mikeh, on 2021-May-12, 10:18, said:
I suggest, when carrying on a back and forth with another poster, that you pay attention to all of that poster's posts. Fixating on one early post is nuts. Perhaps the fact that I expressly stated that if I knew partner had 4+ spades, I'd double ought to have had some impact on you....but obviously it didn't. Nige's last attempt is a little more persuasive than any of yours, but his constraints are, imo, poor. Assuming that opener will have any 7 card suit is as silly as your assuming that partner always has 4 spades, plus he still...like you...pays zero attention to what the generated hands look like, and whether they all fit the auction. Nor does he consider how other players will act.
It's hard to guess how a random set of players will act. For example, on suit quality, many UK players open 3N or 4
♣ with near solid
♥, so a 4
♥ opener tends to show a weaker suit. I'm an advocate of computer-simulations because I prefer to leave such debates to others.
mikeh, on 2021-May-12, 10:18, said:
I know...it's way too much work. But that's the point, without that work, the simulation will be based on a number of hands where opener would bid 3H (or take some other call) and even if one weeded those out, we still have to contend with filtering out hands on which LHO would bid, which makes our declaring less likely. And, of course, we have to evaluate more than how many tricks our side can make. We have to look at how often partner passes a double and whether that is usually good or bad compared to our 5D result.
One of Terence Reese's mantras was "put your faith in the long suit". Here, IMO the best argument for overcalling 5
♦ is that if you double and partner has fewer than 4
♠, he might pass: and 4
♥X is likely to make. Partner is likely to hold at least 4
♠s, however, and then 4
♠ seems to have good prospects; better than 5
♦, at double-dummy, anyway.
mikeh, on 2021-May-12, 10:18, said:
We also have to consider which action leads to the best result when partner has a good hand...and some hands will seem good to partner opposite a double while others will seem good opposite 5D...and on all such good hands we have to decide which action partner will take opposite either double or 5D.And I defy anyone to do all of this work objectively, given that we know what our hand looks like.
Agree. Good luck with that.
mikeh, on 2021-May-12, 10:18, said:
Finally, of course, even if one were prepared to do the amount of work required to render a simulation even remotely useful, the reality is that someone else, working with the same hands one had generated, would filter the results differently...and be just as 'right' as one could claim to beIow,
Agree; but, in the end, we must rely on our own judgement.
mikeh, on 2021-May-12, 10:18, said:
Simulations here are of extremely limited value, and overly simplistic ones of none at all, imo.I must admit I laughed out loud when I read Nige conceding that his simulation is unrealistic but he still uses it. Not exactly a logical approach, lol.
Glad to entertain
Computer simulations seem more objective and convincing than subjective evaluations based on gut feelings. Computer simulations require realistic assumptions; about which players can argue; although. anybody is free to code their own assumptions. Also, many players regard double-dummy analysis to be a flawed method of determining probable outcomes. Nevertheless, for example, David Bird and Taf Anthias have convinced many experts to revise their leading methods with their best-selling books
- Winning Notrump Leads and
- Winning Suit Contract Leads
Help
Apologies to anybody still reading this thread