You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems that bidding your void at the 5-level in a contested auction is a California thing…
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you all.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm still having a hard time absorbing those numbers. Maybe we're talking about two different sets of statistics. For example, the 50% probability of a 6-card suit (or longer) concerns one hand out of four. This means that each player should expect to see a 6-card suit (or longer) 12.5% of the time. That figure seems too high to me. What are we leaving for the other more common shapes: 4333, 4432, 5332, 4441, etc? I used to have those probabilities at the tip of my fingers but now that I'm in Acapulco my memory is on vacation and my notes are frozen in Montreal.

Similarly, consider the 2.93% figure you give. That's under the constraint that none of the four hands will have a suit longer than 4 cards. That's quite different from my expectation of having a 4-card suit on any given deal. The probability that I'm dealt 4333, 4432, 4441, 5422, 5440, etc must be much higher than 2.93%.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Way too high!
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The article linked to in the OP states:

“Several mathematicians stepped forward and calculated the theoretical probabilities, comparing them to the actual distribution of computer-dealt hands. It turned out that the distribution of computer-generated hands was correct. For example, 18 percent of the time, at least one player should have a void; 50 percent of the time, at least one player should have 6 or more cards in the same suit; and a remarkable 15 percent of the time, at least one player should have 7 or more cards in the same suit. The computer-generated hands matched these expected frequencies.”

How do you reconcile your observed/actual results with the above statement. Are hand-shuffled hands so different from computer-shuffled ones?

To me, a statement like “50 percent of the time, at least one player should have 6 or more cards in the same suit” doesn't sound right.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The second hand reminded me of: “A vaincre sans peril on triomphe sans gloire.”
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner opened 1M, I responded 2NT (Jacoby), partner alerted, the opponent asked and with all the seriousness he could muster my partner snapped back: “None of your business!”
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have noble goals. Alas, bridge players are selfish.
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreeing this hand is a constructive raise, the next question is how do you show that? 2? But such a response could be made competitively with a weak hand.
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Objection: the Negative Double here promises 4 hearts.
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First response by North should be 2. For the rest, I would follow David Burn's recommendation.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would ruff the A to take the spade finesse, small to the queen. Later finesse in hearts and still later finesse in clubs. (Third club on fifth heart.)
In 6 hearts, I wouldn't need club finesse.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Every time your LHO opens the bidding and your partner passes, you should alert and explain that he likes to “come in later” even though he has what it takes to overcall now! That's his style and he's free but there is a tacit agreement that the opponents are entitled to know.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I love the title.
Even more incriminating than ATB.
Here, Peg Kaplan, are you happy now? The bashing will never stop here on BridgeWinners, especially when they give you such a bad auction, everybody jumps on the bandwagon. But I think it all serves a good cause.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Short and sweet.

Belated congratulations.
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did you mean: 200% North, -100% South?
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Karen, you're never “off topic”.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Maureen. My guess is that you were West. Your partner who opened 1 passed at the end. You got a bottom and you were upset, that's why you published this poll. If you wanted your partner to bid 3 I agree 100% with you! Alas, some of the top names voted for Pass. Such is life.
Dec. 28, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top