PhilKing

Just to clarify, does it play the jack when the nine or ten appears? Also, I was thinking it might only be necessary to play the T(9) from ATx one time in four as a minimum. Not sure about the max without becoming exploitable. The fact it feels it is entitled to AQ worries me.

Pass 3♦.

I don't see why we should be allowed to bid 2♣ over 1NT - both score 40. Down with Stayman and Landy!

Pass. I have no one specific reason - there are too many to list.

You may have a point. 2♥ on all heart preempts is probably correct to avoid a uinilateral penalty double. As you say, speculative doubles needn't be outlandish, since we are gaining anyway when they are too high.

Sabine knew that East did not expect four spades in dummy, therefore East could have four spades. She had perfect information, more or less, including the inference that partner knew that dummy could have four spades but would assume declarer did not. It was Roy's defence that was at issue, I believe.

But it will still be double dummy sim, so doing a million or whatever makes no difference. There's no point opening 3NT if they are guaranteed to make the best lead. I understand that double dummy and single trick averages tend to be close, but not in this auction! On: A J 8 7 3 9 8 7 Q 10 10 7 3 Partner held seven hearts and a stiff spade, so your sim will find the heart lead, for instance, for down 1 instead of up 1. And a diamond on: J 8 3 7 6 5 4 Q 7 2 10 4 3 For down one instead of up two. And a diamond on: J 10 7 3 A 9 7 Q 10 3 7 5 4 for down one instead of making 9. These three boards account for half the difference, with an overtrick or undertrick frequently appearing elsewhere.

If ever there was an auction where a trick is going on the lead this is it - total tricks on my (micro) sim were 268 - an average of 8.375. It was only the aggressive doubling strategy that gave 1NT the win.

I did a manual 32 board sim with a strategy of doubling with decent 10 counts (this worked rather well, the light double being a sort of freeroll when you know teammates are in 1NT and it produced three 800s and one 1100). Over 32 hands the 1NT strategy won a high-scoring match 115 to 113. Had the conditions been game all, the penalties would obviously be bigger, but 3NT would have nudged it. The KQ tight of hearts hurt us a few times. I would expect a good 16 to favour 3NT. 3NT was a winner at pairs (or at least less bad), 1NT being too narrow a target, and 3NT scored more genuine tops through making when thin or on the lead.

Really? I will try a sim.

The catch is that against a declarer that believes playing the king is correct, we can simply play low in second seat from QTx or Q9x and go in with the ten from ATx. When we play the ten(or 9), if declarer just counts combinations believing us incapable of such a play, he will now play the jack since that caters for QT/Q9. We will own him both ways. Three ways if we add in the play of the Q from QT/9. By falscarding with the correct frequency, we force declarer back to the correct a priori strategy of always playing the jack or just getting destroyed. Declarer loses out on the stiff queen offside, but correct defensive strategy forces this.

FWIW I don't agree with any of your GTO conclusions.

In the situation you describe I would certainly adjust and give a PP. In the actual situation, an adjustment would be terrible and it seems logical to assume you agree.

I would bid 2NT (LR+) but I am sure my regular partner would bid 2♦.

Yes. That is what is known as finding out what's going on - obviously we ruff a spade. My point was, you only ruff out hearts when you discover South is 1?09, where he is known to have 3 hearts. Basically the hand is a claim unless South is 4090 with the spade queen, and even then there may be a double dummy line.

It's a mystery.

Since South has 9 diamonds, hearts are breaking 4-3 very rarely. The double squeeze looks like a clear winner, and even works when South is 1-3-9-0. But as LMB says, play the ♣K to the ace and cash the ♠K to find out what is going on, but Fluffy's line is still fine whether South follows or not!

I am told this never works, but I can't resist - UNANIMOUS. :ph34r:

Both are entirely reasonable. I prefer 55+ inv but I guess the majority would prefer splinter. Neither are particularly likely or necessary. But as Ken says, just bid 4♥ and see.

Question 1: I think it means one has taken leave of one's senses. If it is agreed what 3♥ means, the question is redundant. But if it is undiscussed, we are not safe to be released into the general community. Question 2: With extreme caution and a tranquiliser gun.

:( Just call it Aardvark, or Modified Aardvark or Wombat or ...

I like his "Interactive evaluator." I tried this hand on it: ♠AKQJ ♥AKQ ♦AKQ ♣AKQ. "Binky HCP NT" count rated this hand at 34.8 but "Binky HCP suit" count rated it 37.4 - I fear some head-shaking if spades don't break. More impressively, Binky trick count confidently predicted 15.06 tricks in no trumps - it knows a good hand when it sees it.

The question was about how to show an invitational club raise playing Gazzilli, unless I am mistaken - not what to do playing a completely different system. Not that's that what you said, meant or in any way implied.

.

Lol. This is evidence of what, exactly? I may be going out on a limb, but I am guessing you always believe Wiki. You get that I am talking about original sources - Ingberman was already dead when Pender made his modifications.