The very old gambling game Fan-Tan is thought to have originated in the fourth century in China. It is peculiar because it seems to be unaware of zero. The "house" removes small objects from a big pile until either 1, 2, 3 or 4 remain. Players bet on which of those it will be. Zero was invented in Mesopotamia around 3 BC, and the Mayans invented it independently around 4 AD. It seems the Chinese were not "aware" of it, or their game would have remainders of 0,1,2 and 3.
The game originally offered pay-outs of 3:1, but nowadays there is a commission on winning bets, often as high as 5%. If the house take is zero, then the game can be beaten, as 4 is slightly more likely to be the remainder. Just think of a random number between 4 and x inclusive. The remainder when 4 are removed at a time is slightly more likely to be 4.
My partner and I reached a slam last night at the Woodberry, where I think the chances of success were absolutely zero. Given that is -273.15°C, I guess you could say it was cold ...
We bid, uncontested, 1C-1H-2H-2S-4H-4NT*-5S*-6H. It is the nine of clubs away from having some play, but with the actual cards there is no layout which gives it a chance. 2S in our auction was a game try, and 4H accepted. 5S showed two and the queen, and the damage had now been done.
I have some sympathy for my partner's actions as North, but slam always rates to be slightly against the odds even if the fit is better. A simulation on Bridge Analyser, giving partner a 14-count with 4 hearts, has the following matrix:
The above mini-chart shows the percentage for each number of tricks (on the top row) that North will make in hearts. So, slam will make 42% of the time. One needs it it to be 50% to be justified in bidding it.
Another useful bit of software is the Kaplan-Rubens hand evaluator, fairly accurate on balanced hands. That makes the North hand 16.75, and slam rates to be poor opposite a 14-count. For completeness, the South hand weighs in at 13.85, so fairly normal to accept the game-try of 2S. And fairly normal to make only 11 tricks.
What is the point of applying the Kaplan-Rubens hand evaluator to hands after the event?
ReplyDeleteAbout as useful as the Losing Trick Count that appears to stop players from bidding games.
Would you open 1st in hand, Vulnerable, with this hand: QT42 J86 Q3 AQ53.
It has a Kaplan-Rubens score of 9.10. Somebody, who should know better, opened it 1C at our table....
Ken Barnett
I would agree in 1st position, and I would not open a weak NT on that hand. I think the hand you refer to was 3rd in hand when opening gets in the way of the opponents. K-R, and the Losing Trick Count, are useful guides in close situations.
ReplyDelete