 notrump opener.
    	Is discretion the better part of valour?
    	For Dealer by Hans van Staveren & Henk Uijterwaal
    	[url="http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/dealer/dealer.php"]http://www.bridgebas...aler/dealer.php[/url]
******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******/
produce 100
predeal  north SAJ8, HJ965, DQ974, C82
condition shape (south, any 4333 + any 4432 + any 5332) and 
    hcp (south) > 14 and hcp (south) < 18
action frequency "Tricks: " (tricks (south, notrump), 0, 13)
# End of Dealer script 8never.

[P_Marlowe]

Stayman + invite.

[jdeegan]

El Paso, no problemo. True you might have a combined 25 HCP, BUT the frequency of 15, 16 and 17 HCP hands for partner isn't 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. The probability of the 17 HCP hand is LESS than 1/3, and you generally need the 17 HCP hand just to have a reasonable play for 3NT, and you are not even vul. You have imo an average eight count with no obvious source of tricks.

By the way, let me pile on a bit in my disdain for KnR. I am sure it means something in some bidding context, but I don't know what that might be. Everyone knows that the Milton Work count is defective in that it undervalues aces, overvalues jacks and doesn't properly account for the power of high card combinations. There are maybe four or five legitimate ways to evaluate a bridge hand in the context of an auction. I don't see how KnR fits in, plus I don't carry a computer to the card table.

[bluecalm]

Quote

In general I try to avoid inviting. The invite gives information to the opposition and gets us to silly contracts like 2NT and 3♥.

I concede that it might be the way to go. I am still not convinced somehow, mainly because if there is an edge in this approach it's much smaller than what you get if you just land in the same contract than other table(s). With perfect players though I think the chances are that you are right. I wait for the day when computers could play at strong human level so we can just feed million hands like that to them and see if pass or 2C is better here.

[Statto]

 jdeegan, on 2012-May-12, 08:59, said:

By the way, let me pile on a bit in my disdain for KnR. I am sure it means something in some bidding context, but I don't know what that might be. Everyone knows that the Milton Work count is defective in that it undervalues aces, overvalues jacks and doesn't properly account for the power of high card combinations.

KnR works better for unbalanced hands where you end up playing in a suit contract, scoring on a par with Zar points. If both hands are fairly balanced and you play in NT, Milton Work is actually more effective than KnR, and probably doesn't undervalue Aces much if at all, though does undervalue well placed 10s and 9s.

[nige1]

I still can't simulate the actual hand using DEALER because I can't get the tricks function to work; so I downloaded and ran
Richard Pavlicek's fantastic deal-finder program and database of over two million deals with double-dummy analysis for all denominations and declarers
to "simulate" a flat 8 HCP with an ace, a queen and two knaves opposite a flat 15-17 HCP.

123 SP>14 & SP<18 & SF<3 & NP=8 & NA=1 & NQ=1 & NJ=2 & NF<3 & SM>8 # Rotate 2M+ deals & count 3NT makes 

Disappointingly for me, this "simulation" overwhelmingly confirms the majority viewpoint

• 15 HCP: 1446 deals of which 299 make 3N
• 16 HCP: 1161 deals of which 408 make 3N
• 17 HCP: 826 deals of which 440 make 3N
• 15-17 HCP: 3433 deals of which 1147 make 3N

[Statto]

 nige1, on 2012-May-15, 20:16, said:

Disappointingly for me, this "simulation" overwhelmingly confirmed the majority viewpoint

Did you specify 2 nines and 2 eights (but no tens) in the simulation? It may make a difference. Thanks for the link

[nige1]

 Statto, on 2012-May-15, 20:41, said:

Did you specify 2 nines and 2 eights (but no tens) in the simulation? It may make a difference. Thanks for the link

66 deals satisfy the criteria, South can make 3N in 24 of those cases

 123 SP>14 & SP<18 & SF<3 & NP=8 & NA=1 & NQ=1 & NJ=2 & NT=0 & N9=2 & N8 =2 &NF < 3 & SM>8 # Pip restrictions.

Each restriction on the North hand drastically reduces the number of deals selected by DEAL-FINDER form its pre-analysed database.
DEALER suffers less from this problem because it takes the designated North cards out of the deck, before pseudo-randomly dealing the remaining cards.