yunling, on 2014-August-12, 03:29, said:
I suspect your simulation is not suitable for the calculation here. When west holds 4 or 5 spades, the chance for him to continue a spade goes up. When west only holds 3 of them, in which case you really want a spade continue, he is more likely to switch to a club.
Also, have you considered the card followed by East? Maybe you should use different strategy when he follows ♠2 or ♠8.
Observations from performing the simulation. As PhantomSac noted in his first post, it is very difficult for West to find the shift to clubs at trick 2. The critical decision at the table is Will West find the right shift often enough to outweigh the gains by being able to test spades when West doesn't find the right switch. According to PhantomSac's judgment it was so. To put the null argument into figures the critical calculation was Is X(the % of club switch)* 15 >= Y(% of Spade continuation) * 7 + Z(% of heart shifts) * 3.5 ?
From the start of the simulation it was easy to see that regardless of his other 11 cards(Q of spades led J of spades assumed)
the west Jack was unlikely to find the club shift as forecast. Jack's signal from East at trick 1 was uninformative. The obvious shift suit was hearts, so East's main question was which major he wanted. When Jack East had three or four cards in spades, often with the 10, I only saw encouraging signals.
When W did shift to hearts he did not have the
♥Q, but playing for the drop in
♥ is very anti-percentage and also never worked. When W shift to clubs he always had two small in that suit.
Regardless of West's spades or East's signal, West continued spades over the 15 to 7 critical ratio so according to the critical calculation the modified mixed strategy appears to be optimal.
Despite knowing that the critical calculation had been satisfied, and PhantomSac's judgment thus proven again I continued with other calculations for the exercise. Since they were redundant to the task at hand. I see no purpose in extending the simulation to defend them.