FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-19, 15:43, said:
The problem with your simulation is that it doesn't take into account partner's pass over 3S. But given that partner passed on a hand that both you and I think should have bid, it's hard to draw conclusions from this.
Nor does it take into account the fact that opener on the actual hand had a 13 count.
p.s. there's no reason not to think that bidding 4H isn't +590/+690 rather than +450.
If I were to exclude the hands that would have bid 4H, as you, I and PhilKing think my partner should have done, then that makes passing and leading a low spade even better. The reason that a high spade worked on the actual hand was that partner had Axxx in hearts and we could cash the first eleven tricks! The one hand where 4H made in the simulation was similar, partner having xx Qxxx Kxxx xxx, so one +590 would only change the average by 170/24, about 7 points, and I think you would exclude that hand as it would bid 4H.
I only know the auction on two other tables, which was 1NT - (2C - Landy) - 3NT. On one this hand backed in with double, and the opponents ran to 5C-1. On gnasher's they led a top spade for +700. Simulating just this auction makes a low spade best, but not by such a margin, as now they can have Jx opposite Qx.
And yes the opener did have a 13 count. Perhaps they should have alerted 1NT as 15-17 but maybe less with a long minor. But I have no idea how regular this deviation would be. I don't think it changes the odds much, as the redoubler might have more.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar