[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Oct 14 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

I think there is one other factor (which I generally don't look at). "Everyone" will be playing in spades which makes it clear to play in spades, because it's quite close anyways, and our superior cardplay edge comes out more if we're in the same contract as everyone else. Also even if I didn't have a cardplay edge I'd rather get an average 100% of the time than a top 50.1 % of the time and a bottom 49.9 % of the time because it allows my superior bridge abilities to let me win the event more often anyways.

I was telling cherdano the other day that my dream is to declare a normal contract on every board in a MP event.

"Everyone" is a bit strong, even if the idea is right.

Some might open 1NT with this hand (whether upgraded, or a 11-14 range or a 13-15 range or a 14-16 range) and hear a response showing both majors (maybe 3♦, 3♥, or 3♠) and then opt to play 4♥.

I kept looking at the original post to re-read what I did not completely want to read because it interfered with another thought. Passing also has the advantage of stopping partner from reconsidering, if you don't want partner reconsidering. I mean, if partner has a hand with no slam interest UNLESS you elect spades (for some reason), then paqssing has the advantage of ending the auction. But, the "absolutely no slam interest" condition seems clear.

I also think passing has another advantage -- ability to move. If the auctuon goes ...4♥-P-4♠-X!!! or ... 4♥-P-4♠-P-P-X!!!, you wish you had passed 4♥. If the auction goes ...4♥-P-P, then only one more chance for X!!! exists, which might not be made if LHO fears a 4♠ contract, or which might be saved by a pull to 4♠. Of course, then you have the slight risk of a bludd double into the wrong contract.

All of that said, 4♠ for me.

[Jlall]

kenrexford, on Oct 14 2009, 02:28 PM, said:

"Everyone" is a bit strong, even if the idea is right.

bleh I even put it in quotation marks!

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Oct 14 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

Also even if I didn't have a cardplay edge I'd rather get an average 100% of the time than a top 50.1 % of the time and a bottom 49.9 % of the time because it allows my superior bridge abilities to let me win the event more often anyways.

I heard a story once about some amazing online poker player who specialized in large multi-table tourneys, although I'll never remember who. Someone asked him once "wouldn't you rather just fold in 51-49 situations because they are so random and you can later take advantage of some 80-20 situation?" And he replied "I'd rather take advantage of both."

Of course it doesn't equate perfectly to bridge but you made me think of it since clearly you don't feel the same about bridge as he does about poker.

[Jlall]

Bridge and poker are clearly different dude. The people who in general pass up +cEV situations in tournaments are almost always misguided. cEV and $EV is the same early on in a tournament, later in the tournament they are different so passing up +cEV spots can be fine because of ICM.

However if someone was playing a big live tournament with a bunch of fish at his table and a very slow structure it might be right to pass up on marginally +cEV spots because he had an edge on the field. We are talking very small spots, because the edge you have cannot be that big in poker. In an online setting where the players are tougher and the structures are much faster, it is right to push all edges, especially because you can play a ton of tournaments each day.

In bridge we have different options, and way bigger edges are possible (because of a far lower amount of luck and higher amount of skill), and very high variance slightly +EV spots are VERY infrequent occurances, whereas in bridge they are not.

Moreover, the goal in bridge is not to accumulate all the chips. There is no such thing as doubling up or busting on a hand, it's simply doing as well as you can on each board and how that fits in to your overall score. So the things we are evaluating are different.

Here we are evaluating "how likely are we to win the event if we get an average on 1 single board" vs "how likely are we to win the event if we get a top on the board" minus "how likely are we to win the event if we get a bottom on the board."

I will contend that getting a bottom on a board hurts my chances of winning more than getting a top on a board helps my chances of winning. Getting an average on the board is fine. This is because I have a big enough edge on all other boards where I rate to win pretty often on those boards as long as I don't get a bottom. I don't need to win by even more by getting a top.

Also note I said 50.1 vs 40.9 not 51 vs 49. We are talking a really small edge.

Also, my hypothetical that if I play a normal contract I rate to get an average was just hypothetical. My real point of all this is let's say I rate to get 65 % if I play a normal 4S contract. I would need hearts to outperform spades a huge amount of the time in order for me to risk turning 65 % into a 0 just to get it up to 100 %.

For a more real life analysis lets say I get 65 % when I play 4S because I AM THE BEST. Let's say I get 100 % 65.1 % of the time when I play 4H, and 0 % 34.9 % of the time. It is obvous for me to take my 65 % and not risk the zero even though 4H is +EV because getting a top doesn't help my chances of winning compared to a 65 % whereas 0 % really hurts my chances of winning.

If I was truly a 50 % player in normal contracts I should take a top/bottom situation even if it was 49.9 % to get a top and 50.1 % to get a bottom because I would welcome the variance. As a 65 % player in normal contracts (at least) I will win a lot if I get "normal" scores for me, so I do not welcome variance.

[dburn]

One thought (because I never have more than one, and often have fewer): imagine partner with KJ109x in both majors and enough stuff that the contract depends on finding ♥Q if there are two losers in spades.

Now: playing in spades, partner can delay the heart guess until he has more information about the distribution in other suits. Playing in hearts, he cannot.

This may be another manifestation of what is called the "Vondracek effect": when two possible trump fits are equally distributed in the declaring side's hands, the weaker suit should be trump.