Endymion77

I play it as penalty, but many play it as responsive - a hand with enough values to compete, without 4 spades, no clear preference (maybe 4-4 in the minors).

Partner has no first round heart control and failed to cue bid 4♠ en route to 5♣ so what does he have? QJxx QJx K KJxxx? Anyway, you have to pass now.

It's not a psych, you're allowed to have a K more or less than the stated strength, and in this case you have extra shape too. If you do it regularly, you might be forced to change your convention card to include the actual range though (e.g. 2-9 instead of 5-9).

5♣, and I would pull 5♦ to 5♥. If I bid 5♦, partner would pass with ♦+♥, and 5♥ is out of the question (he most likely has both minors).

There's no "theory of vacant hcp's", because from a probabalistic point of view there's no difference between a Q and A (or a 2 and an A for that matter) - they're equally likely to be dealt, and "high card points" is an arbitrary assignment made by the observer. The "theory of vacant hcp's" can only exist if we have extra information related to high card strength, e.g. someone bid when he could've passed with different cards, or passed when he could've bid.

He either has x1/A2 or x2/A2 or x1/x2. If he has x1/A2 he plays x1 and if he has x2/A2 he plays x2 and if he has x1/x2 he plays a random card (50% chance to play x1 or x2). Right? So there's a 50% chance he'll show x1 and 50% chance he'll show x2 regardless of his second card. But 2 times out of 3, his second card is A2 and not the other "x" card, and it doesn't matter which "x" card he shows you - x1 or x2 (his choice might or might not have been restricted, but it's 50-50 to play either x1 or x2 at trick 1 assuming he never discards the missing ace of course). Just like Monty Hall's doors, let's say you select door A. Then there are 3 possibilities: - prize is behind door A. Then he opens door B or door C randomly (50% B, 50% C). - prize is behind door B. Then he opens door C. - prize is behind door C. Then he opens door B. So there's a 50% chance he'll open door B, and 50% chance he'll open door C. But it doesn't matter which door he opens, you should switch (it doesn't matter which small card the defender plays, you should "switch" ie look for the A in his hand because he had 2 places to have it while the defender with the other ace had 1 place to have it).

Not really, because the small card is irrelevant. You already know that he has at least one small card so which exactly small card he shows you doesn't matter (just like it doesn't matter which exactly door Monty will open to show you a booby prize, you already know that there's at least 1 remaining door with a booby prize).

Yes, this example is clearly wrong.

Yes, as I mentioned above "Once it's between case 2 or case 4, case 2 is twice as likely (in the case of 4 cards only of course, when 13 cards are dealt the difference will be much more subtle but would still be there)." The number of unknown cards obviously depends on which trick the situation arises, it might easily happen when there are only 4 cards left in the defenders, or 6, or 26 (if it happens at trick 1). And the answer is that it depends on the number of remaining cards in the opponents but RHO is always more likely to have it.

I also lead the ♠10 in all of the above auctions at MPs

> but if we'd called you over as TD, would you allow the change? It's fairly obvious what declarer's intention was, so I think I would allow the change. It's a miscommunication issue, not a change of mind. > This lady replied with "You are joking, I hope!" It's technically a violation but I wouldn't take this to heart, it's not such a big deal. If you call the director, they would get a warning though. > Her: "She might also have 5 diamonds, but I shouldn't be giving you clues, you can work it out for yourself" I would definitely call the director here and ask him to advise them to explain their agreements in full and refrain from other remarks.

You can also keep 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♠ as invitational, and play the following with slam interest: 1NT - 3♦ = slam interest in hearts, balanced hand (otherwise transfer and splinter) 1NT - 3♥ = slam interest in spades, balanced Then direct 4♥/4♠ by opener is declining the invitation (soft values, bad fit), cheapest cuebid/"Serious 3NT" shows an in-between hand and accepting the transfer at 3 level (3♥/3♠) is the strongest response.

Leading from Ax rarely works, and you can't really differentiate between Ax and AKx so there's nothing you can do but signal per your agreements.

I don't see what you like so much about double, you don't want to play in hearts unless partner has 5 and 1NT describes your hand perfectly? It's MPs so you don't really want to play 2m if partner has Hxxx in one of the minors, or 2M on 4-3.

1NT

The common agreements are: 1NT - 2♥ 2♠ - 2NT Invitational, 5 spades -- 1NT - 2♥ 2♠ - 3♠ Invitational with 6 spades -- 1NT - 4♥ 4♠ Texas transfer, to play with no slam interest (or if you continue with 4NT, it's RKCB for spades) -- 1NT - 2♥ 2♠ - 4♠ Mild slam interest (invitational to 6♠) with no shortness (you can splinter with shortness) -- 1NT - 2♥ 2♠ - 4NT Quantative invitation to 6NT (or 6♠) with 5 spades.

Once he leads the ace, you can be fairly certain that he has the K as well. Normally, an Ace lead asks for attitude (so you would play the 7) and a King lead asks for count (so you would play the 2). Against a suit contract, the signals change according to dummy though - it's common to show suit preference if dummy is short (singleton or void), and to always give count if dummy has length in the suit (usually 5+) regardless of your attitude.

Looks like the math in the book is correct after all. If you deal just 4 cards to the 2 players: 2 aces (A1 and A2) and 2 pips (x1 and x2), there are 24 possible distributions: P1 P2 ----- A1 A2 x1 x2 A1 A2 x2 x1 A1 x1 A2 x2 A1 x1 x2 A2 A1 x2 A2 x1 A1 x2 x1 A2 A2 A1 x1 x2 A2 A1 x2 x1 A2 x1 A1 x2 A2 x1 x2 A2 A2 x2 A1 x1 A2 x2 x1 A1 x1 A1 A2 x2 x1 A1 x2 A2 x1 A2 A1 x2 x1 A2 x2 A1 x1 x2 A1 A2 x1 x2 A2 A1 x2 A1 x1 A2 x2 A1 A2 x1 x2 A2 x1 A1 x2 A2 A1 x1 x2 x1 A1 A2 x2 x1 A2 A1 In 12 of those cases, A1 is dealt to the first player (the one who showed up with the ace). However, once he shows with the ace, 8 times his other card is x1 or x2 and only 4 times his other card is A2. So it's more likely that the ace is in the other player. The distributions I listed above: Opp 1 - Opp 2 x - A1 A2 A1 - A2 A2 - A1 A1 A2 - x aren't equally likely. Here's how often they happen: Case 1: 4 times Case 2: 8 times Case 3: 8 times Case 4: 4 times Once it's between case 2 or case 4, case 2 is twice as likely (in the case of 4 cards only of course, when 13 cards are dealt the difference will be much more subtle but would still be there). So I hope I didn't confuse anyone. :)

deleted, errors

deleted, errors

First try if diamonds are 3-3. Assuming RHO wins the DA and leads a heart back to put you to test immediately, you have to play the HA, cash 2 diamond winners (and if they don't break) the 3 spade winners throwing a diamond and heart and hoping to squeeze either opponent who has the HK and 5+ clubs. And finally try the clubs. If RHO doesn't switch to a heart or LHO wins the DA, you have some other options including finessing the HK if clubs and diamonds both don't work.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is JEC?

RR opened 1♦, Hog couldn't reply 2♣ because that might make RR declarer in 3NT so he bid 1♠ (standard, to prevent a spade lead against NT). Rabbit couldn't bid NT or rebid diamonds, so he decided to raise with AKQ spades. Now hog bid 3NT per the plan but RR felt his hand was too good and cuebid 4♦. Hog tried 4NT to play, to which rabbit replied with his number of keycards and corrected 5♠ to 6♠ because he had 3, not 0 :)

Hope that you won't get ruffed at trick 2 and you'll be able to draw trump? I don't really understand this problem.

You need the same strength as you would in standard. Since you need to force to the 3 level, 7 points would not cut it. 2NT with Jxxx hearts and shortness in your partner's suit is probably not very good - where are your tricks coming from in NT? Just bid 3m and hope for the best. In fact, it might make sense to play 2NT as "bid your better minor" and not natural in this situation. As for re-opening, in Precision it's actually even more important to re-open than in standard as the opening hand is limited and it's much easier for responder to pass for penalty knowing it's a misfit and there's no game for their side, or to stay away from a bad contract knowing opener is limited.