Statto

You already pointed out that all combinations where ♦J drops have been eliminated, and as Phil K correctly stated, that leaves just 10 combinations for each. If we assume the ♠ lead to be from a 5-card suit, East has shown 5 ♠, 3 ♥ and 2 ♦, and has 3 spaces left for the remaining ♦. West has shown the same number of cards in red suits, but only 3 ♠, so has 5 vacant spaces for the last 2 ♦. This makes it much more likely the finesse will succeed. A quick check at http://www.automaton.../en/OddsTbl.htm makes the finesse 63% and the drop 53%. Of course it's different if the lead was from a 3-card suit, now just 37% finesse, still 53% drop. But enough more often than not it will be from a 5-card suit to favour the finesse, I think. Edit: if you think the lead will be from a 3 card suit rather than 5 card suit more than 40% of the time, you should play for the drop...

There's usually at least 1 slam for your side in a 24 board session. Finding it will be worth at least an extra 2% on your score, which could make all the difference.

Obviously you don't open 2NT with this, that would be plain daft.

A 2♥ reverse after 2♣ would normally show extras and be GF after a non-GF 2/1. 2♠ next by responder as here I think now is GF. There seems little point in 3♥ now being natural, so I think it is a DAB, perhaps looking for something in ♥ for 3NT, or undisclosed extra cards in the other suits.

The double may have helped here, in making pass an available option. I think West should have bid 3NT after 3♣. Edit: on further thought, I like pass by E to show extras here, and anything else to show a min, but that wld have to be agreed, and I don't know if it's any good...

In Perko's auction the 4♦ cue suggests no ♣ control and the 5♦ cue confirms no 1st or 2nd round ♣ control. Signing off in 5♥ is now easy.

Remove ♠K to make it a 13 card hand, and I would non-vul B-)

GIB should be fixed never to pass 4m except in competition or if it was a pre-empt. No human would except in very unusual circumstances, none which spring to mind...

Same issue with Strong ♣ openings, but they remain popular. It's an interesting idea...

A direct 7♠ seems pushy - why won't there be a red suit loser, and how do you find out? 1♠ 2♥ 3♣ 3♦ (fsf) 4♣ (6+-5+) …maybe get to 7♠ after this start. Don't want to end in 7NT :o

Gut instinct says a ♣, can't work out the finer details, and wouldn't attempt to at the table B-)

4♠. Another consideration is that opps will get their ♦ suit into play if we try to be clever. PS. Same at any scoring I think.

As the doubler is more likely to be short, I'd go for the double finesse, getting to back to table with ♥A if need be. I'd also play South for ♦Q if necessary. Had I perhaps already made that choice when I ruffed in dummy? B-)

Just a few seconds for me. We have a good chance of getting in with ♣K (or ♦A) and then leading a ♠ to partner's Ace for a ♥ ruff. Spades are going nowhere for now.

I play that the other way around. 3♣ would be "liking those ♦" whereas 3♦ would be "I'll begrudgingly play your ♦". What should one assume with a pick-up?

Fair point. However, like Han, I have done some analysis. Correlation between combined 'point count' and number of tricks makeable DD declaring in NT, over 100,000 deals, for various evaluation methods, when both of the pair are balanced (4333/4432/5332, 24% of deals) is as follows: Milton adding ½ for tens (from 42 point deck) - 0.914 Milton - 0.912 Banzai - 0.900 KnR - 0.899 Analysis of the pure value of high cards for NT over the same balanced combinations from the random deals gives (for a 40 point deck): A = 4.005 K = 2.821 Q = 1.688 J = 0.890 10 = 0.361 9 = 0.173 8 = 0.061 If we include all deals (including the vastly unbalanced) in the analysis of card value for NT, we get: A = 4.276 K = 2.761 Q = 1.574 J = 0.837 10 = 0.365 9 = 0.158 8 = 0.030 For better analysis, we need a single dummy solver, but I'm not aware of one. I'm sure that in DD analysis Queens tend to be undervalued, due to the 2-way finesses always being right, etc.

I dislike 'complexity' for the same reasons. Playing a system with some flexibility aka hand-waviness encourages development of judgement. I would not recommend a 'rigid' system based entirely on evaluation mechanisms a short-cut. Though of course it is helpful to partner to evaluate what you may have... B-)

I'd expect 2♥ rather than 2NT, as opener doesn't have a ♦ stop but does have Hx in support of ♥.

Could easily have 2 ♥ losers, or a ♥ and ♠ loser. Might even have a ♦ loser. Pass.

The ♣ suit is much better than being simply worth 3 HCP.

As some reviewers on Amazon have said, I don't need to. However, I have discussed it with people who have. Of course this doesn't equate to bidding 6NT. That's not the point I was making, which was that, in the statistical analysis it is based on, these holdings are valued as being worth 6NT. Milton I still think is better for NT, better still is counting ½ point for tens in a 42 point deck. However, it reinforces the fact that Quacks and Tens are good value in balanced hands for NT contracts, something that some players may lose sight of.

The Banzai count is flawed as Thomas Andrews has already pointed out. It is based on the trick taking potential of suits in isolation (Richard Cowen, 1987), with no consideration of the whole hand. For example, KQJ10-xxx-KQJ10-xx opposite xx-KQJ10-xxx-KQJ10 equates to making 12 tricks in NT in the analysis it is based on, when clearly it isn't. In answer to the OP: 1) Are you trying to impersonate 32519 :P 2) I use Milton as a base guide and upgrade/downgrade as necessary, unless it is a highly distributional hand then I start looking at tricks or perhaps losers. A 6-4 shape is always worth some upgrade for a suit contract, it's on the cusp of being highly distributional.

I wouldn't normally disagree with you, but surely almost if not all systems have cases where you squeal? I wouldn't recommend changing system on the basis of one awkward hand.

Should this be on IBLF?

It's worth a reverse after partner shows ♠ so we know ♠K is full value. We have some bullets and depth in ♣.