Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: No-trump indicates stopper, but--!
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:41:49 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

jaffray@sunkist.berkeley.edu (Alan Jaffray) writes:
: >>>>>>[on AK/Jxx/AKxx/KQT9 after RHO's 1H at RED (unfavorable colours)]
:
: I also simulated this.  My assumptions were that opener's partner would
: stretch to respond with spades, but wouldn't bid on a 5134 2-count
: or the like, and that partner would stretch to balance but would
: pass with a random 2-count or a balanced 7-count (no shortness).
:
: This one really surprised me.  Double (with an intended 1NT rebid over
: 1S, or raise partner's minor to 3, or double a 2H rebid by opener)
: was a clear winner, both pass and 1NT trailing.  Pass
: leads to defending 1H much too often, and when partner can reopen
: it's difficult to get intelligent cooperation when he must be
: subminimum.  1NT was almost always inferior to double, but getting
: in the auction was usually a good thing.  Partner never had the
: values to raise to 3NT, and at 1NT it doesn't always matter if they
: run 5 hearts if we take the rest.
:
: Double worked very well, expressing values properly to get to game
: or slam when they exists, and much more flexible than 1NT for choice
: of partscores.  The dreaded 3NT off the first 5-6 hearts never came up.
:

Thank you Allen, for the simmulation.  This is indeed the only way to sort
out problems of this nature.  When us humans try to base our decisions on
our past experience, we tend to be influenced not by the mundane but by the
spectacular. Furthermore, the occasional disaster has much more influence on
out decision making than the bid success.

I am a surgeon, and the field of surgery, this phenomenon has been amply
documented.  Many of my colleagues will not preform an operation, even when
it's advantages are clearly documentd in the literature, simply because early
on in their career they had a patient who developed a severe complication.
This is often in spite of the fact that the alternative procedure carries a
much higher risk of complications.

Now if you hold a 20 HCP hand, and you bid and make a game or a slam, this is
not going to make an everlasting impression in your memory. If, on the other
hand, you ended up going down 800 on the very same hand, you and I, are likely
to remember the circumstances, and avoid the 800 at all costs. Regardless of
how much this costs us in the long run.

Having a 20 HCP hand over an opening bid is a rare occurence, and even if one
remebers the minute detail of every hand he has ever played, it is close to
impossible to draw valid conclusions, in the statistical sense,  from one's
personal experience. Perhaps the master of odds, David Desjardins, can
calculate the number of deals needed to play before one can expect to
accumulate as many as 20 hands similar to this one. Hence my plea for the
simulation, posted a couple of weeks ago.

I have to admit that before the simulation, I thought that one is more likely
to lose a few points each time one doubles, lose a few points doubling,
because of the inconvinient re-bid, but that the loss will be outweighted
by the possible gains of the vulnerable games and slams.  Now I see that
doubling is even a big winner at MP where the size of the gain or loss is
irrelevant, and only its frequency matters.

Finally, I want to comment on one of Bob's remark concerning the lack of a
promised stopper. Bob suggested that should you do that once with a good
player, he or she is unlikely to ever want to play with you again. I don't
think this is was really happens.  Suppose you play with a partner whom you
otherwise respect, and he makes a bad call, or does not follow one of your
          *******
stated agreements.  If is works, you are likely to congratulate him. If it
fails, what will usually happens is that he will say something like: "sorry
partner, I made a bad move"  and you will shrug and say "Too bad" and the
matter will be closed.  If you don't have respect for partner, then you have
no business playing with him or her anyway, unless he or she is a paying
customer. If you played with this partner because he or she is otherwise
your friend, or your co-worker, or perhaps your boss (paying customers all,
even if paying in kind, at an unfair exchange... :-)) then this may be an
excuse to shake them off.  I therefore feel that Bob's comment is somewhat
paternalistic, but to be on the safe side, if I ever get to play with Bob,
perhaps through Okbridge, I'll make it a point to insist that NT overcalls
promise only half a stopper :-)

I thank Allen again for the simulation and for the posting. I humbly submit
that I have learned a great deal form it.

Avi
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge