[bluecalm]

Quote

I'm sorry your intuition has proved you wrong so many times, but you are now trying to use double dummy simulations to prove that playing from the strong hand is irrelevant

It wasn't was I was trying to do. I was only refer to awm's point that double dummy it matters while I was pretty sure it doesn't. Now I am even more sure that it doesn't in general case (ie. in dillema if it's better to play from strong hand side or multi side in general). I wrote that the interesting point is not about dd simulations.

Quote

if you play bridge rather than simulate it, you will see this be true all the time in practice

Well, to be honest I don't see it all the time in practice as I play standardish methods after strong 1NT for example or after multi if I play it so I play most contracts from the stronger side as usually does the field.
In situations where we reach a contract from the other side due to system (for example due to artifical response to precision opening which other people don't have) my experience tells me swings are completely random in one direction or another.

Quote

This is about the most useless time ever for a double dummy sim, and the most useful time to draw upon your bridge experience, or "intuition" if you prefer

I am sorry but you miss the point here and are jumping at me
Awm's wrote it's advantage double dummy. I tried to prove this point wrong so I run some simuls to see if it has merits. It seems to me it doesn't. That's all I wanted to prove with those simuls. I don't pretend to say:
"ZOMG dd it doesn't matter so it doesn't matter !".

Quote

and the lack of research does not mean his statement has less credibility since obviously he is drawing upon his bridge experience.

I think the problem is that the sentence "it's better to play from stronger side" is so natural for every bridge player (because we are taught that way) that noticing it's wrong is very hard because our brains are not active in seeking evidence to the contrary. So even if it was wrong (ie. it wouldn't matter almost at all) I doubt people would notice.
If you play 4H after 1NT - 4D - 4H sequence and you don't make it you usually don't ask yourself what would happen if we played from the other side but for sure quite often you would make it due to different lead. You notice evidence to the contrary all the time though. If you somehow wind up in a contract from other side the field (weak side) and you don't make it due to different lead you are very fast to see this as evidence for playing for the stronger side.
Those are reasons I don't trust people's intuition on this one if they haven't actively searched for answer to this problem.

Quote

Double dummy simulations are worthless in evaluating this type of question.

Of course they are very useful ! In fact they are the only useful thing in evaluating this kind of question... we are referring to different question though...

Quote

bluecalm if you want to do simulations, try with whatever contract but force to lead each suit from each side and look at the differences.

I don't think simulations are useful for evaluating OP's question so I won't do more of them

One way to settle this would be to organize friendly match with set constraints and see. The problem is I doubt we would ever reach sample size big enough to convince either side.

[Crunch3nt]

Thank you for the support Blue Calm! I have done no simulations, or detailed study by me, just intuition.

Bluecalm: "I think the problem is that the sentence "it's better to play from stronger side" is so natural for every bridge player (because we are taught that way) that noticing it's wrong is very hard because our brains are not active in seeking evidence to the contrary. So even if it was wrong (ie. it wouldn't matter almost at all) I doubt people would notice."

Exactly! I have noticed the exceptions occur more frequently than common opinion would have it, which is why I posted this poll.

I totally agree, you should have a method over multi, that allows responder to chose who plays it. One of my points, is that if you have a strong hand, with no tenaces, don't just automatically hog it as there is an advantage to a weak, distributional hand playing it.

awm posted a point about the standard of the opponents, which I think may be a good point, as it is rare I get to play consistently against "experts", I normally play against open players, but not experts. The fact remains though, it seems to me that they do misdefend more when the shapely hand is concealed.

Tgoodwinsr made a point about over 1NT, having both 4H and 4C available as hearts to play - That is exactly how I play it for this exact reason.

Oleberg posted another convention we play 1NT-3M is 4 card, forcing. (over a weak NT). We also play Stayman, so this way responder has a choice about who plays it.

Another example of where we play positional bids is over Namyats - 4C-4D is purely a transfer back to 4H, saying I have no tenaces, you play it, not a slam try.

[Phil]

There are some notable exceptions to having the 'stronger hand declare' principle.

Anytime my LHO enters the bidding, it is very useful to put that person on lead, especially with the lead coming around to the weaker stopper. This is why 'power doubles' playing overcall structure frequently gain. Card combinations like:

AQx opp Jx(x)
Axx opp Qx
AJx opp Qx(x)
Kxx opp Jx(x)
AQx opp Txx
Axx opp QJ9

all help when the lead is coming away the player with the suit, instead of through the weak holding.

If the opening goes passive, a tempo is gained.

However, these cases assume that the primary assets of the defense are known from an opening bid or an overcall. In other cases, its still far superior to have the strong hand declare.

This has nothing to do with the OP's example about 'right-siding' multi, however.

[Siegmund]

The poll question is flawed, IMO. All else being equal, you want to conceal the hand about which less is known. This is a reason (for instance) to play game tries after 1M-2M that ask responder what he has, rather than that expose that opener has a singleton or a long second suit or whatever.

I do think people put way too much emphasis on automatically making the stronger hand declarer.

But in a Multi auction, we already know a great deal about 2D opener's strength AND his shape, so "conceal shape" people will still try to make responder be declarer. Responder can have almost any hand pattern at all. That, more so than "responder is stronger than opener," is the point of transfer preempts in general.

[Lobowolf]

Siegmund, on Aug 28 2010, 01:49 PM, said:

The poll question is flawed, IMO. All else being equal, you want to conceal the hand about which less is known. y hand pattern at all. That, more so than "responder is stronger than opener," is the point of transfer preempts in general.

But if one hand is much stronger than the other, and the other hand is much more distributional than the first, then "all else" isn't equal.

[Siegmund]

Quote

But if one hand is much stronger than the other, and the other hand is much more distributional than the first, then "all else" isn't equal.

Trying one more time...

1) Given one hand whose distribution is known precisely, and one that isn't, there is a huge gain keeping the unknown-distribution hand hidden.

2) Given one hand whose strength is known precisely, and one that isn't, there is a big gain in keeping the unknown-strength hand hidden.

3) Given two hands whose strengths and distributions are known, there is a small gain in having the having the stronger hand declare.
4) Given two hands whose strengths and distributions are known, I have no strong feeling as to whether the flatter hand or more shapely hand should declare. In practice we almost always know more about one hand's distribution than the other.

The first two are vastly more important than the last two. My sense is that #1 is more important than #2. But for some reason #3 is the one that gets the most attention. Maybe it's because we have so many auctions after 1NT where both hands are substantially constrained that the chance to benefit much from #1 or #2 has already been thrown away.

In the multi-responder case, 1, 2, and 3 ALL point to having responder declare. In a lot of other situations, the case is much less clear. It wouldnt be crazy at all, after a 1NT opening that denies a 4-card major, for instance, to play a structure that tries to make responder always declare. And I am quite convinced that Puppet stayman loses more than it gains, often forcing declarer to reveal a 5-card major in exchange for rarely finding 5-3 fits that only occasionally gain a trick over notrump.

(And re double-dummy simulations... yes, they confirm that the value of the stronger hand declaring lies almost entirely in gains from bad opening leads, not in the hand innately playing better from one side than the other.)

[NickRW]

In the case of 2♦ multi - 2N, then I think the strong hand should play it if possible. The weaker hand is reasonably well defined both as to strength and roughly as to shape. The 2NT bidder could be almost anything and is much more likely to hold side suit tenaces. So I don't think it is close on that particular example.

However, I think the OP is essentially right that, in general, trying to have the stronger hand play the contract is overrated in some people's minds. One case in point is that nearly everyone in weak NT land plays stayman and red suit transfers over 1NT. But natural weak take outs are not actually that bad - the weaker hand is not that well defined as to exact strength - the NT opener is well defined both as to strength and general shape - so it often plays well if the "weak" hand plays the contract. (This comparison doesn't hold so much water for strong NT - a weak hand here is usually really quite weak and, in general, needing to run away from 1NT is much less opposite a strong NT)

Nick

[Free]

I know some new bridge students. The reason given why they learn transfers is so that the strong hand can declare. If nobody tells them the real reason, then they obviously get the idea that it's always better to let the strong hand declare...

[hanp]

I dealt some hands where one player has 5-9 HCP and a 6-card major and the other has a balanced hand with 15-17 HCP. I was wondering if one could use a double dummy simulation after all to see which side should play the hand.

1. The number of double dummy tricks is almost the same regardless of who plays the hand. This is no surprise, with the opponents always finding the best lead from either side, the hand will usually play the same from either side.

2. Dealmaster pro checks how often the winning lead can be from 4 suits, 3 suits, 2 suits or only 1 suit. The outcomes were in favor of the strong hand declaring, but not by a very large margin. For example, a bit more often the best lead was from only 1 suit when the strong hand was declaring.

Given that the difference was rather small, I think that often it is more important that the hand about which less is known is hidden. For example, after multi, I would rather have the responding hand declare in general because almost nothing is known about this hand. After a strong notrump, it may still be right to let the notrump opener declare 4M, even though general shape and HCP range are known. Honor location will often be important. After a weak notrump, honors will be split more evenly and now it may indeed be better to let responder declare, or have both options available.

[tgoodwinsr]

A guiding principle be, shouldn't it, that "hands with tenaces declare," not (just) "strong hands declare"? You try to make a strong-notrump hand declarer not because it is strong, but because it is likely to contain tenaces. If you open 1NT on, say, Axx Axx Axxx Axx, there isn't likely to be much "declarer advantage" from your side of the table. (For this reason, you might avoid opening 1NT, or rebidding in notrump, on that sort of hand if your system allows you to.)

Similarly, a multi 2D opener isn't likely to have a tenace in a side suit, so it tends to be desirable for his partner to declarer. Responder can see whether his own hand contains "declarer value," and may be able to arrange the bidding accordingly.

The point is that "strong hand vs. weak hand" isn't the whole story by a long shot.

[jvage]

I agree with tgoodwinsr that "strong hand vs weak hand" isn't the whole story. The OP asks wether it is generally better to hide the strong or the shapely hand. I agree with the majority that the likelyhood of tenaces etc. generally make it better to let the strong hand declare, with some exceptions (keeping the strongest opponent on lead, the "weak" hand may have more tenaces or unexpected distribution etc.).

What I find a bit surprising is that Multi followed by a strong inquiery is used as an example where it may be preferable to let the weak hand declare. While there certainly are exceptions I think this is one of the positions where it will be most preferable to hide the strong hand (more than after say a 1NT opening). The Multi-openers most likely distributions are 6322 or 6331, while responder can have all kinds of distributions, not only balanced hands in the 15-17 range that it seems most posters discuss. Responder can have good or bad fit, a good sidesuit or ruffing values. If he does not have shape the likelyhood of tenaces will rise. If you think concealing shape is important I would think that would make you want to make responder declarer...

Edit: Especially playing MP it could also be a point that responders hand will reveal if this is a hand where overtricks is the main point or if the contract is "touch and go".

John

[cloa513]

tgoodwinsr, on Aug 30 2010, 07:21 AM, said:

A guiding principle be, shouldn't it, that "hands with tenaces declare," not (just) "strong hands declare"? You try to make a strong-notrump hand declarer not because it is strong, but because it is likely to contain tenaces. If you open 1NT on, say, Axx Axx Axxx Axx, there isn't likely to be much "declarer advantage" from your side of the table. (For this reason, you might avoid opening 1NT, or rebidding in notrump, on that sort of hand if your system allows you to.)

Similarly, a multi 2D opener isn't likely to have a tenace in a side suit, so it tends to be desirable for his partner to declarer. Responder can see whether his own hand contains "declarer value," and may be able to arrange the bidding accordingly.

The point is that "strong hand vs. weak hand" isn't the whole story by a long shot.

There is some declarer advantage of only aces but it takes partner to have considerable lower honours Q,J,10 (+9) and probably not the kings. Limited strength on table and undetermined considerable strength hidden could be principle for example your partner preempts in a minor or even major 2 or 3 level then you bidding 3NT will make difficult for opponents to judge how to defend especially if they don't choose the perfect lead and/or you choose somewhat unusual 3NT hands like with a singleton King or long major.