EricK

Couldn't most of these auctions be improved by making the cheapest rebid by opener the catch-all (including all balanced hands) and swapping the other responses as appropriate? Eric

4♣ is my guess. Eric

It is exactly this sort of problem which Lebenshohl (and its relatives) is designed to solve. If a 2NT response to the re-opening double denies values then you can freely respond 3♦ to the double on a hand like this without partner underestimating your strength. Eric

4♥ looks fine on this hand. If the vulnerability were different I might look to double the opps, but they usually have a place to play and I might end up bidding 4♥ anyway. Eric

Suppose in an unopposed auction you were playing two-way checkback so that 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦ (as a sign off in ♦ or invitational hand) and 2♦ is GF. Then I think if the bidding starts eg 1♣ (P) 1♦ (1♠) 1NT, you should alter your structure as you have two new sequences:- the direct cue-bid and the indirect cue-bid (i.e. 2♣ followed by 2♠). What exactly you should play them as is up to you, but it seems sub-optimal not to put them to some use. Eric

Here the system seems to be to blame. North has bid two suits on a balanced hand. South can hardly bid strongly just in the hope that North has good three card support, when it is more likely he has a singleton or small doubleton. Similarly North has a minimum opening. He can hardly bid this hand three times when South has shown very little, else they will get to too many dodgy games. Eric

I would be impressed with any non-relay pair who could confidently find this one. It is always very difficult when you have a void in partner's best suit. Eric

If this hand is anything to go by, it is because people make take-out double on the wrong sort of hands. Both pairs who ended up in 2♣ had used a take-out double on weak balanced hands. What were they hoping to achieve?! Eric

This is a ridiculous decision! Your opponents were somehow damaged because you had a weaker hand than you promised. If you had had a few more points and they had gone a further one down it would have been OK I suppose! Eric

Play 5 rounds of ♥ discarding 2♠ and a ♣. then cash ♠Q, ♦A, ♦K and then ♠AK. This will make 13 whenever the ♠J falls. If it doesn't fall, then you still have various squeeze chances, and if they don't materialise there is still the ♣ finesse. For instance, here where West is solely guarding ♠ and East solely guarding ♦, they will both have to come down only 2 ♣ in the three card ending, so when you play the second round of ♣ from hand you will know that it will either pop up from West or drop from East. Eric

I have never been convinced about the benefits of Stayman on a GF balanced hand (especially where you have an honour in every suit), so I prefer a direct 3NT on the North hand. To show a profit at IMPS the major suit contract must make two tricks more than NT, so the gains are quite rare. But the losses are many - you give away information about the hidden hand, you give fourth hand the chance to make a lead directing double or bid, you may find a fit and yet run into bad breaks (as happened here). I don't believe 4♠ can be made against best defense. If you take the Ace on the first trick and don't draw all the trumps then you will suffer a ♣ruff. If you do draw all the trumps then you will end up with a fourth loser yourself as you can no longer ruff it! Eric

If you think the double is the only way to defeat them (because it will direct partner to the killing lead), then it is often right to double at IMPS even if you don't know you are defeating them. This, after all, is the theory behind the Lightner double. I don't think this applies to the given hand though. Eric

That's brilliant! Thanks for pointing it out. Eric

How many times would you have to revoke to go down 1100 after opening 4♠ on the given hand? Eric

Thanks Tysen. I am not entirely clear on what this represents. I am guessing that for example the initial 2.4 means that on 2.4% of hands at nil vulnerable we would do worse than par if we bid at all (and were doubled). Is that right? What I was hoping for was the percentage of that contract being the par contract (so that both sides would do worse if they bid on). So for the special case of the hand being passed out the percentage would be the same in each column. Also I was expecting the table to also include doubled contracts - often the par contract is eg 4SX-1. Are these included in with the undoubled contracts? Eric

I suppsoe you've never beento Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, Foxwoods, etc. You are right! But I would imagine that the odds are better in a casino than they are in rubber bridge game with experts. Eric

My wallet wouldn't even hold $5,000! It still strikes me as strange that these people are prepared to lose so much money (and their experience, if they are regulars, must have told them that they are going to lose). Of course, if it is the case the amount they lose is not a lot of money to them then it is a shame that they they can't find a more worthy cause to donate their money to. Unless, for example, Seres and Courtney are using their bridge to help fund their important medical research :lol: Eric

Who are these people making money off? There would have to be enough people who play in big money rubber bridge even though they know they are going to lose big money. Who are they? Eric

Which is why opener should have raised ♥ when he had the chance! Eric or bid 1nt instead of 1♠ :D Will responder always return to 2♥ with 5♥? If so, playing 2♥ with Jxxxx opposite xx is no fun; but if not you would miss the 5-3 fit unless opener raises. Eric

Then you will play in 1♠ if you bid 1♠ or 2♥ if you bid 2♥. I honestly don't know which is more likely. Eric

You don't have time to support ♥ later if partner passes on a minimum 3-5-1-4 (as occured in another post of yours!) Eric

Which is why opener should have raised ♥ when he had the chance! Eric

There is almost no bid in bridge which has only upsides and no downsides. When you bid 4♠ on this sort of hand the main upsides are that opponents might miss a good game, slam or sacrifice, or that you will reach the same contract as you would otherwise but get inferior defense because you have revealed less information about your hand. The main downsides are that you might miss a slam or might propel the opponents into a contract they wouldn't otherwise have reached. Just like with any other bid you have to accept both the upsides and downsides and not judge it by a single result. For what it's worth, the bidding to slam which you quoted was less than convining! What if West had ♠K ♥K9854 ♦KQ964 ♣AJ. Now if East breaks discipline and bids on over West's sign-off they are in a slam off two cashing Aces. In fact East painted himself into a bit of a corner with his bidding sequence (1♠ opener, 4♣ splinter), as he still hadn't got across his extreme shape. That is why he felt compelled to bid on over the 5♥ sign-off. Eric

Not really. That shows the actual results reached by real life players. I am interested in the theoretical par contract (i.e. the lowest contract for which neither side can improve their score by bidding on). But thanks, anyway! Eric

Does anybody know what the distribution of par contracts is, or have the software (and time) to calculate (or at least estimate) it? Well actually I mean to calculate them because there would be a different distribution at each vulnerability (both V, both non-V and non-V v V). Eric