Statto

It does depend a bit on style, but playing 4 card majors I've heard it quoted that a 1♠ opener will be 5+ cards somewhat over 90% of the time, while a 1♥ opener will be 5+ cards somewhere around 70% of the time. For that reason you might, with a regular partner, want to consider a system where 1♠ promises 5+, and 1♥ promises only 4+, which is quite popular. However, bear in mind that if you change one aspect of your system, you may also need to change other aspects to compensate. But by all means if you have a regular partner who is willing, and you do a bit of post-mortem analysis, a little bit of experimentation may be beneficial to your overall understanding of how bidding systems work. Otherwise, you are probably better to stick to the proscribed system you've learnt until you feel confident about branching out.

If I start with pass, I will be hoping to make a 2-suited call next round, not simply 4♠. However, there may not be one available that shows both black suits immediately which is what I would want. The best way to shut out opps ♥ (or ♦) game is to bid 4♠ now. But at unfavourable in 1st seat I don't like it with such poor suits, so would consider 3♠, then decide on 4♠ as I have absolutely no defence. 4♠=7, 3♠=5, Pass=5, 1♠=1, Others=0.

It's risky to open 1NT light in 3rd seat. 4th seat is the only unlimited hand and is likely to be able to double. Partner has not opened so is limited to about 11 HCP and will quite often be weaker still, such that 1NT has no chance of making. Partner also did not have a weak 2 or other pre-emptive opening, so the chances of finding somewhere good to run to are lowered. Although the weak NT is semi-preemptive, the seats in which it works best are the opposite of those where normal pre-empts work best. It is most effective in 2nd seat when partner is unlimited but RHO is limited, as for one thing it prevents LHO making a light opener in 3rd seat.

Good point. Don't know why I said that :(. Obviously it's not ridiculous if you want a long teams game with matchpoints strategy.

If you want to play transfers at the 2 level, you could employ the stolen bid principle, where a double of the intervening bid says that that's the bid you would have made with systems on. I've no idea how that fits with Rubinsohl, as I haven't played them in combination. Edit: corrected should to could

Safety plays tend not to occur in MPs, but are important at IMPs. As GGWhiz says, they are different animals, but you can't dismiss one as being more lucky than the other, because in the long term the luck balances out. Possibly you can get more lucky short term in IMPs, but the Bermuda Bowl is played over a large number of boards, I think at least 88 per match in the latter stages. But do we really want to eliminate luck altogether? The soccer world cup usually involves some minnows getting to the quarter final, whilst one of the favourites is knocked out, but captivates the audience. We could change the scoring system, e.g. awarding points for goal attempts, possession, corners, etc. as an attempt to eliminate luck, but it would change the game and make it less interesting for the spectators. Edit: removed silly final sentence.

Don't worry, I do. But it is also useful to study how algorithms work (or don't) in order to improve one's own judgement, if you are that way inclined. And the GIB programmers have to stick to algorithms, or devise a NN learning system. I mean, you surely already use an algorithm to decide whether to make an opening bid. Something about Milton points, I gather, but I never got the hang of it. I just look at my hand and decide if it feels like it's worth an opening bid B-)

I don't normally double a bid between 2♥ and 3♦ for penalty, because in most cases my double would be for take-out or have some other meaning. It's true it is rare for the natural redouble to be useful, though sometimes it is. It used to be possible to re-redouble ad infinitum to raise the stakes, so there must have been some reason for removing that from the game. Lots of artificial uses of redouble given above, including the generic SOS when it is obviously so. I will add R0P1. I will not throw the card away from the bidding box.

I will try and do this if I have time. But it may be better if I spend the time to tidy up the Java code and put it online somewhere so you can play around yourselves. Send me a PM to nag me if you're interested B-)

It's not just of academic interest. Any bridge player who wants to improve should be looking at hands after the event to see where they could have bid or played better, but to avoid bias should also look those where they bid and played really well, and give themselves a pat on the back :D Looking at other methods of hand evaluation in various contexts is not of purely academic interest. You can see whether Zar or Banzai points would have helped you find the game that quite a few others did, or was found against your team-mates. Not really for a reason to use them, but to see what value they have, and whether there is something there which can help improve your judgement :)

4♠. It seems likely that one of 4♥ or 4♠ is making, if not both. Why is the thread called Transfer?

Zar points are entirely geared towards suit contracts. Banzai points are entirely geared towards NT contracts. It's not surprising that they run counter to each other. However, the analysis that Banzai points are based on (which was done by Richard Cowen in 1987) is flawed because it is based on the number of winners in each suit in isolation without taking account of the overall number of losers. To take an extreme case, KQJ10 in two suits opposite KQJ10 in the other two suits is judged as being worth 12 tricks in the analysis, when clearly with 4 Aces missing it is only worth 9 tricks, plus perhaps a bit for luck if opps don't manage to cash all 4. I ran the linear regression analysis for NT contracts, restricting it to cases where both hands are balanced (5332/4432/4333 - 24% of all deals) and found that Banzai had a correlation of 0.900 compared with 0.912 for Milton. The caveat of course is that double dummy analysis is not ideal, as for one thing it grossly undervalues Queens, assuming that with a choice of finesse, possibly either way, or drop, you'll always get it right. Thomas Andrews has done some research into this kind of stuff.

Because of the extra shape, i.e. something to say. But like others I infinitely prefer 3♦; 3♥ suggests only 4 ♦ to me.

This works when you have to give up one trick to set up some tricks. But if you have to give up 2 tricks, then even a 4-3 split will be of concern, and it is then best to hold up for 2 rounds and hope the same opponent wins both the tricks you have to give up, and is the one who started with 3 or fewer in the suit led. E.g. Dummy ♠ 7 6 3 ♥ K 7 4 ♦ Q 10 5 2 ♣ A J 4 Declarer ♠ A 8 4 ♥ A Q 6 ♦ J 9 6 4 ♣ K Q 3 Playing in 3NT, you only have 7 top tricks, and need to set up 2 tricks in ♦ to make the contract. On a ♠ lead and continuation, you should hold up the ♠A until the 3rd round. Now you need to hope that one opponent has both ♦A and ♦K and no more ♠. It's a slim chance but the only chance. If you were to play ♠A on the 2nd round, and ♠ break 4-3, the opponent with ♦A and ♦K who started with 3 ♠ will still have a ♠ left to lead to their partner to defeat the contract.

1NT might be the best contract. It depends on opener's actual hand.

I know you know this, but if we make 3♥ we gain 3 IMPs compared with beating 2♠ by 1 trick undoubled. Those 3-6 IMP gains add up B-)

I'd like to bid 3♠. It certainly shows the "good" type of hand, and I think should be 1st round control. Why waste space with 4♠? But if I'm showing controls I should bid 3♥.

FYP B-). We play 1♣...1NT as 16-19 balanced, and when partner opens 1♣ and I bid 1♦, it seems to be almost inevitable that partner's next bid will be 1NT, I would guess 4 times in 5.

That's interesting, as Truscott was recommended to me very recently (well, about a year ago) by someone who has just achieved national selection. Maybe it depends on the defences against the defences. What is your defence against Truscott?

I think it makes sense to reverse the meaning of these bids, because when you don't have ♠ you'd like to remove the opportunity for responder to show them at the 1 level.

Most popular defence I'm aware of is Truscott: X = ♣ + ♥ 1NT = ♦ + ♠ 1♦/♥/♠/2♣ = that suit and the next suit up Can be bid on very weak hands at appropriate vulnerability for the interference factor, particularly when partner can preemptively raise one of your suits, cutting out opps bidding space before they've discovered a fit, or even disclosed a suit. With a single-suited hand that wants to bid, obviously you bid it at 2♦ or higher.

I'm not selling out to 1♦ at matchpoints when they are nonvul. X following up with 2♣ is probably my choice. Anything but pass.

Yes, it is Jacoby transfer, showing a 5+ card ♠ suit and asking partner to bid 2♠. Indeed, Stayman is best for finding a 4-4 fit in a major, but is also very useful when you have one 4-card major and one longer major, to check for a 4-4 fit first. A jump to 3♣ is normally natural with a 6 card suit; it might be invitational or game forcing depending on agreements - in SAYC (and probably also in the system you are learning) it is invitational. Some play "Extended Stayman" where after a 2♦ response to Stayman, you follow up with a 3♦ bid asking for a 3-card major. It's not particularly standard, but does have a name - though be aware that there is more than one convention with this name :o

It depends if 1NT-2♣;2♦-3♠ would be used for the 5-4 GF hands, or for a 6-4 hand.

http://www.google.co...over%29+reverse Edit: Ok, maybe if splinters are not played then Leb probably isn't either.