You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kit
here is another statistical simulation that fully confirms the picture already emerged from the previous ones and that perfectly supports your view of East's behavior.
Tool: DealMaster Pro & DeepFinesse Sample of 1000 hands
Specifications the simplest:
East: KT2-Q8-A87-K8752
West: 10-12 HCPs, balanced (includes 5332 whit 5 card major but no 5422)
North: 14+ HCPs, balanced
South: 5+♠s, no more than 4 cards in any other suit
Results of 2♠ S
Make 147 14.7% Down 853 85.3%
Details
4 tricks (-4): 9 deals 0.9%
5 tricks (-3): 128 deals 12.8%
6 tricks (-2): 386 deals 37.3%
7 tricks (-1): 343 deals 34.3%
8 tricks (making): 138 deals 13.8%
9 tricks (+1): 9 0.9% deals

It is noteworthy that giving the North specification of 13+ HCP (instead of 14+) the result is the same or slightly better for the NS line, against any logical expectation, perhaps because given the rigidity or almost of the hands of EW, those who lose from the increase of the points of North is South!
IMO the aspect that remains of greatest interest of the problems concerning your excellent, as usual, article is the modality of intervention on these very poor openings of 1NT. How to use the double and when instead to opt for Landy, Multi 2H 2S two-color interventions and how to combine them if necessary, not to mention the differences between direct intervention and balancing.
Feb. 18
Brunello Brunelli edited this comment Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would be very interested in an opinion from Kit about the opening method based on Zar Points. This idea fully described on http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/ZarPoints.pdf allows very weak openings but established by criteria with a solid statistical base.
May 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Helen thank you for your keen suggestions.
I note that my provocative statements were not intended to draw definitive conclusions, but to create a starting point for fruitful discussions.
March 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tim my intention was to find out if in the last 20 years, with the progress of the ideas and the available means, we could take some steps forward.
March 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul admitted to having exasperated the conclusions, but my intent was to provoke a lively discussion, which is happening.
March 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is contradicted IMO by the calculation of the DA, with the opening lead option, from which it is shown that if the opening lead indicating DD is executed in the real game, the effect is still unfavorable to the declarant. See http://www.bridgecaptain.com/DA.jpg
March 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Done, thanks
March 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I understand correctly, you have certainly touched on the most delicate point of the simulation. The operator's ability to translate correct hypotheses into hands that fully satisfy them. indeed it takes a lot of practice and patience, it would be advisable to check the whole sample at the beginning to see that there are no clearly conflicting hands on the required conditions.
Much of the credibility of the experiment and the reliability of its results are played on this.
March 26, 2019
Brunello Brunelli edited this comment March 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If someone had already come to my conclusion, I was not aware of it. You fully understand your objection, which I immediately put myself, however I was only pointing to a small step forward made and made available by the easy use of the DA calculation thanks to DDS.
However in the past I point out that, with less awareness, the simulation had already been used in the diatribe debate on the Law of Total Tricks.
March 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I may not have dwelt too much on the research I learned about as a result of the Ian article quoted. it is the analysis of the DA made by Bob Richardson and the slightly older one on a sample of 30 million hands played on OKBridge.
As regards the in-depth analysis of the statistical parameters, I admit that I did not go too far to make my statement more informative, but no more superficial, I hope.
March 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry for the formatting and also for my poor English. It was the first time and evidently I didn't use the most appropriate word processor.
March 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I gladly accepted the invitation to analyze the best lead with a simulation using the software at my disposal, that DealMaster Pro with Deep Finesse.
Without dwelling too much on how I solved the fundamental problem of providing the specifications more closely to bids made, here are the results I got a sample of 1430 hands. The contract was maintained in 95% of cases and the best attack is the result 7 (1029 times is positive) while the 9 attack got 881 positive effects, for the record, the worst attack is K (599), where for positive effects meant to minimize the tricks of the dealer.
I'm available for the clarification of the case for those who may want them. I apologized for my poor English.
May 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom can specificy OP?
April 29, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top