RSClyde

Agreed, getting to use the red card is generally good news.

Definitely stayman. If partner bids hearts it's worth an invite, but, you've already improved the contract so pass is tempting.

I'm a big advocate of the unbalanced diamond. I'm of the philosophy that delineating minor suit distribution on balanced hands is less important than isolating general hand type early. My response structure is simple. Rebidding 1nt over a major shows a 3-suiter with shortness in the major and roughly weak no trump playing strength (not bypassing 4 spades obviously). Raising to 2 of a major is mandatory with a minimum even on 3cs (except if you have long strong diamonds). 1nt response is limited and denies a 4cM. Opener must remove with major suit shortness even to a 3 card club suit (it's fine they have a 9 card fit). A 2♥ reverse is artificial and can be used to show some invitational hands. 2♣ response is Golady and used for game forces with and without 4 card majors. Responses are transfers. 2♦ agrees diamonds setting a GF. Systematic responses. 2♥ is a limit raise in diamonds. 2♠ is a constructive diamond raise. 2nt is natural/invitational. 3♣: I'd rather play 3♣ than 1nt opposite your expected singleton. 3♦: Weak raise. 3M: splinter. The extra inferences of having opened 1♦ are huge in a competitive auction. I can't believe everyone doesn't play this.

I would have just used RKC directly over 3♥, now it's not clear that we can recover. However I also wouldn't have jumped to game with the other hand unless it carries a very specific message. Jumping around to show a minimum (if that's what this is about) is just silly. With shapely hands, it's all about controls, not maximums and minimums, so why cut off our exploration? I understand that this wasn't the question... it just seems that the pony has already jumped the fence.

Thank you for the productive dialog.

This is probably true playing vanilla 2/1 with a pick-up partner and no inferences. With a rich enough system, I think the value of describing your hand accurately can be more important than masterminding the auction before you have any idea what's happening. Yes, 1nt might not rate to be the best contract if it passes out, but 1♣ doesn't rate to be the right contract if this hand passes out: AKQx, AQxx, Kx, xxx.

All bridge experts believe that a 4333 11 count is worth less than a 4432 or 5332 hand for playing a no trump contract right? Can you verify this in some way? Not a quote from one or two players, something that indicates that experts are united on this point. As I've said multiple times now, I'm prepared to adjust my thinking on this if someone simply explains why 4333 hands play better double dummy than other distributions. You suggested an explanation earlier, which was refuted by mandating that dummy, not declarer be 4333 and observing that the success of 3nt remained the same. If this matter is so clear then surely such an explanation exists.

I'm not really getting what about being synthesized is bad. Double dummy analysis could be unrealistic, but why only for 4333 hands? As far as me personally, I'm not claiming any brilliance here, just telling you what the data says and not seeing a reason to reject it.

I don't have a problem with agreeing not to open 11 counts, or agreeing to: either way is fine with me. My issue is with saying that the hand isn't really an 11 count. I mean I see a philosophical question emerging. If your agreement is to open 1nt with hands in the following range (a,b) then you open hand x 1nt if and only if it falls within those limits (subject to any upgrading or downgrading you choose to do). Ultimately you view the hand as being worth at least a but not more than b. Now another day you are playing a different no trump range where you would rebid 1nt with a hand in the range (a,b). Once again you pick up hand x. Is it now automatic that you open 1 of the appropriate suit and rebid 1nt (if appropriate)? As you correctly pointed out the two auctions are different so tactical concerns do apply and hence tailoring to such concerns could cause you to answer "no". So for example, perhaps some would take the view that, if you were playing weak no trumps you'd open 1nt with AKx, Qxxx, Kxx, xxx but playing strong no trumps the thought of opening 1C may be too impalatable and they'd rather pass. It's not my way but I get it. It's my style to be religious about it. If I don't open 1nt then I don't have a strong no trump. And so similarly if I don't open 1 of a suit then I don't have a weak no trump (whatever our agreed range for that is).

Not all 4333 11 counts will involve a meaningful decision. Sometimes your RHO opens 4♠ and it you have an easy call. Sometimes partner has a strong no trump and end up in the same place whether you open or not. We would be talking specifically about hands where deciding to downgrade or not results in reaching (or not) 3nt. As I said earlier I'm not saying that you should open flat 11's, just that you should open this hand if that is your agreement. But even if you see an example of such a hand every few days, it takes a fair number of trials to estimate proportion, and unless you are writing the results down I'm not sure you're going to sniff out the distinction between .5 and .6. Deepfinesse, isn't perfect. But it is reasonable to ask why it shouldn't be believed in one case vs another. That is, deepfinesse put 3nt as roughly the same percent contract whether one hand was 4333 or not, why should we be suspicious only of the first case? It may be overly generous to declarer (maybe) but I see no reason to suspect that this only happens when one of declarer's hands is 4333 and no other time. Everyone has personal experience. I, personally, play lots of bridge hands and never forget anything, I have not observed the phenomenon that 4333 hands are exceptionally weak for playing no trump contracts. So what?

If our agreement isn't to open flat 11's then we have a clear pass either way. But if that is our agreement, how can K97, QT2, KQJ7, T72 be an opener but not the other hand? "Sorry partner I know our agreement is to open these hands 1D, but I only had 2 honors in the suit instead of 3, so I took a position." I don't agree that we'll always get to 4♠ on a balanced hand opposite this on a 4-4 fit. I mean if my partner opened a 14-16 no trump, I'd bid 3nt with that. If I was first to act my partner and I have ways to play 3nt when opener is 4333. It's a philosophical question, what does it mean for something to be an X count. Goren HCPs seem the best at gauging playability of balanced hands in no trump. So when discussing HCP's, that is what I assume is our barometer. It's different opening the bidding because you aren't sure what's about to happen. But I hear comments above downgrading hands like this, even in contexts where the commenter, knows that the final contract will be no trump.

That would be a valid point except that when I mandated that dummy be 4333 instead of declarer (but maintained 11 opposite 14) 3nt was still at 61%.

I think that is completely the wrong way to form a viewpoint. How many hands "like this" do you pick up? Even hands that feel common, aren't that common. Do you remember what happens with all of them, or document the results in some way? So you held 300 hands like this last year. Some of the time it makes no difference what you do. So only some of the cases are instructive. Can you give me some idea the number of times it "wasn't really 11"? I mean let's be specific here. If, at the table this hand only really makes 3nt 50% of the time opposite a balance 14, instead of 60%, would you really notice that difference? Just by getting one such hand every couple of days (that's being generous)? Do you unevenly emphasize some results? (remember disasters, forget mundane hands) If you begin with a preconception, aren't you incredibly likely to count the hits and explain away the misses? (When it's right to downgrade the response is, "See, that's good bridge, I knew it!" When it wasn't "Well I can't be responsible for that, it was just an unlucky hand".) I mean you admitted yourself that you ignore evidence to the contrary, can't you believe almost anything by that standard? I mean if a scientist was in charge of testing water quality, would you really want him to say, "Psssh, I've been drinking that water my whole life, it's fine!" The test he was going to run may have had some pitfalls, but anecdotal evidence is hardly a good substitute.

Well I might get back some change ;) I play transfers over 1♣. You get some interesting reactions, like people who trap against your artificial suit. Or this auction: 1♣ 1♥ (alert, shows spades) 1nt 2♥ at this point one of the opponents frequently gets this look like "Aha! It didn't really show spades!" I guess systematic bids can't have followups.

I'm amazed at how frequently people claim that hands like the opener's "don't evaluate to 11 HCP". This is fairly easy to test. I Dealmastered a balanced 11 count opposite a balanced 14 count and found that 3nt made 60% of deals. Now instead of just any 11 count, I used opener's specific hand opposite a balanced 14 count. The result? 62%. I used 500 hands each way so this is probably within the margin of error for any reasonable alpha value so it probably isn't true that opener holds an above average 11. But it certainly seems to dispel the notion that this hand "isn't really 11". No matter what, freely rebidding 1nt at reds is beyond terrible. And whether or not you do open balanced 11's is a matter of style/agreement or possibly just generally unwise. But this hand is a real 11 count, whatever that means. By the way, on the proposed hand of K97, QT2, KQJ7, T72 (which was suggested as possibly being an opener) 3nt opposite a balanced 14, plummeted to 53%.

This is an interesting question. I think 3♥ is invitational. If responder holds only 4 hearts then the desire to compete isn't clear anyway: you only have 8 trump, why is it clear to bid 3 over 3, "competitively"? Pass, it would seem, logically shows a garbage stayman hand, so this may allow opener to find another call. I'm not saying that it's likely, but possible: you don't have to have 4 hearts so he'd either need a 5th heart or 4 spades to do something other than pass, as well as nothing wasted in and as few clubs as possible. If you have 5 hearts and a weak hand with both majors, then I admit, 3♥ would look right competitively, so that would be unfortunate.

Ok I see: didn't realize.

I suppose I could have done the math and determined that it was a weak no trump. Since that wasn't specified I just assumed it was strong. I'm not totally sold on playing doubles of weak no trumps as penalty at matchpoints. I mean it would help you find games and collect penalties, but I'd rather win a greater number of part score battles. Good pairs know how to scramble out of 1ntX when it's wrong anyway and now you don't know what to do. I mean if I'm looking at a flat 17 count at reds, we could have a game, but it's very tempting to just let them rot rather than chase them away. And if partner's broke and they can make it, where were we going? Maybe there was somewhere to go, maybe not. Furthermore no one ever said that conventional doubles couldn't be converted, or that games couldn't be reached. Even when you have a good hand, partner is allowed to take a call, if he fails to then the chance for a game goes down. It's not perfect, but what is? I don't pretend system questions like this are easy, it depends on the depth of your agreements and your general style. Playing doubles of weak no trumps as penalty is certainly reasonable, but not automatic. By the way, declarer took a rather odd position to not run to 2H with a 5-4 hand and then play the doubler for the Q of clubs rather than the A. Now it is true that the doubler could have had AQx, but that looks unlikely given what an air ball the opening lead was.

Here is my view: After 2♠, since 3♥ is forcing it seems a fine way to start. Over the expected 3♠ (which I play as I don't know where to go), or over 4♥, 4♠ is RKC for hearts. I like the rule, if it looks like kickback then it is. Now you're off to the races. What will instead happen is that South will bid 4♣ over 3♥. This shows a strong hand as 3♥ was a GF. I now have concerns that 4♠ might not be kickback so I'll just live with 4♦ RKC for clubs which works on this hand. I play jumping to 4♥ as a flexible bid: I'm willing to take a shot at this opposite an opener, if they bid 4♠ double pass or bid on as you find appropriate. This way when you bid 3♥, you actually have a real GF, forcing pass and all. I mean, let's have a show of hands, who likes making a negative double with 8 hearts? After 3♠ instead of 2, I wouldn't feel comfortable with anything being ace asking so I'll just bid 6♥ and if partner can't bid 7 with this hand, I'm getting a new partner. You certainly didn't promise 3 aces and a zillion club tricks to open the bidding.

Because external constraints prohibit you from always playing in the most optimum field. Yes, playing in a national event, I assume that we are in range of the other pairs. Playing at my local club... well it's probably a little different. Now which do you think is going to be easier to do when you a few hours to kill and $10?

I ATB to the system. Playing penalty doubles over their no trump seems to frequently lead to lots of guessing. Yes you may get a number periodically, but in exchange you give up lots of competitive sequences that could start with a double. Furthermore, when they run out, now what? We had the opponents in 1nt which we may have beat, but now they have escaped into spades and no one's got a suit on the table yet.

I ♥ high variance 3rd seat preempts.

Kind of a silly question but... yeah. What kinds of hands do you find that favor your style/approach/strengths? What kind tend to be bad for you? I assume that most of us tend to play in fields in which we are above average, so we probably prefer situations which test basic skill, like a bad trump split: it's bad for everyone but the stronger player will cope better. Or delicate slams that require some good agreements to bid. What else? For me: I'll do well on hands that involve: Delicate low level balancing. Balanced hands with lots of HCPs and a major suit fit (we routinely play those in no trump and rake up the matchpoints doing so). I hate hands that: It's right to take a high level push, (5 over 5). Have stiff K's or Q's. I find the O/D potential impossible to evaluate and they seem to fit poorly into the system.

I would say that your partner was lucky. Did you ask them why they doubled you after you told them you were making it?

By contrast to the others I would raise. My general philosophy is to just raise when I have one, in pretty much any situation. As far as how good a hand it shows: partner has already shown a good hand, so I don't see 3♦ as showing anything special, with a good hand I would bid more. Perhaps some people play a raise here as forcing, I'm not even sure what's standard, if so then certainly 3♦ is out, if not... then isn't that your hand?