antonylee

Good to know, thanks.

I was North, and was convinced before alerting that my partner had likely forgotten, because of my shape and because he frequently forgets what's on the CC. This is why I bid only 2S. Because my own hand and partner's propensities are AI to me, I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that there is no problem there. (As a side problem, let's say I had a more extreme shape, say xxxxx xxxxx - Axx and decided to gamble a pass of 2C. Should I mention "but partner often forgets" when alerting? While this is certainly something extra I know, having to alert this seems to create a huge can of worms.) The directors ruled 3N+1 EW because "West would cue 3S if 2S comes back to him to check for a stopper, East would bid 3N and (...) South would not find the spade lead". I didn't care much about the event so didn't appeal, but believe this is way too harsh (200 N/S and perhaps a PP seems more reasonable).

[hv=pc=n&s=skj32ht72dca97654&w=s9hqj95dakqj8ct83&n=sq87654hk63d432c2&e=satha84dt9765ckqj&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1n(15-17)2c(!)d2sp3c3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] ACBL, IMP pairs. 2C was alerted as majors, consistent with N/S's convention card. No agreement about X ("We normally play systems on but I don't know if it would apply there."). Declarer called the director after the defense started club to ace, low club ruffed, diamond ruffed. How would you rule?

I was going to lead a spade because I'm not that imaginative here, but a quick sim (500 hands, South 16-17 with 2 hearts, North 8-9 with 5 hearts) suggests that hearts and diamonds are statistically tied as best leads, ~0.2 imp ahead of low spades or clubs.

Nope, lefty started with xxxx Axxxx x Kxx, so righty ruffs the HK :(

Yes, this was in a 2/1 setting. Obviously there's no problem otherwise. We also raise virtually never on 3 cards in this auction (whether that's a winning style or not is not the issue there (and yes we'll raise more often after 1m-1M as there are more problem hands for opener)), so I (yes, I was South) wasn't too worried about the 3-3 fit. I'll thank Giangibar for his thoughtful comments :P

That's a nifty convention.

Getting out in 3N was not possible as it would be non-serious there (we can get to 3N with a fit only after 1H-1S-2S-2N-3N).

[hv=pc=n&s=s86hat6dat874cq86&n=sak5h7dkq63cak754&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c2h2n3hdp4dp4hp5dp6dppp]266|200[/hv] 28-board KO. At the table East doubled 4H(!) letting South show his HA and North cue spades, but that didn't change the rest of the auction. By agreement you don't have a keycard ask available here (4N would be signoff; you play minorwood when the minor had been agreed previously and kickback when it's agreed at the 4-level, but nothing when it's first bid at the 4-level). That was already +9 imps, but another 5 were available.

[hv=pc=n&s=skj5h8dq853caj632&n=saq84hk97543dacq7&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hp1sp3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] 28-board KO. How do you rate South's idea? What's your plan on a diamond lead?

Side note re: NFB: you can also play transfers after overcalls, which I did, and is arguably better (with a WNT you complete or -rarely- superaccept).

Coming back to the simulation issue: I would say that in practice, I would guess 1C-1D auctions were less than 45% (well, I haven't played PC for more than 2 years so it's just a guess) -- likely because on most weak hands, lefty will have overcalled before you get to bid (in practice in the US most play a standard defense against PC, essentially treating it as a short club). I would argue that this is something that should be taken into account in all these simulations -- but the wide-ranging styles of overcalls makes this difficult to simulate. Perhaps we should come up with some "standard overcall rules" for sims? Could be useful for DD sims too.

On another topic... I know (think?) Zel also plays a structure where 1M is NF. I guess that means ~0-9(10)? How useful is that? Most of the time if you have a fit you will be bumped to 2M anyways by the opponents and if you don't have one, 1M may or may not be better than 1N (yes, probably you'll save a couple of undertricks on a few 12-0 hands but even then...?) And PC will also get you to 1M, it's just going to be opener's better major instead.

But the Bidding Box often has top scores of less than 12 (in fact, this month this is the only problem where the top contract scores 12). Also, it is obviously more important to find the best contract when alternative contracts have little play (e.g. problem 5, where you must find 3N instead of 4S with AKQxxx K xxx Ax opposite xx Axxx Jxxxx xx, but 3N only scores 10, probably because the scorer expected more pairs to reach that contract?) rather than here where you'll get a (shared) zero 30% of the times for bidding the top contract. I agree with Mbodell's suggestion for 9 or 10.

I have my own: https://github.com/anntzer/redeal The script I used for this study: from collections import Counter from redeal import * resps = Counter() def accept(deal): s = deal.south return (12 <= s.hcp <= 14 and balanced(s) and len(s.spades) < 5 and len(s.hearts) < 5 or 15 <= s.hcp <= 17 and not balanced(s) and max(map(len, s)) == len(s.clubs) >= 5 or 18 <= s.hcp) def do(deal): n = deal.north #if n.hcp <= 6 or n.hcp <= 8 and len(n.spades) < 4 and len(n.hearts) < 4: #resps["1D"] += 1 if n.hcp <= 4 and len(n.spades) >= 6: resps["2S"] += 1 elif n.hcp <= 4 and len(n.hearts) >= 6: resps["2H"] += 1 elif n.hcp <= 7: resps["1D"] += 1 elif 4 <= len(n.hearts) > len(n.spades) or len(n.hearts) == len(n.spades) == 4: resps["1H"] += 1 elif 4 <= len(n.spades) >= len(n.hearts): resps["1S"] += 1 #elif 9 <= n.hcp <= 11 and balanced(n): #resps["1N"] += 1 #elif 9 <= n.hcp <= 11: #resps["1D"] += 1 elif 8 <= n.hcp <= 11 and balanced(n): resps["1N"] += 1 elif 8 <= n.hcp <= 11: resps["1D"] += 1 elif n.hcp >= 12 and balanced(n): resps["2N"] += 1 elif n.hcp >= 12 and len(n.diamonds) >= len(n.clubs): resps["2D"] += 1 elif n.hcp >= 12 and len(n.diamonds) < len(n.clubs): resps["2C"] += 1 else: print(n) def final(n_tries): print(resps) Comment and uncomment accordingly to switch between WJ05 and "Canape Polish club", whatever it means. Run as "python -mredeal -n10000 filename.py".

I'm fairly sure his numbers are wrong. Using the WJ95 structure (1D=0-6 any, 7-8 no 4cM, 9-11 unbal minor(s); 1N=9-11), I get 1D~40%, 1H~26%, 1S~23%, 1N~4%, 2m~1% each. Depending on what you use for 2M (strong in standard but I assume some play it as weak) the numbers will change a little bit, I also ignored the ~3% bal GFs which should get split between 1D and 2N (depending on right-siding issues). From the blog description, which uses slightly different point ranges, I get 1D~46%, 1H~22%, 1S~19%, 1N~6%, 2suit~1% each -- still pretty far from his results.

The last issue of the Bridge Bulletin's bidding contest featured the following hand: [hv=pc=n&w=saqjhj874dak5c973&e=skt752hd932cak865]266|100[/hv] (East deals) Both Easts opened; one pair reached 4♠ after a 1♠ opening and the other 6♣ after a 1♣ opening and what seems to be a misunderstanding. As it turns out, 6♣ was the winning spot and is much better than 6♠. However, I wonder why 6♣ was awarded 12 (on a 12 top) when it is still "only" a 68% contract (3-2 clubs). Giving 12 to a contract assumes that it will be rarely bid, but in that case 6♣ gets a zero 30% of the times. Thoughts?

What's your rebid otherwise? I guess it's more a systems question, as I'd expect 2M to show 4 and 2N to promise stoppers. Obviously you may not like a system where 2D is a catchall (well, I don't know your favorite methods) but you'd have even less room on any other rebid.

I feel like a part of the sentence is missing... I'd be happy to have a look even though I don't speak a word of Polish (he, he). Last time I tried Baltic club (... with a weak NT) I just modified the ranges of the responses of WJ10 in a "reasonably logical" way.

Indeed, I didn't notice that I could prevent them from knocking out my stopper if necessary. At the table I simply thought "it's so likely that this gives away a trick to partner's Jx" that I accepted the lead, and, for good measure, let partner play it. He held Ax xxx AQx KT7xx but both pointed finesses offside and clubs 5-1 meant -1, when I would have made on the normal lead of a small spade from Qxxxx Jxx Jxxx x :( EDIT: One too many hearts :)

No, if you choose to force or forbid a heart lead by lefty, the H3 is picked up and is no longer a penalty card (although UI still applies). It stays a penalty card only if you choose to let lefty free to lead whatever he wants -- in which case the three options (force a heart, forbid a heart, keep the H3 a penalty card) applies as long as he stays on lead.

[hv=pc=n&s=skj73hak6d7532cqj&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp2c(gf)p2d(nat%20or%20WNT)p3cp3nppp]266|200[/hv] Matchpoints. Righty leads the ♥3 (4th best) out of turn. What option do you exercise?

Actually Jassem treats explicitly this auction in his WJ2005 book (See "How do you show the middle variant of the 1♣ opening (15-17)?" section.): 2N doesn't show a stopper and covers all WNTs; 3C is indeed 15-17 clubs. As he says, at least you get overcaller on lead. PS: I just saw that Jassem now also has WJ2015; anyone knows what's new in it?

(of course I was the culprit here -- no surprises)

Including the 3crd invite would be nice but it is not GCC legal :-( re OP's specific points: 1-5 are fine. 6. I actually play that 1M-2D show at least HHxxx, and 1S-2H at least HTxxx if holding 3crd support (I remember finding a nice 6S after 1S-2C-3H!(spl) when partner judged well to bid 2C on HHx-xxxxx-HHx-Hx (approx). This also answers 9: opener's jumps to the 3-level are (compulsory) splinters with 4-crd support, and then 8 (5(40)4 hands): you either show 4crd support by splintering (treating the hand as 5M(31)4) or show your other 4crd suit first and hope to rebid 3C over partner's hoped-for 2M or 2N (treating the hand as 5M(41)3). So 1M-2C-3C shows specifically 5224 and I just bid quantitatively there (4N if too strong for 3N), or fake-agree clubs and correct to NT at slam level.