jogs

Not convinced playing a large quantity of hands will do much to improve one's games. One needs to play hands and analyze them to death. That's the advantage of online play. Only play minis which have 50+ tables in play. Then you can check to see what every else did with your same cards.

Try this. Count everyone's pattern. Then sum the suits from those patterns. It's surprising how often you don't get 13 cards for each suit. Just need to practice more.

Why? It's not at all unusual for that two of a minor to make four. I think most players reopen too often. Much safer to allow partner to make 'undisciplined' overcalls.

For defense learn to count. Count to 13. Remember your hand. Count declarer's hand. Count partner's hand. Count each of the four suits. Count declarer's tricks. Count defensive tricks. Memorize all four suit patterns which add to 13. Make a mental note of trick one.

So memory is faulty. Still read the literature. The vast majority of all the pages on bidding are devoted to uncontested auction.

USBC finals. 114 of 120 finals board auction histories were readable. 41 boards uncontested at both tables. 40 boards contested on only one table. 64% of boards were contested on at least one table. 51% of auctions were contested.

Nowadays 60% of all auctions are contested. Most partners want to devote a large percentage of the time discussing uncontested sequences. Many of those sequences don't occur more often than once in a blue moon. Studying defense is always useful. Doesn't matter who your partner is.

Yes, try playing pickup. Good bidding doesn't help.

Again the OP has asked the wrong question. He should have asked, "Which would improve one's results quicker: better bidding or better card play?" I think the answer is clearly better card play. Good defense is tougher than good dummy play. I happen to like Kantar's book on defense Defensive Bridge Play complete. When you understand Kantar, then you can start reading Kelsey and Mollo.

Sometimes and maybe even usually the best line of play is a superset of all inferior lines. Bidding doesn't work that way. Your team bids an 70% slam and opponents don't. You will lose big imps 30% of the time. Bidding is responsible for 80% of the imp swings. Only better bidding isn't always rewarded.

Have only seen a study on 1NT when both sides have 20 HCP. DD Declarer made less than 6.2 tricks. Author didn't publish that declarer made in actual play. But suspect declarer's mean tricks would be between 6.8 to 7. In this contract defense has a huge opening lead advantage DD.

Cheung said in 2002. That hasn't happened. It's unlikely any bidding system by computers would be that successful until someone is willing to spend as much money on bridge as IBM has spent studying chess.

http://crystalwebsite.tripod.com/single_double_dummy.htm Cheung didn't show a valid proof of that conclusion. Those means only show that the error biases balance out. He needs to show that the errors of the estimates are small and the variances or the errors are small.

Why are answers to 0. and 1 different? Were there assumptions made on the length of the majors in the dummy?

DD analysis cannot be trusted. Print hundred boards where the king and small produced different results. Inspect them to see if you agree with the DD results.

First this assigning percentages to the bidding and play is both arbitrary and subjective. Speaking in terms of imp play. At the table I generally spent about 75-80 of the time on the play and the remaining time on the bidding. But still the bidding is clearly responsible for over 50% of the imp swings. Bidding is disjointed sets. Take a team game. One team bid slam and the another doesn't. That means in most cases there will be a big swing. It's only a small swing or push when both contracts fail. The team in the 60% slam will lose imps 40% of the time. Play is often subsets and supersets. Usually the superior line is a superset of all inferior lines. That means if you find the best line you will usually get as good or a better result than the player who took the inferior line. Bidding is responsible for most of the big swings. Play is responsible for the consistent small swings. Good card play is rewarded immediately. Playing pickup sometimes you need to bid 'badly' in order to receive good results. Knowing Watson will bring more immediate satisfying results than all those bidding books.

Promises can be broken. 50% of marriages end in divorce. Don't remember ever bidding J2NT without 4+card support.

I like the stronger version of 4 card support. Would like to say guarantee, but am sure one day I would make a J2NT with less than 4-card support.

There's no free lunch. This forces the pair to change the way to bid game forcing and slam interest hands. May lose a level of bidding to investigate slam.

Zel, you're right. With 4-card support 10-11 HCP, not 4333, I generally manufacture a 2 level response, hopefully a 4-card suit, then jump to game. Only J2NT with 12+ HCP. 4=3=2=4 10 HCP 1♠ - 2♣, 2♦ - 4♠. Not inviting with these hands.

In the U.S. many if not most distinguish 3-card raises from 4-card raises. Use forcing NT then 3 of a major for a 3-card raise. 1M - 1NT 2m - 3M Is a 3-card raise. 1M - 2NT Is Jacoby 2NT and a 4+-card raise.

With no prior agreement, there's no such auction. You are trying to confuse partner. If partner went wrong, it's your fault.

In general the ninth trump is worth a full trick over the eighth trump. That means you bid four of a major with 25 HCP and 8 trumps. Bid four of a major with 22 HCP and 9 trumps. The tenth trump doesn't generate a full trick over the ninth trump as often. Bid four of a major with 19 HCP, 10 trumps provided someone holds a singleton. Need more points when both partners are 5332.

Said, "On 25 swings the winning side was either in a better contract or got lucky." Didn't claim they always bid better.

What would you bid if RHO had opened 1♣? pass, double, 1♦, 1♠, or 1NT?