eyhung

True. But that hand is very close to the line for double and bid; and it is also an improbably good construction (♣AK opposite doubleton). Also partner need not have 6 hearts. I have read somewhere, don't play partner for perfect cards. Oh well I am obviously in the minority. Maybe I need to loosen up my bidding ... That was a very good-fitting hand, no question about it, but that was in response to a poster who overcalls 2H on weaker hands than the standard. For a standard overcaller, there are many types of hands in the overcall range where game is good: Qx AQxxx KJx Kxx x AQxxxx Kx Axxx AJx QJTxx AJx xx Granted, as my sim shows, the majority of the time, you do not have game in hearts -- so yes, the hands I have shown are by definition well-fitting. But the majority of time you invite and _partner accepts_, I expect to win IMPs, while I do not expect inviting to lose IMPs. Passing is unilaterally deciding that your side simply doesn't have game, and I don't think the IMP odds are on your side.

I thought the question was between 3H and 2NT -- passing seems way too conservative at IMPs unless partner has ridiculous standards for his 2H overcall. From experience, I know 2NT on 8 HCP doesn't work, but I admit my experience is biased in this case because I normally don't hold so many good intermediates. Out of curiosity, I ran a 1000-hand sim, giving LHO a 1S opening in my style, and partner a 2H overcall in my style (both defensively sound). In hearts, we average 9 tricks : we make game 37.9% of the time, 9 tricks 30% of the time, and 8 tricks 21.3% of the time. (Of course, down 1 is usually ok because that means it's likely they can make something). So passing seems needlessly pessimistic. In notrump, on the same dataset, we average 7.4 tricks : we make game (9+ tricks) 25.2% of the time, make 8 tricks 22.6% of the time, and make 7 tricks 23.3% of the time. My conclusion is that 2NT is not a good bid -- because it unilaterally directs us towards a strain that on average tends to play 1.6 tricks worse, shooting for a target that is 1 trick lower. This simulation says nothing about the raise vs. the cue-bid, though -- if partner can use his judgement to discern hands where notrump outperforms hearts, then the cuebid could be right. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to automate that.

Pass Pass?? Well, at least you are consistent with your answers. Playing opposite yourself, you can't raise if you could be overcalling with a flat, jack-high 11-count as you do in http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=34772. But if your minimum to overcall is lower, your maximum must also be lower or you will miss game by passing this hand. That puts extra pressure on the sequence "double then bid hearts". I don't think it's wise to double and bid with a hand such as xx AJxxxx Kx AKx, but opposite your advancing style, you risk playing 2H when game is percentage.

your partner only rates to be on lead only vs NT. Consequently which suit would you like to set up for your tricks. My quip about the lead-direction was to highlight that one should not bid this hand on the basis of its inherent trick-taking value. It is unsound to bid this hand at the 2-level in a vacuum, because if you do not have a fit with partner, your best spot is probably 2H or 2NT and you rate to go down multiple tricks in either denomination. So if not for trick-taking, then what are you bidding for? It's not for the lead. The only other non-trick-taking-based reason I can see to overcall is to consume bidding space that might be useful to your opponents. I just don't see that as enough compensation for the fact that you are likely too high for your bid and given your poor trumps, the opponents will be doubling you when you are going down big. And even if partner comes up with enough to let you make 2H, partner will put you too high. It's a clear overbid to me. I ran a quick double-dummy sim giving RHO a 1S opening : 2H takes 0-6 tricks 42% of the time. 7 tricks 16% of the time. 8 tricks 17% of the time. 9 tricks 16% of the time. 10 tricks 9% of the time. Average # of tricks taken : 7, standard deviation 1.91 If you are bidding this hand because you perceive its trick-taking value to be sufficient, then you are either one hell of a declarer or your perceptions are misguided.

I rebid 1NT because I think the technical and practical (system simplicity) advantages of having the 1S rebid promise an unbalanced hand outweigh the losses on this type of hand. And the losses are not guaranteed: if partner has game-invitational values, I will end up in the same strain as the 1S bidders thanks to 2-way checkback. In fact, I may end up ahead if partner rebids 2S showing 4-4 invitational, as I will reject and play in 2S while some of my 1S counterparts are rejecting and playing in 3S. And if partner has game-forcing values, I think I will be ahead by limiting my strength and defining my shape early. But if, as is more likely, partner is weak and I end up playing in 1NT, even that is not a sure minus position. My honors are mostly slow, and with my spade tenace, the opponents are much more likely to blow a trick on opening lead against my 1NT than against partner's 2H. Opening leader in particular is unlikely to have a long suit to run (else he would have overcalled.) But Justin is right, when partner has a mediocre hand with 4-4 in the majors, it will be hard to do better than the tables in spades, and that is a system loss.

2H is nuts. Assuming a standard american-style system, this hand isn't worth opening 1H when RHO passes. Why should you be eager to bid one level higher when RHO has shown a good hand? Certainly not as a lead-director, I hope.

Perhaps you should redefine your definition of "fairly good" player, then. At least in their understanding of standard leads, I would define them as "bad". Defense can be really difficult if partner could have a good holding (AJ98) or a weak holding (9xx, 98x). This point is highlighted by the ambiguity of the standard lead of the 8: because the 8 can be from strong holdings (AJ98, AQ98, KJ98, sometimes KQ98) as well as weak holdings (8xx, 8x, sometimes T8xx), it can create some confusion amongst advancing players who see the 8 and make the knee-jerk assumption that their partner is leading from weakness. I see no benefit to extending this confusion to the 9 as well.

Lobowolf has it right. Heart Ten is one of the worst possible leads given the bidding. There are obviously hands where leading a heart is right, but they are far less common than hands where leading a (high) club is right.

Quick clarification in response to a PM : some good players may already know that a heart is a standout lead on that hand, but I have found that there exist plenty of players who do not see why that a heart is a standout. So not all players will benefit from the book, but I think some of the points it makes (when to lead from AJx against a suit contract; when to lead 5th-best; what to lead from 98x vs. 972; suggestions for lead-directing double definitions) are not well-covered elsewhere. So if you lack confidence in your opening leads, it's a good book to read.

Enthusiastic second vote for Lawrence's book. It's one of the few books where after I read it and started applying its lessons, I began to notice immediate, significant improvement in my scores. Even a good player will find his discussion on what to lead from QT86 QT86 QT86 6 against 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT particularly insightful.

Fred, I agree that fairness is less important than enjoyment, but what about modifying the definition of "best hand" to be based less on HCP and more on playing strength? If I had to choose between AKxxx Axxxx xx x or QJx QJx QJx QJxx I'd rather have the first hand, but your algorithm would give the humans the second hand. A simple HCP + length of two longest suits algorithm would give the humans some more freak hands to bid and play, and might reduce inferences about HCP.

There's an advantage to leading towards short honors that you didn't mention -- you may be able to gain a trick. For example, if you hold Qx opposite Kxxx(x)(x), leading low to queen then ducking a round picks up an extra trick when the ace is doubleton or singleton onside. Leading to the king only gains with ace singleton, because otherwise the defense can duck and guarantee killing your queen with the ace on the second round. You want to avoid putting yourself in a position where you are forced to play your honor. Same principle applies when they lead a suit and you have a doubleton honor in second hand with an equivalent honor in a longer fourth hand, it's usually (but not always) right to play "second hand high", because you want to avoid the doubleton being forced on the second round. Examples include Jx opposite AQx, Qx opposite Kxx, etc.

Probabilities can be very easy if you ignore information, but that gives you a false number. If you really want to become a good bridge player, you must assign conditional probabilities based on previous information. For example, my estimate was that if East held the HK and 6+ hearts, he had a near 0% probability of holding the CQ -- although the mathematics would say that he had a significant, non-zero chance. Anyway, if you want the misleading math, use http://www.automaton.gr/tt/en/OddsTbl.htm for odds given vacant spaces: Line 1 depends on how you play after each heart break. I already said that I do not think East can have the CQ if he holds a 6+ heart suit with the king, but pure math would ignore that. The odds of each heart break in isolation with 5 empty spaces to 10 are roughly: 1-7 : 9% 2-6 : 34% 3-5 : 40% 4-4 : 17% If you always play the long club hand for the queen, then my back-of-the-envelope calculation is : 9% * 4/7 (hearts are 1-7, clubs are 4-3, and heart king cannot be singleton) + 6/8 * 34% * 4/7 (hearts are 2-6, clubs are 3-4) + 2/8 * 34% (doubleton HK) + 40% * 5/7 (hearts are 3-5, clubs are 2-5) + 17% * 7/7 (hearts are 4-4, clubs are 1-6, and we always find the CQ) (4.5%) + (14% + 8.5%) + (28%) + (17%) = 73%. Line 2 is strictly P(doubleton CQ or restricted choice finesse) = 2/7 * P(2-5 or 5-2 break given the 8-3 ratio) + 67% - P(both) = 11% + 67% - (67%)(11%) = 11% + 67% - 8% = 70%. So surprisingly, the pure math slightly supports line 1. I hadn't expected that because a restricted choice finesse is usually quite strong (2/3). At the table I would know none of the probabilities based on vacant spaces -- I would just follow the reasoning I outlined in my first reply. Even if I had all the odds memorized, I wouldn't do it because the numbers I get from the calculation are misleading. Garbage in, garbage out.

This is an interesting end-position with some theoretically plausible alternative lines you didn't mention, but the bidding and early play indicates something odd is going on. RHO has 3-card support for his partner's overcall and a void in the enemy suit, yet passed? Even if they are at unfavorable vulnerability, it's hard to see many good opponents passing there if they have any high cards. So assuming competent opponents, and that LHO's spades are at least KQxxx, I'd probably play LHO for the HK, going against restricted choice, and play HA and ruff a heart. If: 1) hearts are surprisingly 1-7 or 2-6 with RHO holding the HK, then I am playing LHO for the CQ -- I think even the worst RHO would have bid with both missing highcards, 3 card support, a 6+-card unbid major, and a void. 2) hearts are 3-5 with LHO holding the HK, then I am playing RHO for the CQ (5:2 odds in favor, and if LHO had KQJxx KQx Qxx Qx he might have overcalled 1NT). 3) hearts are 3-5 with RHO holding the HK, then the HK falls underneath my ace (RHO has played 4 hearts already) and I claim. 3) hearts are 4-4, claim (club to ace and finesse RHO will guarantee the contract.)

Expert Bridge Simplified by Jeff Rubens Bridge World Books, 2009 Level : Adv+ to Expert Topic: Cardplay and Odds I learned about this book by a post Fred wrote about recent significant books. His recommendation sparked my curiosity, so I ordered it and have read approximately the first half of the book. I would call the book significant in that it treats a topic that has not been very well covered in the existing bridge literature : practical bridge math, as applied to (mostly) declarer play. It not only gives odds for most fundamental situations, but explains how those odds are calculated, so that the player can estimate or compute those odds at the table when faced with a similar, but non-basic situation. One example is the odds of a 3-3 break. Most advanced bridge players know that it is approximately 36% in isolation, but did you know that the odds of a 3-3 break rise to 3/7 (~42%) when two rounds are cashed and both opponents follow? Or how much they decline if one side-suit is known to be 7-1 (~24%)? Rubens explains the basics of combinatorics and probability so that you can understand how and why odds change, and come up with reasonable approximations at the table. I particularly liked his shortcut for comparing fractions, which I remember learning long ago but had forgotten till now. Which is bigger, 4/13 or 5/16? Answer: Multiply each numerator by the other denominator: 4*16 = 64; 5 * 13 = 65; 65 > 64, so 5/16 is bigger. Lest the previous paragraph give a misleading impression, the book is not merely about numbers. Most of the book is devoted to declarer play problems with multiple plausible lines, and the reader's job is to identify which line is more likely based on the principles taught. These range from suit combinations (Play your trump suit of AJTxxx opposite x for 4 tricks) to hands where you have to decide between a finesse or a break given the early hand information, to hands where you have to decide whether East is more likely to hold 2 spades rather than 4. The book focuses on technique, and not psychology -- those looking for practical examples of how to induce or capitalize on errors would be better off elsewhere. The author is a math professor, and this shows in his academic (rigorously mathematical) writing style. However, the writing is not as dry as, say, Clyde Love's -- readers of the Bridge World will be familiar with the style (often seen in Swiss Match or Test Your Play) There are flashes of humor and some off-beat problems (What would you overcall after RHO's 1D on AKQJTxxx AQ A AQ? And how would you play it opposite a xx xxxx xxxx xxx?) to break the monotony of hand after hand of line comparison. The academic nature of the book may make it slow going, especially if you are not mathematically inclined, but it is certainly worth the effort if you are looking to master bridge math. It is not for casual bridge players, but it is certainly worth reading if you are serious about improving your technical declarer play from advanced to expert.

I agree with the principle that 1NT after the overcall does not show 6-10, it shows a slightly better hand because partner now has another chance to act. But defining it as 9-10 feels much too tight. One important idea in competitive bidding is showing partner that you have useful values -- there is a huge difference between a worthless hand (no controls, no tricks) and a hand with some value. Remember your experience playing contracts where one hand is broke, usually after 2NT all pass or 1m all pass -- you take far fewer tricks than you would expect because you cannot reach the weak hand to lead up to the strong hand. Letting partner know that this doesn't exist is important, so I prefer 1NT to be more like a good 7 - 10 HCP here. With your length in spades, partner will frequently be short in the overcalled suit so will often act if you pass, but sometimes partner does not have a clearcut action at his second turn. For example, sometimes the opponents raise to 2S and now partner has to guess whether your side should compete to the 3-level when you could be potentially broke. So I would strive to bid 1NT here on any 8-count or a good 7 with a real stopper (usually at least 2 controls: ace = 2, king = 1, but possibly a hand that contains a double-stopper of spades such as KQx and a queen on the side). Without a real stopper, passing (or raising partner's opening bid) becomes more attractive. The actual hand is a good 7 (2 controls, the king of partner's suit, good intermediates) but lacks a real stop, so I will pass and await further developments. If I had slightly more values to compensate for the lack of a real stopper, I would bid 1NT and let partner in on the good news that I do not have a worthless hand.

Did you check the author of this report? The spelling bee report you are citing is written by Andy Borowitz, a famous comedian who makes his living writing cutting sendups of current events. Examples of his humor can be found at the Borowitz Report website online, including such recent articles as "Sanford : I'm Too Sexy For My State" and "Madoff to share Cell with OJ -- who promises to find the real swindlers". So I don't think this "source" helps your point that transparent cheating via an electronic device is hard to detect.

While I'm not a fan of attaching prestige to online tournaments while they are not well-enforced, I do not see how providing an online alternative inhibits real-life play. Take poker. If anything, having access to poker tournaments online has helped poker, not hurt it. People still go to play in real-life poker tournaments despite having easy access to online ones -- if anything, attendance has gone UP since the "user base" is bigger. Maybe the percentage of players in real-life tournaments has gone down, but I think it's better to have more people playing than a higher percentage playing.

This is flawed thinking. If you switch sides, you are no less likely to average 20 HCP in the long run than if you stay there. Each hand is completely independent from the previous one, so on each hand you have an equally likely chance of getting more HCP than the opponents. It matters not whether you are sitting N/S or E/W. Sure, it's possible that the HCP could be 25-15, 15-25, 25-15 and it's possible to get the worst possible set. But it's equally likely for the HCP to be 25-15, 25-15, 25-15, and now staying in place at E/W makes you "lose". In the long run, it really doesn't matter WHERE you sit -- you'll get bad runs, you'll get good runs, and you'll average 20 HCP. Similarly, if the side-switching is truly random, it does not make you more or less likely to be vulnerable before the cards are dealt. As long as the switching is truly random rather than deterministic, the vulnerabilities should average out in the long run.

I'm generally not a fan of Ken's answers, but I don't think 2♣ deserves the adjective "stupid". I think there's enough good reasons (suit quality for slam, conservation of bidding space, prepatory bid to show a big balanced hand) to respond 2♣ rather than 2♦ that I wouldn't call it "stupid", unless you are deliberately violating a partnership agreement that you must respond in your longest minor. Let's try to get along and save the harsh words for bids that are truly stupid, shall we?

Declarer has misplayed the hand. 3NT makes not only when spades are 3-3, but when the jack is doubleton or singleton, which is above 50%.

Count me in the camp of not even close to bidding 3H. I don't see why we should be stretching to bid at the 3-level at either IMPs or MPs when we have length in the enemy suit, and a weak notrump. It's hard to imagine game on even if partner has a fit if partner is also balanced with 3 clubs, or weak with short clubs. Whenever partner has balanced 8-11 and hearts, he will raise and we will likely be too high. And when partner is broke or heartless, he will pass and we will still be too high. The general rule of thumb I like is : If you have 3 or more enemy trumps, you shouldn't be eager to enter over a preempt. You should have a "classic" hand for your action. However, if you are short, then you can be aggressive. Change the hand to A42 AJ8543 A94 2 and now 3H seems right -- most hands with 8 working HCP and 3 hearts will now provide us with reasonable play for game, and partner is unlikely to balance since you are short in clubs.

I can't tell if you are mixing up which card to play with how you play it or if I'm misunderstanding your position, so sorry if it's the latter. There is certainly nothing wrong with playing (well, having partner play) the lower card from dummy. My objection would be if you normally say "club" to play the lowest or normally call the specific "9 of clubs", but in this case make a point to say "low club" in the hope of psychologically convincing your opponent to not realize it's an equal. Of course you can and should win based on the card you play, but not based on the manner in which you call for it. At least not by design. I agree with this -- in fact, it's covered in the proprieties section of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge: D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 1. Inadvertent Variations It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. 2. Intentional Variations A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made. E. Deception A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience). It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner. ------ There is nothing in the proprieties that states that it is wrong to attempt to deceive an opponent with which card he plays -- just merely the manner of it. So I would object to someone who deliberately changed their phrasing to "low club" to induce a ruff, but I would not object to someone who intentionally discards a club on spades.

Maybe you don't even do it, but I think that's a terrible thing to do. I equate it to discarding a card of the same color as the suit declarer is playing in hopes he won't notice you showed out, which is something lots of people love to do and I think is horribly unethical. I understand it's difficult or even impossible to judge intent, but everyone has to be able to live with themselves. Why would someone want to win because they played a psychological trick on their opponent's speech of vision rather than because they played well? I don't think purposely discarding black-on-black to perhaps induce a miscount is "unethical". How is it different from playing for a "stupid squeeze" (a non-functioning squeeze due to lack of entries or threats) when you have a running long suit? Sure, the opponents shouldn't be taken in by it, but barring time pressure, you owe it to your side to attempt the "stupid squeeze", especially at matchpoints. Similarly, if you are in a situation where you have to choose between two completely irrelevant suits, you might as well discard the same color if that adds a smidgen of percentage to your chances of a good result. Usually when you sit down at a bridge table, you're trying to maximize your results within the boundaries of the rules and proprieties of the game. Last I checked, choosing to discard a card of the same color for the purpose of inducing a miscount does not violate those proprieties, because the opponents have an effective counter: they can pay attention!

I vote for 3S. 3NT could work and is certainly reasonable but I know I would bid 3S, because 3S does not preclude 3NT (partner can still find 3NT [with DI] Kx, ♦ QTx, or even ♦ Qx to right-side the contract!), but 3NT almost certainly precludes 4S. Another interesting factor nobody has mentioned is that partner is a passed hand. I think that takes away one of the winning scenarios for a 3NT overcall-- oftentimes when the partnership has a balanced 28-29 HCP 3NT plays just as well as 4S, but that won't be happening now. I think it's far more likely now that partner will have a mediocre hand with spade support and diamond shortness (the winning scenario for 4S).