SteveMoe

Double post deleted

Some context: I play 4♣ as game invitational in this sequence - protecting a possible misfit / wasted values in the other minor. We play 1N-P-3♥/♠ as splintering for minors with a 3-card major fragment. Playing 4-suit transfers, transferring to minors shows no interest in hearing about partner's 4 or 5-card major. Keeps things simple, even if this might not be optimum. 3♦ response to Puppet might encase a 2-card ♣ holding, while 3N is less likely to do so (3=3=5=2 only). So I can afford to bid game directly. Really hard to judge working points here - few good tools... One more point - I use Puppet to find partner's 5-card major, not to find a 4-4 fit. If I do not hold a 3-card major I do not use puppet. I know that allows for more information leakage, but the inferences left to partner are rich and important. What do you think and how do you approach this issue? (Aside: with one partner I play 1N-P-3♦ as 55 GF in the minors (no 3-card major fragment); so 1N-P-3♥/3♠ as 3 card major fragment with 2, 1 or 0 in the other major - a fusion of the minor splinter slam try and the balanced Anti-Lemming game try invented/promoted by Alan Truscott. It works! .. and it eliminate the opponent's double as a suggestion for sacrifice...)

After 1m - 1M we play the Q-bid 2M as Inv+ with NT in focus. Opener is asked to rebid NT with a stopper or re-Q with a partial stop and GF values. If responder's intention is GF in m (or slammish), it will develop from there. Certainly a good idea to put East on lead from the get-go. Double for me promises 4♠s.

I would venture 3♣ Puppet Stayman, then raise 3M to game. Over 3♦ I rebid 4♣ and over 3N I bid 5♣.

I think the auction has a better shot at getting to the right spot if it were: [hv=d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1d1sd3s4d4s5c]133|100[/hv] East has a monster hand after partner rebids 4♦ and should show the x=4=y=5 pattern now. y .LTE. 2

I like the way Bobby Levin and Steve Weinstein think about this question: 1m-1M: Now what? Holding the ♠109 I'll rebid 1N too.

I would duck only if RHO encourages. If not, win, and play on the pointeds, hoping that 3-3, Jxxx-xx or xxxx-Jx happen in either.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj5hqt5dqj5cq964&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d2c]133|200[/hv] Pessimistic valuation - 4Q's (4 x 1.5) + 2J's (2 x 0.75) + 1-10 (0.25)= 7.75. Adjust down for 3334. I'll pass then remove partner's double to 2N.

On LTC alone, it looks like slam is at worst on a finesse. Partner's 18-19 should be about 5 losers (2 Kings above a 12 HCP 7-loser opening bid). Our hand is 7.5 losers. Aside: I am unfamiliar with the interpretations for these 2 sequences. Does 1♦-1♠-4♠ deny the ability to make a splinter raise? Which would partner use with 4=2=5=2? (I play the first as balanced 18-19 and the second as 2=2=5=4 18-19). Possible honor card packages that make slam interesting: ♠KQ ♥AK ♦AK ♣- ♠KQ ♥AK ♦A ♣K ♠QT ♥AK ♦AK ♣K ♠QJ ♥AKQ ♦A ♣K With ♠KQ ♥KQ ♦KQ ♣K we are safe at 5 while ♠KJ ♥AQ ♦AJ ♣K and others would be unfortunate. I am inclined to advance 5♣ in either sequence. I cannot initiate key card. I will rebid 5♠ over partner's red suit control bid. Partner will know I have Blacks controlled but none in the reds.

Look closely - this split is part of line B, low to K not J. Line B dominant shows more tricks for B.

Counting 12 tricks seems to require 3 ♠ ruffs, 2♣ ruffs, 2 trump tricks, 1♠ trick, 1♣ trick, and 3♦ tricks. Superficially seems to require 2-2 trumps, ♠A(x(x)), and no ♦ ruff. We fail to get 3♦ tricks for 1/2 5-0 splits (2%) and 80% of 4-1 splits (22.4%) so we succeed 75.6% - Bracketing 3-1 trumps splits (we might handle some/many of these), success probability lies between 12.5% (Axx) x 40% (2-2 Trumps) x 75.6% -and- 12.5% x 90% (4-4 or 3-1 trumps) x 75.6% or 3.8 - 8.5% No way slam. K opposite void warns away...

Perhaps something like this: 1♣ - 1♥ - 3♣ - 3♥ 3♠ - P - 4♦ - P 4♥ - P - 4♠ - P 6♣ -or- if West is inspired to rebid 4♥: 1♣ - 1♥ - 3♣ - 3♥ 3♠ - 4♥ - 4N(2ndary ♦) - P 5♥ - P - 6♣

Trying one more time... ................................TRICKS West-East.......#.......prob....A...B AQ-T9xx.........1.......0.0161..3...4 AT9xx-Q.........1.......0.0121..2...3 AT9x-Qx.........2.......0.0323..2...3 AT9-Qxx.........1.......0.0178..3...4 ATx-Q9x.........2.......0.0355..3...4 A9x-QTx.........2.......0.0355..3...4 Axx-QT9.........1.......0.0178..3...4 Ax-QT9x.........2.......0.0323..2...3 ...............12.......0.1994 QT9x-Ax.........2.......0.0323..3...2 QT9-Axx.........1.......0.0178..4...3 QTx-A9x.........2.......0.0355..4...3 QT-A9xx.........1.......0.0161..4...3 Q9x-ATx.........2.......0.0355..4...3 Q9-ATxx.........1.......0.0161..4...3 Qxx-AT9.........1.......0.0178..4...3 Qx-AT9x.........2.......0.0323..3...2 ...............12.......0.2034 Where a trick difference exists, the grey cases are symmetrical - A replaces Q. The red cases are unique. What SP underline depends on the line selected - A or B. A shows the J, B shows the K as long as the card played by West is smaller... The 5th card is irrelevant because the 5-1 and 6-0 splits do not differentiate lines of play.

2N Asking - Ogust, feature, whatever our agreement...

I'd open the posted hand 1NT given the ♥KJ. Rearrange it a bit to ♠AQ984 ♥93 ♦AK10 ♣KJ10 and it's a clear 1♠ opening bid.

Ben, it looks as if the solution is asymetric in an unexpected way. I find it fascinating. Of the 64 cases, only 24 show a difference between the 2 lines of play. There are 12 cases each for leading to the J (call this "A") and leading to the K (Call this "B"). Of the 12 cases favoring A, 4 win 3 tricks for A to 2 for B. Of the 12 cases favoring B, 5 cases win 3 tricks to 2 for A. Thus A has ONE MORE CASE where it wins 4 tricks than B does. Note there are only 8 patterns comprising the cases for each line. Hand tabulating the data from Suit Play shows: ................................TRICKS West-East.......#.......prob....A...B AQ-T9xx.........1.......0.0161..3...4 AT9xx-Q.........1.......0.0121..2...3 AT9x-Qx.........2.......0.0323..2...3 AT9-Qxx.........1.......0.0178..3...4 ATx-Q9x.........2.......0.0355..3...4 A9x-QTx.........2.......0.0355..3...4 Axx-QT9.........1.......0.0178..3...4 Ax-QT9x.........2.......0.0323..2...3 ...............12.......0.1994 QT9x-Ax.........2.......0.0323..3...2 QT9-Axx.........1.......0.0178..4...3 QTx-A9x.........2.......0.0355..4...3 QT-A9xx.........1.......0.0161..4...3 Q9x-ATx.........2.......0.0355..4...3 Q9-ATxx.........1.......0.0161..4...3 Qxx-AT9.........1.......0.0178..4...3 Qx-AT9x.........2.......0.0323..3...2 ...............12.......0.2034 All other cases result in equivalent results between A and B. Looks to me like the difference is in the QT-A9xx and Q9-ATxx instances. The payoff table shows this is a close decision: ..............A.........B P(4).......24.224.....22.609 P(3).......80.342.....81.553 P(2).......98.509.....98.509 E(Tricks)..3.031.......3.027 ...a razor thin difference.......

2♦ for me.

BROMAD (Bergen Raises over Major and Double) anyone? 2♣=3-card LR 2♦=3-card CR 2M = 3-card weak raise 2OM= 4-card CR 2N= 4-card LR+ (Jordan)

We play a modest version of 2-way NMF. 2♣ implies 11-15 HCP and 5-card major. Standard responses. 2♦ is 16+ and not imply 5-card major. Natural responses. (Slam seeking, could be highly distributional....) This approach follows old notes from MR Client Precision and has worked fabulously for us. We do give up on playing in 2♦. Others will play 2♣ puppet to 2♦ and not lose this contract.... For this hand I would expect our auction to go 1♦ - 1♥ 1N - 2♦ followed by natural bids, knowing slam might be in the picture. If you play inverted minor raises with 4-card majors allowed, than that would be responder's first bid. Not very many paly that way where I play but it is a good approach. Searching BBO might find enough references for you.

I'd try: ♦A, ♦ ruff, ♠A If nothing interesting happens I play Q to ♣K and hook the ♠.

Amen 2 Hopefully partner would bid 3♥ instead of 2 with 5+ cards and 7-8 HCP. Too many ways partner will: have unhelpful shape and 2) no entries to hand...

What Chris said...

4♥ - Must act (not close). Double not appropriate. 4N (2P2P) seems wrong on tricks/strength/shape.

Yup - misread the first time. Still, the difference feels incongruous.

Don't think #7 applies Chris - the Precision 2♣ opener is 11-15 not 15+, and 2♣ is not forcing...