[sfi]

Nabooba, on 2017-April-03, 22:59, said:

I did say "dd".

Fair enough.

[RedSpawn]

sfi, on 2017-April-03, 20:02, said:

Sorry, I forgot we were still in fantasyland. Back in the real world North makes 3NT if allowed to play it there.

Sfi, you misread Nabooba's very short posting. You and you alone did not see the words dd or double dummy and you rushed to judgment. I explained to her where I got the "cold 3NT" phrasing from.

This happened in the real world and you respond "fair enough" and snidely imply my fantasyland views and postings influenced you to commit this interpretation error.

How classy of you. Own the error while deflecting the blame to me. I almost fell for your professional hit job, but I am not a new jack, so I am not new to the various cocktails of poisoned darts people use. Do you blamestorm like this at the bridge table?

Based on my board, East had enough values to overcall 3NT with 4 ♠ since he had a decent 8 card suit with 3 of 5 honors and outside suit controls. So if East is a sane, lucid and competent player, he would never ever allow North to play a cheap 3NT contract on his watch.

[RedSpawn]

sfi, on 2017-April-03, 20:10, said:

And that shows you don't understand how bidding works. Nobody with any experience would jump to 4H after a 3D opening - it's that simple.

Opening 4H is different, which is clear to almost everyone here.

And that shows me you don't know how to read Nabooba's or my postings completely and accurately. It's that simple.

You missed her double dummy reference about a cold 3NT contract and you missed my "entering the bridge matrix" and "hardball" reference when describing my board. That is two different interpretation errors you have committed so far.

In the auction description of my board, I was describing guerrilla, take-no-prisoner players who don't follow rules since that is an affront to their renegade sensibilities. They don't care about rules like "don't preempt with a preempt" nor do they care about hand evaluation guidelines that address how to handle dubious honors trapped in doubletons or poor suit quality concerns. And they really don't care about passé concepts like quick tricks requirements for a 1 level opening bid. They have bigger fish to fry and bolder moves to make in the modern bridge era.

I am not a renegade bidder so I wouldn't bid like they do...sigh.

[RedSpawn]

.

[RedSpawn]

Nabooba, on 2017-April-03, 22:59, said:

I did say "dd".

And I said North would never make a cold 3NT because East would not allow that contract to be played; East would overcall 4 ♠ since he had both good HCP and distributional values. Stop picking up part of my sentences with ellipses and changing the context and intended meaning please. Thanks.

[JonnyQuest]

sfi, on 2017-April-03, 20:04, said:

Because, well, math.

Now stop that. You can't bring math into the conversation. That's just unfair! Next you'll trot out logic.

[For clueless readers, the above is called sarcasm]

[Vampyr]

RedSpawn, you are talking about randoms on BBO, right? There are no lessons to be learned from them.

Anyway now that you have changed the situation from a 4♥ opening to a 4♥ overcall over a 3♦ opening you will not find any disagreement so you might as well stop.

[JonnyQuest]

Oh my!!!

Meckstroth has weighed in: Meckstroth votes for 4H

But what does he know?!

[RedSpawn]

Vampyr, on 2017-April-03, 15:25, said:

Well, this hand

9♠, T98765432♥, Q3♦, 9♣

is no more or less improbable than any other hand, but anyway there is no reason to suspect that the other hands will have unusual distribution. You have been told this already.

Should I have used the term expected frequency?

The following mathematical tables may/can/are used to determine the percentages of various distribution patterns, both for hand patterns and suit patterns. The numbers are expressed in percentage of hands. The percentage expectation of a particular pattern with the suits identified is expressed in the last column

Probable Percentage Frequency of Distribution Patterns

Pattern Total Specific
4-4-3-2 21.5512 1.796
4-3-3-3 10.5361 2.634
4-4-4-1 2.9932 0.748

5-3-3-2 15.5168 1.293
5-4-3-2 12.9307 0.539
5-4-2-2 10.5797 0.882
5-5-2-1 3.1739 0.264
5-4-4-0 1.2433 0.104
5-5-3-0 0.8952 0.075

6-3-2-2 5.6425 0.470
6-4-2-1 4.7021 0.196
6-3-3-1 3.4482 0.287
6-4-3-0 1.3262 0.055
6-5-1-1 0.7053 0.059
6-5-2-0 0.6511 0.027
6-6-1-0 0.0723 0.006

7-3-2-1 1.8808 0.078
7-2-2-2 0.5129 0.128
7-4-1-1 0.3918 0.033
7-4-2-0 0.3617 0.015
7-3-3-0 0.2652 0.022
7-5-1-0 0.1085 0.005
7-6-0-0 0.0056 0.0005

8-2-2-1 0.1924 0.016
8-3-1-1 0.1176 0.010
8-3-2-0 0.1085 0.005
8-4-1-0 0.052 0.002
8-5-0-0 0.0031 0.0003

9-2-1-1 0.0178 0.001
9-3-1-0 0.0100 0.0004
9-2-2-0 0.0082 0.0007
9-4-0-0 0.0010 0.00008

10-2-1-0 0.0011 0.00004
10-1-1-1 0.0004 0.0001
10-3-0-0 0.00015 0.00001

11-1-1-0 0.00002 0.000002
11-2-0-0 0.00001 0.000001

12-1-0-0 0.0000003 0.00000003
13-0-0-0 0.0000000006 0.0000000002

RedSpawn asked what is the probability of getting the following hand. Vampyr said and I quote, "Well, this hand [9♠, T98765432♥, Q3♦, 9♣] is no more or less improbable than any other hand."

I see ....each hand is its own unique occurrence out of the total bridge population. The total number of possible Bridge hands is 635,013,559,600 so that hand is 1/635,013,559,600 combinations. . . .that is slick because that is not what I really meant.

I should have said, "What is the expected frequency for a 9-2-1-1 shape hand". That is a more pointed and exacting question which still involves math but stops the unnecessary choreography we are performing over semantics.

As can be seen in the table above the expected frequency of getting a 9-2-1-1 hand pattern is .001% of total hand patterns available. Just for fun, the expected frequency of getting a 13-0-0-0 is 0.0000000002% of total hand patterns available. Also, the table supports the understanding that 4-3-3-3 and 4-4-3-2 are the most frequently occurring hand patterns in the total # of bridge hands available.

Therefore, each hand pattern has different expected frequencies because the # of hand patterns available to fit the requested hand pattern criteria decreases as the suit in question gets longer.

Math! Go figure. We have distilled this discussion to semantics -- "expected frequency" versus "probability"

For your reading pleasure, I have also included a similar table discussing mathematical expected frequencies of hand patterns.

Hand Patterns Frequencies

[RedSpawn]

JonnyQuest, on 2017-April-04, 07:31, said:

Now stop that. You can't bring math into the conversation. That's just unfair! Next you'll trot out logic.

[For clueless readers, the above is called sarcasm]

Please see table in post #89 regarding the question I asked Vampyr about the probability of receiving the 9-2-1-1 hand in question.

I see now that a better phrasing should have been expected frequency.

As can be seen in the table above the expected frequency of getting a 9-2-1-1 hand pattern is .001% of total hand patterns available. Just for fun, the expected frequency of getting a 12-1-0-0 hand pattern is .00000003%. The expected frequency of getting a 13-0-0-0 is 0.0000000002% of total hand patterns.

Also the total expected frequency of getting any 9 card suited hand is at a remote .037% which is clearly less frequent than shorter hand patterns. For example, the expected frequency of getting any 4 card suit pattern is 35.08% or any 5 card suit is 44.34%. So obviously the expected frequency of getting any a 9 card suit is exponentially smaller than the "normal" hands we expect to see and that is what I was trying to proffer.

Each hand shape will not have the same expected frequency since the # of available hands to fit said pattern is not the same.

And one last note for the "clueless readers" about sarcasm (throwing poisoned dart back at you JonnyQuest). . . . . .

So now we are reduced to arguing over the term probability versus expected frequency, how quaint. Next thing you know we will have a choreographed dance regarding permutations and combinations. They are different but this hair splitting is just. . . wow

[eagles123]

PhilG was a much more enjoyable troll than this guy

[RedSpawn]

eagles123, on 2017-April-04, 09:36, said:

PhilG was a much more enjoyable troll than this guy

This is coming from the same troll that intially threw around his and my BBO MyHand Stats as a poisoned dart and exited to the nearest door.

How old are you? . . . . .

Wait a minute, never mind. I see the photo on BBO. I completely understand now.

The commentary, oneupsmanship, and low-blows all make sense for your age range.

[RedSpawn]

Vampyr, on 2017-April-04, 07:40, said:

RedSpawn, you are talking about randoms on BBO, right? There are no lessons to be learned from them.

Anyway now that you have changed the situation from a 4♥ opening to a 4♥ overcall over a 3♦ opening you will not find any disagreement so you might as well stop.

Please see post #73 and #75 where I clearly explain the 4♥ overcall versus 4♥ opening.

You are skim reading and I am not about to respond to folks who misquote me through abuse of ellipses. I am also not gonna respond to folks who misquote Benito and leave out so much compelling information (through ellipsis) that even my own jaw dropped when I went to Google for the entire quote.

One should not use ellipsis to take out important information and markedly change context.

Also, I am not going to respond to folks who make an interpretation error of another user's comment (not mine) and then try to slickly blame me for their own interpretation error. That level of maturity needs to be questioned.

Sheesh!

[MrAce]

I made a poll at BW for this hand.
To be honest I expected a lot of pass vote from amateurs and NO pass vote from good players. I was wrong and there are 2 good players who passed.
Still the overwhelming majority of experts there, including Meckstroth, did not pass.

http://bridgewinners...m-2-nhbyore3be/

[RedSpawn]

JonnyQuest, on 2017-April-04, 08:18, said:

Oh my!!!

Meckstroth has weighed in: Meckstroth votes for 4H

But what does he know?!

I only see the poll with the question asked by MrAce and no comments. Can you ask Meckstroth to provide a very short comment with this user ID so I can see it from my computer.

Thanks.

[neilkaz]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-04, 11:34, said:

I only see the poll with the question asked by MrAce and no comments. Can you ask Meckstroth to provide a very short comment with this user ID so I can see it from my computer.

Thanks.

http://bridgewinners...m-2-nhbyore3be/ and click on "see all public answers"

[RedSpawn]

MrAce, on 2017-April-04, 11:30, said:

I made a poll at BW for this hand.
To be honest I expected a lot of pass vote from amateurs and NO pass vote from good players. I was wrong and there are 2 good players who passed.
Still the overwhelming majority of experts there, including Meckstroth, did not pass.

http://bridgewinners...m-2-nhbyore3be/

We talked specifically about opening 4♥ from 2nd seat both teams vulnerable (not 2♥ or 3♥ so do not include those in your population).

"The majority of experts did not pass."

Does that mean they all voted 4♥, or did some experts curb back to 2♥ or 3♥?

I said PASS and am OK with my answer but let's be intellectually honest.

Opening this hand weak 2♥, weak 3♥, and weak 4♥ are not essentially the same answers and should not be lumped together as "DID NOT PASS". Risk tolerance may have caused a downgrade to safer pastures and lower bids like 2♥ or 3♥ which I could see. Most all of the poisoned dart throwers were adamantly bidding 4♥ and I could not sign onto 4♥.

Can you get Meckstroth to provide a comment because all I see is the poll question itself. I see no comments and no results.

Thanks.

[MrAce]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-04, 11:34, said:

I only see the poll with the question asked by MrAce and no comments. Can you ask Meckstroth to provide a very short comment with this user ID so I can see it from my computer.

Thanks.

I personally asked Jeff to vote.
I did not say anything about my choice if you take my word and he is not the type of person who will vote otherwise for my sake.
Jeff never writes comments on bidding polls and I will not bug him again for this silly hand.
If you want to see who voted for what, click on "see all public answers".

[RedSpawn]

MrAce, on 2017-April-04, 11:55, said:

I personally asked Jeff to vote.
I did not say anything about my choice if you take my word and he is not the type of person who will vote otherwise for my sake.
Jeff never writes comments on bidding polls and I will not bug him again for this silly hand.
If you want to see who voted for what, click on "see all public answers".

I still can't see the public comments.

No, I think I have heard enough. No comment from Jeff needed. I will take you at face value that it was done in a completely objective manner.

Did everyone vote 4♥? Or did some people (no names needed) vote 2♥ or 3♥ which, to me, is a very different animal?

63 people voted is all I can see without having signed up.

2 passed and 61 said?

Can someone please supply the vote breakdown for the bids without compromising the privacy of voters who didn't vote publicly?

I am curious.

Thanks.

[johnu]

neilkaz, on 2017-April-04, 11:37, said:

http://bridgewinners...m-2-nhbyore3be/ and click on "see all public answers"

You have to join Bridgewinners (it's free) and actually vote on the problem to see public answers. They have a waiting period to verify new users before they can comment but I assume you can vote on poll questions right away.