EricK

I think that AJT is better than AT6 by more than AKQT6 is better than AKJT6 which is why Binky points may be right when they put B ahead of A. C is harder to judge. The J certainly looks better in the long suit, but perhaps looks are deceiving here. The J is always going to help AQ but the length in the suit may compensate for the lack of J in AKxxx.

Why ask us when Thomas Andrews' interactive evaluator will tell you the answers? http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/iDeal/bin/ddeval.cgi Based on Binky points, Hand 2 is very, very marginally better than hand 3 which is a bit better than hand 1 which is quite a bit better than hand 4

Seems to me that the fear of missing a diamond slam is an argument for not opening 2NT with strong balanced hands. It really doesn't seem relevant to the decision to open 2NT with this particular balanced hand. Case in point: Change your hand to ♠ Q8 ♥ AQ6 ♦ AKQT5 ♣ AT6 Which clearly is 20-21 balanced.... How do you find the Diamond slam after opening 2NT on hand two but not find it on the original one. One is trying to balance a lot of things here: Getting to a good game, getting to the best game, staying out of bad games, getting to good slams etc etc. Each bid helps or hinders each one of these to some degree. Obviously the weaker the hand is, the less chance there is of missing a good game by opening 1♦, so maybe the few extra slams you get to are enough to compensate for missing those games. But if the hand is stronger, then missing game becomes much more likely, but maybe the slam does not become that much more likely (I really do not have an accurate "feel" for the respective numbers in this case). But if that is the case then you gain by opening the stronger hand 2NT to reach those games, and also gain by opening the weaker hand 1♦ because of the slams.

What about the times we get to 6♦ because we opened 1♦?

I sit in front of the TV and collect dust.

I would have bid 3♠ and hope that partner is on the same page. If you languish in 4♠ you must just hope that the people at the other table use their superior bidding methods to get to the good 7♥ contract which (I think) doesn't actually make here!

You had a minimum hand to begin with. LHO's ♠ bid devalued it as your ♠Q is probably worthless. Partner's ♣ bid devalued it further as it looks like the hands might be a misfit. Despite this, you got lucky and found a fit. There was no need to push your luck with a jump to game!

I would tend to agree that a 4♥ bid is very strong but denies a singleton. But you found the slam anyway, so well done!

In that case, 1NT is Pushy.

I have played weak NT all my bridge life so this is not an auction I feel confident about, but if Pass here does not show a weak NT, then what does show it, and what does Pass show?

If you are sure that you do not have two tricks on "normal" defense, but you do if partner has the ♦K, then the underlead of the Ace costs practically nothing (at IMPS anyway) with a very large potential upside. The defense would have been easier to find if North had scraped up a ♦ raise, but that is not everyone's style (nor is a 2♦ overcall with the South hand, for that matter)

What aspects of computer bridge (or just bridge in general) could be helped with the use of genetic algorithms? Could one use them to evolve a hand evaluation system (not just for initial valuation but also one which changes as the bidding progresses)? What about evolving a whole bidding system? (But would the resultant system even be understandable by a human? What about evolving a bidding system which has to eg accord to the ACBL General Chart? What about card play? Has anybody tried to do any of these?

Wouldn't it be ironic if the vast majority of people play it as fit-jump but would assume splinter without discussion! A similar thing happens with 4NT in various sequences. No pair in their right minds would play some of these 4NTs as Blackwood if they discussed it beforehand, but given no discussion they would both assume Blackwood.

People who can spend their time systematically examining the question, rather than people who waste their time playing bridge :D

Just because the differences are not as great as the differences due to other effects doesn't mean that there is no "best" system. Nor does it mean that we should not look for the best system purely as an intellectualk exercise. After all, I am never going to be a champion at bridge. Intellectual exercises are all I have left.

Now I bid 4♣ as I think partner has 5 of them and probably no ♦. I know this is the closest thing to blasphemy in modern day bridge, but I am wondering whether 2♦ is a better bid than 1♠. Over 1♠ partner will probably rebid 2♥ with any 6 card ♥ suit in a weak hand. Whereas over 2♦ he will tend to leave you in 2♦ which is likely to be a better contract. If, on the other hand partner has a strong hand, you can still unearth a 4-4 fit in ♠ with the added bonus that your sequence will have shown strong ♦ and weak ♠. And if there is no 4-4 fit then there is no need to bid your weak ♠ suit.

Not quite. In the style of asking bids I am talking about, the answers do not just relate to the suit in which the ask is made. I have dug up a copy of Kelsey's "Slam Bidding". Here is a list of responses: No control in ask suit: sign off in trumps Second round control in ask suit and no outside first round controls: sign off in trumps Second round control in ask suit and outside Ace: Cue bid the Ace (or jump if this is in trumps) First round control in ask suit and no outside Ace: Raise ask suit Ace in ask suit, void in outside suit: Jump in void suit Void in ask suit, Ace outside: Jump in Ace suit Ace in ask suit, outside Ace: Bid NT Second round control in ask suit, 2 outside Aces: Bid NT Ace in ask suit, 2 outside Aces: Jump in NT Second round control in ask suit, 3 outside Aces: Jump in NT So the method combines asking, cuebidding and Blackwood like responses showing total number of Aces in the hand. There are further details about what subsequent asks mean in the same suit or in other suits. A pair of hands he gives are as follows: Dealer: ♠AKQT73 ♥5 ♦A3 ♣AK43 ♠J962 ♥A763 ♦K94 ♣75 With bidding: 2♠(i) 3♠ 4♦(ii) 4♥(iii) 5♣(iv) 5♠(v) 6♣(vi) 6NT(vii) 7♠ (i) Strong 2 - which shows the age of these methods (ii) Ask in ♦ (iii) Second round control in ♦ plus ♥A (iv) Ask in ♣ (v) No second round control in ♣ (vi) Ask in ♣ (vii) Third round control Another pair of hands (this, and the bidding are from actual play in the 1970 South African Open Teams): Dealer (Mick Haddad): ♠JT876 ♥AK53 ♦K4 ♣J7 Responder (Max Sapire) ♠AKQ9 ♥T876 ♦A96 ♣AK 1♠ 4♦(i) 4♥(ii) 5♥(iii) 5NT(iv) 6♥(v) 6♠(vi) P (i) ask in ♦ (ii) Second round control in ♦ plus ♥A (iii) Ask in ♥ (iv) Second round control in ♥ (v) Ask in ♥ (vi) No third round control in ♥

A very popular method for investigating slams about 30-50 years ago was using asking bids. eg after 1♠ 3♠ (limit bid) 4♣ would ask repsonder about his ♣ control situation and there would be a set of codified responses (something like return to trump suit would mean no control, new suit shows Ace of that suit and control in ♣ etc). Various structures are detailed in "Slam Bidding" by Hugh Kelsey. Why did they go out of fashion? Were they too hard for the average player? Was there some flaw in them? Are cue-bids just better somehow? My father used to play them and says they worked very well (and, in the 1940s and 50s, he could compete on roughly equal terms with the best players in South Africa so his opinion is worth something), but maybe he is only remembering the successes...

Is there a way to get a definitive answer to the sort of bidding questions which crop up repeatedly (eg light v. normal v. "sound" openings; tightly-defined v. loose pre-empts; rebidding 1S or 1NT on balanced hands after eg 1♣ 1♥; light openings in 3rd seat etc etc) Simple argumentation and quoting selected hands doesn't work because both sides have good arguments and can find hands which show their methods to be "the best". Double dummy analysis, where possible, doesn't help as it totally ignores real world factors (both that people are not capable of consistently coming up with the theoretically best approach and also that the theoretically best approach is not necessarily the same as the approach which happens to work double dummy). Analysis of the results of hands with eg BridgeBrowser takes real world factors into account but has flaws of its own (eg you can never be sure the bid was chosen for the reason you are hoping so your sample may be flawed; it makes no allowance for the strength of players so you can't say whether results were due to good play or good bidding) What may work, however, is a computer program which plays good bridge but has an easily programmable bidding interface so we can set up some structured tests and let it run for thousands of hands. One trouble is that for good results one would need to make sure the entire bidding system is very well programmed else the results may not be meaningful. Another is that one would need to try lots of different defensive structures out, or else there is the risk that the good results of one method are due to a poor choice of defensive structure. So is there actually any hope that we can ever answer such questions and have valid evidence to back our answer up?

Which hand is dealer on hand 1? What is your NT strength on hand 2? i.e. can opener have a balanced minimum opening with only 4♥?

I never said it was a particularly good name for it though.

I would have called it a "triple squeeze without the count"

So what do you think of using a 4 HCP range for a 1NT opening? What about for a 1NT rebid? The obvious downside is that if partner has a hand which wants to be in game opposite the very top of the range you risk getting too high if you are at the very bottom. How bad is this in practice? The obvious upside is that you can show many more balanced hands at the one level (eg in a Polish Club structure 1♣ 1♦ 1M = 11-14 (or 12-15); 1NT = 15-18 (or 16-19); 1♣ 1♦ 1NT = 19-22 (or 20-23)). How useful is this? What are the other upsides and downsides?

Isn't this just the phenomenon that when most of the strength is concentrated in one hand (especially if you know that it is there) you can make extra tricks because that hand often comes under pressure - either thrown in to lead away from his other honours or squeezed out of some his high cards.

This answer may be trite, but it is surely simply a matter of how far you have agreed 2♣ to be forcing. If it is unconditionally forcing to game then every non-game bid is forcing. If it is forcing to game or 2NT then 2NT is NF everything other non-game bid is forcing. If it is only forcing to 2NT, 3M or 4m then bids below these are forcing. Non-jump bids to these are NF. A jump to 3♠ sets trumps and is forcing. There are occasionally some fast arrival inferences to be made. eg 2♣ 2♥ 4♠ just says opener wants to play in 4♠. 2♣ 2♥ 2♠ (any) 4♠ therefore shows a hand with some slam ambition but not enough to bid 3♠ on the previous round. 2♣ 2♦ is GF.