BillPatch, on 2013-July-01, 01:53, said:
The only rational choices are pass and a false preference to 2♠. Even with a slightly sound opening style, (rule of 20, 2QT)we will often go
down on the 11-13 hcp hands in ♠. If I need to make up ground, game heavily odds on if partner can rebid NT, (16-17 hcp)or ♥.
I think it is slightly imp negative, but the high skew would often be good, so I might try it 30% of the time. In a short imp pairs such as on BBO
these swing boards are often useful.
Summary: Mea culpa. (My error). My efforts to simulate the given responder's hand and auction and auction on
Jack reveal that the 3
♥ raise on responder's rebid is a perfectly reasonable alternative. Also, among the responders the false preference slightly leads pass, which slightly leads 3
♥.
A much larger sample size will be required to reach a significant results between each pair.
Replaced low diamond with the J
♦ so that Jack would read responder as a 1 NT in auction. Jack considered actual auction as still "impossible". So I ran starting with opener North in first seat and threw out hands that the hand that West had an opener.
Auction: P 1
♠ P 1NT P 2
♥ P ???
First I ran a simulation of sample size 20 comparing my suggested false preference to the auction given in the opening post of this thread. False preference led by 43 imps(2.15/ board.) Since 4
♥ made so often my next trial I added responder's second round raise to 3
♥. Repeated with a trial size 20.
Result: Comparing responder's rebids: Pass beat 3
♥ by 8 imps (0.4 imps/bd). Pass beat 2
♠ by 35 imps (1.75/ Bd). 3
♥ beat 2
♠ by 16 imps (0.8 imps/bd)
Combining trials: 2
♠ leads pass by 8 imps over 40 bd (0.2 imps/bd), pass leads 3
♥ by 8 imps over 20 bd (0.4 imps bd. Looks like a 500 sample needed to determine significant result between any these choices.
By the end of the summer I intend to learn enough Windows 7 computerese to simulate using Thomas Andrews
Deal, or to do it with
Dealmaker Pro on another computer.
Bill Patch
Help
