antonylee

Polish: 1♣-1♥ (7+, the hand is quite minimum but I think the club suit and the fact that the major is hearts makes it cross the limit of 1♦ - if it was spades I could bid 1♠ after 1♣-1♦-1♥, but here...) 1♠-1N (WNT w/ 4♠ or 15-17 4♠5♣ or 18+5+♠ (usually exactly 5 then), F1; to play opposite a WNT) 3N

Interestingly I think it is more likely that I get this one right after the extra preemption of 1♦ (P) 1♠ (2♥) P (4♥): this time responder did not have the time to show diamonds at low level so taking insurance in 5♦ looks right (especially with at least 19 total tricks, except opposite a 1=4=4=4 exactly). Edit: "right" modulo the fact that even my double dummy play is ridiculously bad :) Here are the possible auctions I see, depending on the opponents' choices: 1♦ 1♠ (2♥) P (4♥) 5♦ 1♦ 1♠ (2♥) P (3♣) 3♦ (3♥) P (P) X Anyone to save me and tell me it's only poor judgement that makes me miss 4♥X in the first auction and 4♦ in the second one?

I think that practice is also known as "shooting" :)

I peeked at hand 1 and decided to Stayman, intending to pass 3♦ and raise 3♥ to 4. After seeing the second hand, seems like I'm reaching a decent spot.

Arriving late in the debate and mostly with an European POV but... do those who claim that owning guns is a way to limit the government's power really think that if the government wanted to go after YOU (of course Obama wants to go after you and force you to convert to Islam... or not but let's not get into that debate), owning a gun (or 50, or even a tank (I won't say anything about atomic bombs though)) will prevent that?

I'm opening 1♦ (11-bad 18), intending to rebid 1N over 1M (showing (54)ms over 1♠ and 4♦5♣ over 1♥). Partner may freely raise 1♦ to 2 (6-9), even on 3 cards for tactical reasons. If he passes, I'll bid a naturalish 1N (good 15-bad 18) over 1♥ (yuck). Partner should infer I have spade shortness (as I didn't double) and thus decent club tolerance (at least...). Edit after seeing full hand: I would expect partner to stretch a tiny bit and respond 1♠ (after all game has play opposite the right 10-count, so...) thus the auction will start 1♦-1♠. Now it depends on RHO. If he passes, I expect 1♦-1♠; 1N(4♦5♣)-2♦; 2N(seminatural)-3♦ (give up after opener shows heart values). If he gets in with 2♥ I will pass, intending to penalize. I expect something like 1♦ (P) 1♠ (2♥) P (3♣) 3♦ (3♥) ??? Hopefully I will realize that the diamond fit makes doubling (penalty, as 3♠ can serve as a general game try) less attractive... but I can't be sure I won't be writing down -730 after passing my partner's double should he produce one in balancing seat. So any of 3♥, 3♥X and 4♦ look possible to me.

Actually even if we forget the double-dummy considerations it seems like you'll want to play 4M even at imps -- you're losing 10 imps 2% of the times but winning 1 88-93%, which is clearly positive.

For me it'll be a simple strong NT-stayman (if 2♦, will bid 2♥)-2♥.

1♣-1♦-1N is 18-20 for me so opener will have to rebid 2N (21-23) instead... too bad.

With a minimum 6241 I would expect opener to rebid 2♠ (then 3♦ on the next round), but let's forget that for now. I would assume 2N to be naturalish with some antipositional stopper, like Hx Axx xx HHxxxx (replace H by some honors). This kind of hand would rather be dummy than declare 3N -- say Kx Axx xx KQxxxx opposite AQxxx Qx KJxx Jxx -- and 4♠ even on a 5-2, or 5♣ are not excluded either; so I'd start with 2♥ and see where we get from there.

And for 9-11 (and 4513), as requested by Zelandakh 5♣ 95% 4♥ 93% 4♠ 93% 3N 88% Again 3N is a bit behind (less, though) but the three other games are basically equally good.

Pass, not hard at all to imagine hands where 4♣X could go fo 500 whereas there aren't that many hands where game makes. May be harder w/w at matchpoints... Edit after seeing all hands: so I'll end up defending 3♥.

Here we go for 10,000 deals with North constrained to 4513 and 8-10 HCP. I only list the probability that a contract makes (double dummy): 5♣ 90% 4♥ 88% 4♠ 87% 3N 80% So except for 3N all other games are basically equally good (or rather, the 2-3% difference is probably negligible compared to the approximation of double-dummy play); and 5♣ goes up again.

Start with 2♣ (15-19) and see where we get from there.

Yes, I was wondering why I had 3N clearly higher than 5♣ in my own sims... Here is the IMPs payoff table (10,000 hands), also including 4♥. All contracts are assumed to be played by South (I don't think it matter much here). Also you need to pass True as second argument to dd_score (for vulnerability). bid3N bid4H bid4S bid5C bid3N -0.66 -0.39 +0.77 (0.03) (0.03) (0.02) bid4H +0.66 +0.30 +1.24 (0.03) (0.03) (0.02) bid4S +0.39 -0.30 +0.93 (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) bid5C -0.77 -1.24 -0.93 (0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (hint: use [ code ] for the formatting) So it's basically 4♥ > 4♠ > 3N > 5♣ (and numbers in parentheses are standard deviations, so to first approximation all differences are statistically significant). On the other hand I think DD sims should be taken with a grain of salt here because indeed 3N becomes much better as soon as you guess the clubs right. I wouldn't be surprised if it fared worse than 5♣ "in practice". As for syntax I basically ran your simulation with an extra line for 4♥. I would be happy to implement a simpler syntax but I'll need your suggestions as this one is the best (that caters for everything I want to sim) I've found so far (granted, I did not put much thought in it either).

OK, I won't post anything for now then.

I can do the simulations (DD with random E/W hands) but I think this would miss an important point, which is information leaked in the auction. What would be more convincing would be DD with random E/W hands and single dummy leads (I remember reading somewhere that the opening lead was statistically the single play with the largest deviation from DD-optimality, which sounds reasonable), but this would require writing down all the information given in each auction -- a bit too much work for me right now.

Polish: 1♣-1♥ (7+4+♥) 2N-3♠ (18-bad 23 balanced exactly 2♥; natural) 3N

Not a 1♣ opener for me. 1♦-1♥ 3♣-3♥ (3♣: good 15-18 55) 3♠-??? (4SF -- trying to make responder declare some number of NT) Now the problem is that responder would also like to be dummy, so it's going to be murky... ... 4♠ (cue) 5N-6♥ (too complicated, just pick a slam; OK)

P-1♣ (Polish) 1♥-2♣ (7-11; 15-20 5+♣ unbal, no 4cM if 15-17) 2♥-2♠ (7-bad 9 5♥; 18-20 4♠5♣) 3♦-3N (do you want to declare 3N?; yes)

Sorry for my unclear explanations, but 1♦ is [0-8 (no 4cM if 7-8)]; or [9-11 with a bad minor]; or [12-16 balanced but interested in being dummy in 3N opposite a WNT]. Now 2♠ is NF (21-23ish) because as explained above 1♠ itself more or less has to be limited to ~20 due to the basic structure of PC. Thus 3♣ covers anything from a hand that wouldn't make a second negative opposite 2♣(standard strong)-2♦-2♠) to 8 with a decent minor or even 11 with a bad minor (and creates a GF, as in the above-mentioned standard auction). Over 3♥ now I think 4♣ has to show a goodish suit in the context of the auction (otherwise responder can always give delayed support or try 3N with some diamond secondary values).

Then I should have a look at these notes I guess... I always played this as 6+; introducing a 5-card suit (especially spades) at the 3-level doesn't look optimal to me (but perhaps he knows better).

I'm out on this one. 1♦-1♥ 1♠-1N 2♥ or something like that.

By the way the reason why 2♠ does not create a GF is that 1♠ (and 1♥) also has to handle WNT hands (1♣-1♦-1N=18-20), and thus is NF (responder is expected to pass with 0-(3)4). So hands with 21-23ish have to go to 2M.

WJ05 has 1♣-1♦-2M=21-23ish; 1♣-1♦-2♦=art. GF (now 2♥=double negative and higher bids are whatever you decide to play, in our case 2♠=5-8 balanced, 2N-3♥=transfers (5-6 in a major, ~7-11 in a minor) (perhaps it would be more useful to use 2♠ for some harder stuff like two or three-suiters but honestly the GF opposite 1♦ came up approximately once in one and a half year so we didn't really optimize this)) Yes it means that strong hands with 5♦4x are quite hard to bid. Usually some combination of canape sequences and specialized jumps to the 3-level handle them. If you think not GF'ing with opener's hand is ridiculous (perhaps it is, indeed...) I could also see 1♣-1♦ 2♦-2N (clubs) 3♠-4♣ 6♣ More opinions are welcome :)