nate_m

When splitting honors (even when your holding is solid, so it's not really splitting) signalling honor strength should take priority over count in the suit. I do not believe that there is a "standard" way to play those signals. Somewhat common methods include: -Always split highest honor -Always split 2nd best honor -Play higher honor from a 2 card sequence, lowest from 3 -Play lower honor from a 2 card sequence, highest from 3 I believe Kantar says that when splitting, the correct play is the same card you would play if leading the suit, so the J here. Also, playing the top card from a 4 card holding to give count strikes me as very odd. I believe standard is to play 2nd highest from a worthless 4 card holding (i.e. when not splitting) both because you frequently will be forced to retain your highest from 4 anyway, and because it enables partner to know you have a doubleton if you play the highest outstanding spot.

Feels 110% pass. Looks like they are on a 5-2 or so. We don't have a guaranteed set and if we are beating it there is a good chance they are running to something we REALLY can't defend.

Partner should not be making slam tries opposite a weak 2 missing KJ of trumps and needing controls in both remaining suits. Passing 4♠ seems nuts to me. Partner's 4♠ after splinter shows a mild slam try and you hold what is basically the best hand possible.

It's a crossruffing squeeze.

Pass, we have 3 low diamonds. If we are making anything partner will likely balance.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins "Congress shall make no law..." and yet you can get in trouble for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Somebody who did so might reasonably argue that the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law..." it does not say "Congress shall make no law... save for those that constrain speech to be in a reasonable time, place, and manner." They might argue that it "says what it says, not what the Court wants it to say." Those arguments would not be well received because laws often do not enumerate each and every situation in which there can arise exceptions to a general principle. Laws also often have room for interpretation. The fact that the laws direct players to not choose among LAs one which has been demonstrably suggested by UI does not conclusively demonstrate that the lawmakers have conclusively resolved the UI vs. AI issue. In any case, I don't think this theoretical laws question arises in this case, because I don't think there is a LA to 5♥. You previously mentioned that Pass and 5♣ would be LAs for West, and you said that probably it is right to enforce a Pass on West. I argued that neither were LAs and that partner's failure to pass 4♥ is on-face evidence that we have a bidding misunderstanding. As far as I saw it, passing 4♠ requires you to believe partner has overcalled 2NT on 7 solid spades, which seems unreasonable. Regardless of your opinion of AI duplicating UI, why do you believe passing 4♠ to be a logical alternative for West?

I guess that's where we differ. You might know a lot of players who'd say "damned if I know." If I showed this auction to any "competent" bridge player I know, at least those who are familiar with methods in common use in the U.S., they say that partner thought it was Texas. We can theorize all we want, but in practice when you sign off over pard's NT bid, and pard bids the next suit up, they thought it was a transfer almost 100% of the time. Suppose there is no announcement... I'd still be willing to lay heavy odds partner thought it was Texas and forgot to announce. On the general laws question, my view FWIW is that the laws do not explicitly state the exact procedure one should follow when both UI and AI are present. Some infer that this means presence of AI which duplicates UI should not have any material affect. Some disagree... My view is that in practice a lot of AC's seem to think UI that adds no unique information does not call for adjustment. While AC rulings are hardly the same thing as a court precedent, and AC rulings can often be inconsistent, the "UI with xfer misunderstandings" case has been hashed out to death, with ACs often ruling that when partner comes up with an impossible bid you can wake up to find the wheels have come off. So even though the text of the laws are silent, it makes sense to continue to make rulings consistent with that precedent.

I am SOOO confused over here. You think West should PASS 4♠??? That's your logical alternative? Is West supposed to play partner to have overcalled 2NT on 7 solid spades? The OP implied that the players in question were competent. Is West allowed to credit his partner to have something resembling a 2N bid? The standard for LAs is typically that a significant number of a peers would seriously consider the call and some would actually make it... I cannot accept that passing 4♠ with the West hand after pard bid 2N is an action a competent player would take. (Some might pass because they think that pard's alert requires they commit seppuku, but the presence of UI determines how you select between LAs, not what actions are LAs.) The idea that we should force some kinda cooperation in a slam hunt on West is also pretty strange (and it seems you agree, though why it is not also "highly unlikely" for a partner who bypassed spades to bid 2N to try to play in them at the 4 level over a signoff is somewhat strange to me) because 4♥ if natural is an absolute signoff. I would not list 5♣ as a logical alternative... I also (strongly) disagree with the idea that 5♥ is based purely on "unauthorized panic." Yes, West has UI that partner thinks they have spades. They also have authorized information that partner thinks the same because partner has just made an impossible bid. This authorized information makes it so there is no logical alternative to 5♥ hoping to correct the misunderstanding/place the contract in a reasonable spot. I don't consider myself in any way an expert on the laws, but what you are describing as logical alternatives in this case seem totally absurd to me... This type of forgotten transfer case happens a fair bit and the NABC casebooks are littered with decisions in which partners were allowed to "wake up" when partner makes an absurd sounding bid. In a lot of those cases "completing the transfer" was merely strange and suggested a misunderstanding, in this case the 4♠ bid is completely impossible. I listed one such case in my previous post and I'm certain there are a lot more out there. If a player with UI can never wake up to a misunderstanding, no matter how mind-blowingly obvious the authorized information makes it, why are top level AC's ruling that they can? Why are those who write commentary on the casebooks applauding their rulings? Why is somebody who consistently serves on top level AC's writing that if UI duplicates AI, there should be no adjustment?

Just wondering, could one of PeterAlan/Blackshoe please explain what less successful logical alternatives West should choose from given that they are in possession of UI? Should they pass, reasoning that pard probably overcalled 2NT on 7 solid? Should they bid 5♣ reasoning that pard is making a slam try opposite a clear drop-dead signoff in an auction where W had room to make a slam try? Who are "significant portion" of players who are seriously considering any of these calls? Who are the "some" who are actually making them? Is there really a significant portion of players who if polled about the auction in question, with no mention of alerts, does not automatically think, "Pard thought it was Texas?" I mean I get that I hold the (apparently absurd) belief that UI that provides zero unique information should not constrain the recipient. Perhaps a strict literal reading of the laws does not justify that conclusion. I guess I just don't think there is any logical alternative to 5♥ in the given auction so I don't think that question arises. That opinion could be entirely off base, but I'm curious to see just what the logical alternatives are. As an aside, I believe that while a strict literal reading of the laws might not lead one to the conclusion that UI that provides zero unique information is irrelevant, I do think the laws are interpreted that way in practice, because the alternative interpretation seemingly leads to absurd rulings. There are a lot of casebooks that discuss similar rulings in which a player is allowed to "wake up" to a misunderstanding despite the presence of UI when partner makes an "impossible" bid. (This type of transfer case has zillions of rulings, the first one I happened to find being here. (South bids 2♦ over pard's NT on ♦QJ10xxx, pard announces xfer and bids 2♥, director+committee+commentators all vote result stands after South continues 3♦ and pard bids 3N.) I will readily admit that I could be totally off base in thinking that "AI duplicates UI" is a reason not to adjust score, and in looking I was unable to find support for that idea in the text of the laws alone. I realize that phrasing actually comes from Jeff Goldsmith's writings on the subject. However, that does not alter my belief that a lot of national AC's apply that idea in practice. Nor does it alter my belief that it is entirely desirable for them to do so.

Unless West visibly reacts or something, East doesn't have UI and so ought not to be constrained. West has UI in that pard probably alerted/announced. I think this is entirely duplicated by the AI that partner has bid anything other than pass. This is not the same as say, an auction like 1NT-(2♣)-2♦-P-2♥ where the 2♦ bid was intended as natural. The 2♥ bid does not necessarily show the wheels have come off, so the 2♦ bidder may not choose a LA suggested by the fact that 1NT opener thinks it's a transfer auction. In the actual auction there exists no hand that would EVER bid 4♠ after 4♥ UNLESS it was interpreted as Texas. IMO West should not be constrained either because AI duplicates UI.

Win, spade ace, spade ruff, 3 rounds of clubs ending in dummy, spade ruff, heart king, club ace.

Double dummy you can pull trump back to hand, heart king to the ace, heart. If South flies queen, ruff, cross trump ace and duck a heart endplaying North into giving you a ruffsluff to the board. If South plays low you duck into North. North then either sets up hearts with the trump ace as entry or concedes a ruffsluff allowing you to set up hearts with the trump ace intact.

Seems like the results indicate about what one would expect, namely that on balance it is unlikely that one side will take 11 tricks. I would imagine that the dd results would show similar results doubling on 2 aces and out. They might well show gains holding even less. In practice, I think it's a huge loser to make the meaning of X in that auction "Practically forced. It is a-priori unlikely that your side will take 11 tricks." I'd also guess that the results of the dd sim don't really show any advantage to doubling with the given hand because on a lot of the hands where you get it for a number your partner might have hit it playing a normal doubling style.

I think the most common system is/was something like 3OM=slam try with shortness 4♣=RKC in M 4♦=BAL slam try with M fit I think Grant Baze was credited with that structure. A lot of people inverted 4♣ and 4♦ to allow for last train over the BAL slam try which is probably superior but I think the version with 4♦ BAL is the "original."

Blame goes to West for covering looking at K109xx in dummy.

The inference about the lead from 4 card suits is even stronger than I think you give it credit for. If the opening lead was from 4, it is often correct to finesse opening leader for the queen, even with 9 cards between your hand/dummy. This is certainly true if there are 2 eight card fits for the defense, and I'd guess in the example given on BW hooking through opening leader is a small favorite in the event of a lead from 4.

A lot of people have negative knee-jerk reactions to applications of Bayes' Theorem. However, even skeptics use reasoning similar to that used in the article. For example, when somebody leads from Jxxx or underleads an ace vs. a suit contract, there is an inference that they had no attractive lead. When somebody leads a shorter suit against a NT contract, the same reasoning makes it less likely they have a longer one on the side. Of course you have to be careful with your assumptions, but the general idea is sound. Justin blogged an article on leads that uses similar reasoning to guess a missing queen.

Pass and I really don't think this is close. We could easily go for 500 on a partscore deal.

A grand missing the queen of trumps vs a cold small slam is about as even money of a bet as you will see in terms of EV at IMPs. At MPs I'd bid 6H. At IMPs, flip a coin as to whether or not to bid 7NT.

I'd X but I don't terribly like it. I will definitely sell out to 3H.

I don't quite follow your reasoning. Firstly, in the PARTICULAR problem we are dealing with, any holding EXCEPT J10 doubleton or J109 is irrelevant, because if he had a doubleton containing the 9, he'd have been forced to drop it already, and he played the J10. However, assuming that we are dealing with the general question of how do we play it after they drop 2 of the J109, I believe your scaling is incorrect. It is the case that if I scale the odds of suit breaks, the odds of 3-3 is around 60% and 2-4 40%. However, having decided I only am going to consider ANY doubleton honor (J10, 109, J9) and the specific tripleton J109, the odds change again. The J109 combination is only one twentieth of the possible 3-3 splits, and the splits that contain J10, 109, or J9 are only one fifth of the possible 2-4 splits. I must take that into account if I am going to use a scaling the odds approach. I assumed that order of play would not matter from doubletons, as you pointed out, it may matter in the case of J9 (though I think many would card randomly from J9 as well) Regardless, restricted choice is so with the odds that I don't think it affects the overall result terribly much.

The following are my own calculations, but: 1. a. 73.17% b. 26.83% P(A|B)=P(B|A)P(A)/P(B)= P(B|A)P(A)/[P(B|A)P(A)+P(B|~A)P(~A)]=P(B|A)P(A)/[P(B|A)P(A)+P(B|C)P©]=.7317 P(C|B)=P(B|C)P©/P(B)= P(B|C)P©/[P(B|C)P©+P(B|~C)P(~C)]=P(B|C)P©/[P(B|C)P©+P(B|A)P(A)]=.2683 Where A is RHO having J10, and B is that I see the J10 drop on the first 2 rounds of the suit. Call C the event RHO has J109. P(B|C) is C(2,2)/C(3,2)=1/3. Assuming random plays from equal holdings, the order of the drops doesn't matter. (I assume that's what's meant by "perfect" play). We also make the assumption that RHO wouldn't dump the J10 from J10x, i.e. we assume that once he drops the J10, he holds either J10 doubleton or J109. If he's dropping out of 4 cards or longer, no play matters so we don't include that in our calculation. P(B|A)=C(2,2)=1. This shouldn't shock, if RHO has J10 doubleton he must play the J10. P(A)=[C(2,2)/C(6,2)][C(6,2)C(18,11)/C(13,26)]=.01615 The bracketed parts are the odds of pulling specifically the J10 out of any 2-4 split and the odds of a suit splitting 2-4 respectively. P©=[C(3,3)/C(6,3)][C(6,3)C(18,10)/C(13,26)]=.01777 The bracketed parts are the odds of pulling specifically the J109 out of any 3-3 split and the odds of a suit splitting 3-3 respectively. We obtain: P(A|B)=(1)(.01615)/[(1)(.01615)+(1/3)(.01777)]=.7317 P(C|B)=(1/3)(.01777)/[(1)(.01615)+(1/3)(.01777)]=.2683 B. C. Neither opponent will vary their play. It does not pay to alter your play from equals. The reason "restricted choice" is valuable is that it is not a statement of bridge psychology, it is a statement for probability. To be willing to alter your play, you would have to be convinced that a given opponent would play J10 out of J109, keeping the 9, a bit over 90% of the time. (That is the break even point for the two probabilities.) Nobody does this, and even if they did, you could not be sure of it. It can be demonstrated, using a more general calculation, that it CANNOT pay to do so. That is, any dramatic alteration of strategy to always play J10 out of J109 carries a cost, because every time you DO drop a 9, the odds of J109 being your holding are minimal. Restricted choice is NOT a statement of tendency. It is a fact of probability. Its power can be seen more clearly if you ask the more useful general question: "If RHO drops ANY 2 equal honors, what are the odds of him holding that PARTICULAR doubleton or the specific holding J109. After all, there is nothing terribly unique about the play of the J10 as opposed to the J9 or 910 etc. You are ALWAYS better off hooking.