Cthulhu D

I think he is suggesting having a 3 clubs or 3 diamonds call in the strong NT - so responses are easy, regardless of what partner does, bid 3m This lets you play 3C as 5/5 minors, and 3D as something like 6 diamonds + 4M but I'm not hugely sure I am a fan of that diamond bid, despite currently playing it.

For better or worse we play this - http://www.fernside.com/bridge/TheOvercallStructure.html more or less over a major which suggests frequent 5+/4+. I am pretty positive about being able to bid it with 5/4 hands, it's a a huge increase in frequency - 4.05% for the 5+/4+ OR 4+/5+ option vs 2.99% for 5+/4+ always vs 0.77% for 5+/5+ always. As you can see from the frequency numbers, while bidding it 5+/4+ is a big winner over 5+/5+ from a frequency perspective (380% more often) and a minimal information cost to partner, it's less clear that 5+/4+ or 4+/5+ is better as it's only a 33% increase in frequency but a much more significant information loss. Those frequency calculations are back of the envelop though and don't include the effects of RHO having 5+ M and 11-20 ish HCP though. The more aggressive styles loses on the hands where the more conservative style would open, but gains on most hands where the more conservative style would pass (and in theory goes for huge penalties) Over a minor, we play (1C) - 1D/H/S as per the overcall structure or Canape overcalls, we're flip flopping about that - 1NT Three suited takeout, 8-14 ish HCP - 2C Diamonds + a major - 2D WJO in a major - 2H Both Majors Weak (assumed fit style) - 2S Pre-empt in an unspecified suit (good hand if a major) - 2NT Intermediate jump in diamonds w/ a club stop - 3C Both majors, great offense - 3D Intermediate jump in diamonds without a stop - 3M Poor pre-empt Credit to Mark Abraham for the ideas.

Emergency responder calls.... Jammers are banned for non governmental use basically everywhere.

Yeah, our agreement is/was penalty. We were chatting in the post mortem because it was a tough decision. The actual hand is uninteresting because your partner was operating and/or had lost touch with reality. In this specific case I had made asemi psyched in a terrible anti-partnership bid because they were on tilt and I figured south had a big hand. The less said about my subsequent decisions the better (like why am I even doubling? If my three tricks cash no one else is going to have had this auction so I will get a top anyway). [hv=pc=n&w=sat72h975d72cakt9&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1h2s3h4s5hdp5sppp]133|200[/hv] South had a 5/5 two suited 20 count and there are always 10 tricks in hearts and 9 in spades. Obviously we were the only table to find the double fit so as soon as we bid 4S we had all the matchpoints Edit: vvvvvvv to be clear it is me, I am the lunatic who came up with two spades then double - partner is much more solid!

The problem is the noise of vibration - it harder to hear in a casino during a busy period than the quite in a bridge tournament. Not an insurmountable obstacle though. I'd be cautious about third man transmission - how does he get to the boards?

5/5 is included yeah

Pass with some relief, and hope it goes off on a bad break.

That would be tricky against fast players due to the heating/cooling cycle taking a while. I suggested bluetooth because your partner could communicate about your hand. Vugraph should obviously be broadcast on a 2 to 7 minute delay to solve these issues.

I'll edit this into the OP, but there are two ways to bid a big two suiter with clubs and diamonds - he can start like this, or can start with 2NT which in this situation would show a big hand with clubs and another - in the notes it's defined as a big two suiter that cannot start off with a power double (which would be 15+ semi balanced). I'm not sure if this would effect your decision.

Suitplay suggests that the answer to 1 is small to the 9 unless they come up with the J (cover) or the King (duck) If you assume that N has 6 hearts and south has 7 spades, the best line doesn't change.

We got a great result on this board, but partner had an impossible decision to make. Do you leave this in? [hv=pc=n&e=sj9652h7dj65cq965&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1h(5cM)2s(Roman%20Jump%20Overcall%2C%20Spades%20and%20Clubs)4h4s5hdp]133|200[/hv] Partners Roman Jump Overcall is overcall structure style, so Spades and Clubs limited to about 14 HCP 5/4 or better (either way around, though partner is more likely to have 5 clubs). There is two ways to bid a strong hand with spades and clubs, the above is one, and the other is start with 2NT which in this situation would show a big hand with clubs and another - in the notes it's defined as a big two suiter that cannot start off with a power double (which would be 15+ semi balanced) or like 8.5+ playing tricks.

One minor omission, I'm guessing 1NT-2S-3S should be explicitly a weak hand with spades?

Invisible transmission is easy - Bluetooth or WiFi. If you thought you could wear an ear piece without detection, cheating would be super easy. Shoe computer, basic Morse code. Or you could simply communicate heart length very easily. Wireless Jamming devices are illegal in most countries.

I'm honestly surprised no-one has used an electronic device to cheat. That would the easiest way to do so. That hardest part would be getting the signal from the computer to you. LEDs in the glasses is high risk. People have used vibrations but that might be too loud for bridge.

To the research! Against 1NT - 3NT With two outside aces and KJxxx in diamonds against 1NT-3NT they suggest a diamond xx x KQxxx KJxxx they suggest a major xx KJxxx Ax KJxx major KJTxx KJTx xxx x - spade Q xx KJxx KJxxxx - Q Spades So that's 3/5 for the lead, plus against both 1NT-3NT and 2NT-3NT Tx KJxxx xxxx Jx the heart lead is better at imps, but the spade lead is better at matchpoints. Some other auctions! xx Jxx AKJxx xxx - against 1D-1S-1NT-3NT the spade or club are winning leads Aginast 1NT all pass, KJxxx Jxxx Ax xx - Heart is best Against 1H-1NT Qxxxx xx x KJxxx Spade or Heart Against 1NT-2NT Jxxx Jx xx KJxxx Heart-Spade (club is ~25% worse than the preferred heart) Against a failed stayman invite xx Qxx KJxxx Axx Spade or heart Failed stayman again KJxxx xx Axxx Tx Club or heart 2NT- All Pass AQx x KJxxx Txxx Club is strongly best. I guess adding that all up, I am left with the conclusion that on any invitational or part score auction, leading away from the tenace is probably bad. Against game auctions it is a calculated risk to find a fitting honour with partner and establish the 5th card and may be worth doing - but it's not at all clear cut!

Bird Anthias have that as a anti percentage action. Against 1NT passed in, with a construction with AQTxx Kxxx Jx Tx they have the 4th from the king 12% more likely to beat the contract, and on average taking an extra .3 of a trick at matchpoints. If the K is a smaller honour (say Jxxx), the heart lead is gonna look even better. Against 1S-1NT-All pass holding 5xx AQTxx 3 10xxx the spade and club lead both rank ahead of any lead from AQTxx. I'd suggest one of the thesis of the book is that leading away from an honour is really sub optimal, particularly if it's a king. Leading away from Tenaces is also bad. Leading away from a KJxxx type tenace is diabolical. It's sure possible not to agree with the results, but it is an illuminating look at things. It's worth considering that the example they use there it is also benefiting strongly from the major suit bias. One of the Quiz answers suggests that when the AQTxx suit is a minor in an auction that suggest a major suit bias (failed stayman -> 3NT), the lead is terrible. If a major suit bias is in effect, and you have length in the minors, that makes it even more probable that partner has major cards and not much in the minors. As the idea of the AQTxx lead is to catch partner with a fitting honor, the less fitting cards he has the worse it is. So I guess I'd suggest that we only want to lead from AQTxx when A) The auction has been non invitational directly to game, and thus it is more likely we need to race for our 5 winners B) There is an effect at work that suggests partner is likely to have fitting cards - e.g. It's a major and they bid an auction that creates major suit bias e.g. 1NT-3NT and thus partner is more likely to have fitting cards? Otherwise pick another suit. C) And in these circumstances, we are going to lead the A, not the queen. Therefor to answer the OP's question, don't lead the Q ever, mathematical analysis suggests it is bad.

This exact suit combination is actually used as an example 5 times, and they recommend leading from it (selecting the A from AQTxx) against 1NT-3NT only, otherwise lead another suit. In the one example it is correct, they note that a significant part of the effect is to enable you to switch to hearts when it is right. Otherwise they think it is basically terrible: 1NT-3NT lead the ace from a major 1NT -Failed Stayman - 3NT - don't lead this suit when it's a minor 1NT - All Pass - Don't lead this suit when it's a major (make a passive lead from Kxxx) 1S-1NT-All Pass - Don't lead this suit when it's the oM 2NT - All pass - Don't lead this suit when it's a major Overall we can see it does well when you need to go active - 1NT-3NT when you have a hand that is strong (I think the example has 10 HCP) and thus partner is broke. Similar suits also consistently do awfully. Leading away from tenances against 3NT seems super bad unless you know they have a long cashing suit in dummy or otherwise that it is a race to get 5 before they get 9. Well.. yeah, obviously. But it could also give declarer a 9th trick. And the question isn't 'against 1NT-3NT' where this might be true, it's against NT contracts generally - and it's generally terrible. Any situation where a passive lead is called for it's bad.

Isn't it almost always going to be best to lead another suit? I mean it's not as bad as KJxxx, but it has the same attributes.

It seems clear to me that it would be a living document, updated as you found better ideas.

Has anyone sketched out forum standard?

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with playing some gadgets at an intermediate -> advanced. Like, if an intermediate pair wants to play transfer walsh with a short club and a 14-16 NT is that REALLY a bridge to far?

2S as a range ask or clubs is genius - I am guessing you bid 2NT with a min and 3C with a Max? Are you also proposing transfer rebids by responder? What do you do with the extra room? Show shortness? On the topic of pass or blast, we do this a lot playing 14-16 to avoid information leakage via non promissory stayman but responders ok 9 counts are a huge problem as the room will be in 1 or 3. Inviting is bad but not inviting is also bad. Does anyone have a writeup o

That really damages your constructive auctions though. Part of the charm of the Wicked 2NT approach is that using puppet stayman and transfers caters for a lot of weak hands and constructive hands. Having to cater for 4 weak possibilities kills all hope.

I had a random thought bubble - the 'wicked 2NT' and its continuations proposed by Glenn Ashton here: http://www.bridgematters.com/weakstng.htm could easily be transferred to the one level (ABF system regulations). While the weak inclusions may have less than 7 HCP they have 'offsetting distribution' assuming you stick to 6 card suits so I do not anticipate a regulatory problem. There is probably a big practical problem thought in that unlike the 2NT opening, it is often going to be harder for responder to guess whether you have the weak or strong hard as you rate to have less HCP when strong and less length in the bid suit when weak. Conversely, responder is more likely to want to get out of 1NT into the weak option, but also want to play 1NT opposite the strong option. The damage to the constructive 1NT auctions (~5% w/14-16 NT range, ~9% with 11-13) of hands may very well outweigh the ability to gain the ability to bid ~3% more often with preemptive hands. I suspect you only want to try this NV - so that playing in 1NT is less of a massive issue Anyone got experience with this or similar methods at the 1 level? Alternatively, theoretical thoughts on the method? Edit: I've played 2C as weak spades, weak diamonds or strong for a long time and have had no issues with the method, but the firepower difference when the weakest balanced inclusion is 22 rather than 15, 14 or 11 may be very significant. edit: IMPORTANT - I mean as an *opening* not an overcall.

I think this has a lot to recommend it.