m1cha

As long as a hand is still in the list of results, you can click Options > Export > Hand Editor to replay and analyse the hand, change the bidding (play a different contract or a contract from the other side), exchange ♠9 with ♠2 etc. and always get a double dummy analysis. If the hand was from a tournament, you can do the same even weeks later from My BBO > Hands and Results. (This is for the web version of BBO played from a PC. I don't know if the same works in mobile version.)

Let's see: 3NT= (400, 24 players), 89.25 %. 2NT+1 (150, 0 players), ~ 77 %. 2NT= (120, 0 players), ~ 77 %. 2♣+1 (110, 2 players), 76.17 %. 3NT-1 (-50, 55 players), 48.60 %. 1♠W!= (-80, 4 players), 21.03 % 3NT-2 (-100, 12 players), 13.08 % 1♠W!+1 (-110, 4 players), 5.14 % and others in between. I got your point, it's a good score particularly at MPs and much less risk. Without interference one would normally reach 2NT [edited] with this hand. After the interference GIB doesn't permit this. Neither 3♣. Here's how the ♣ contracts were reached. I don't think we want to recommend these: (p) p! (1♦) p; (1♥) p! (1♠) p; (p) 2♣! (p) p; (p), (p) p! (1♦) p; (1♥) X! (1♠) 3♣; (p) p (p). Also interesting: If NS pass all the way, EW reach 1♠ because East passes West's 1♠ rebid. I can understand this but I know people who would send East to the moon for it.

Just for the fun of it, here's the 3NT hand I mentioned last night. Free Daylong in MPs. I think we can agree that this hand is at least not any better than the one from the OP. [hv=pc=n&s=sk42hqj43dk4ck542&w=saj83h97daqt82c83&n=sq96hk5dj965caqt7&e=st75hat862d73cj96&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1c1d2dp2np3nppp&p=d8d9d7d4hkhah3h7h8hqh9h5s2s3sqs5cac6c2c3c7c9ckc8hjdts6h2c5sjcqcjcthtc4d2d5d3dkdadqd6s7h4sas9sts4s8djh6]399|300[/hv] Some people passed with that nasty 12-point hand at S. Most opened 1♣, West overcalled 1♦, N bid 2♦ as a limit raise, and then whatever S did, N bid 3NT. So out of 109 players 94 ended up in 3NT, most by N, some by S. 24 of them made it, 55 were down 1, 12 were down 2. Do you want to be in 3NT? Probably not if your partner lets you play 3♣ :) . But in those cases where S failed to open, EW usually played and made a ♠ contract, so 3NT down was still better for NS (excepting the three guys who played 3NT-3, -4 and -5). GIB says 3NT is down 1 upon best play, by the way. In my case, I played 3NT from S, got the ♦8 lead which I was lucky to take with the 9, which held. One trick. 7 more can be developed (provided ♣ break 3:2), so it's one trick missing. I decided ♥ is the less dangerous suit to develop first, so I played ♥K which was overtaken with ♥A. Now E failed to play the killing ♦3. This was my gift! Instead, E played a ♥ to my ♥Q. I played ♠ to the ♠Q, W ducked, rightly, no second gift here, but the damage was done. I played the clubs and ♥J finally endplaying W with that now-singleton ♦K and made the contract. Just looking at the N and S hands, would I want to be in 3NT? Certainly not. On the other hand, gifts happen. On the whole I learnt to bid more aggressively in the last 6 months, and think I profit from it.

Another thought. 3♦ denies 4-card ♥ because otherwise one would rebid 2♥. So 3♥ should show a stop, not necessarily a four-card suit, I feel. And then it's matchpoints. After the second round of bidding you more or less have to decide if you want to play a slam or not. Because if you want to play a slam, you want to play it in ♦; while if not, you want to play 3NT. So may be 3NT is not such a bad guess at all? Even if it fails here ...

Why hasn't anyone suggested opening 2♣ yet? Okay, it may be an overbid but for me it is less an overbid than 1♦ ... 3♦ is an underbid. My preference would be 1♦ ... 3♣ though. Even if you don't usually do it (I don't either), what can go wrong with this hand?

The lead is generous, thanks. I assume you will switch to ♣ now because anything else helps me even more. So I play ♠ from S, and if opponents now switch to ♥, I must hope the ♥J is on, 50 % if opponents don't make any other gifts. Just an hour ago I played a very similar hand in a Free Daylong where my robot partner raised me into 3NT with 23 or 24 HCP combined, which I made. (I can't show the hand here yet because the results are still secret.) The contract would have been down 1 on perfect defence but the thing is that these gifts just happen. I am sure your opponents give less gifts than mine; and yet, let's say if the combined hands look like 3NT has 30 % on perfect defence and you are 50 % likely to get a gift trick, that sums up to 65 % chance, so you want to bid game, right?

Playing with robots I would end up in 3NT by opening 1NT. 14 HCP + a length point in ♣ is just right. Singleton in a minor? Who cares. With my favorite partner I do the same because if my partner doesn't permit me to do it he's not my favorite partner ;) . With other partners I end up in 1NT in the way shown here. And yes, in some countries it is illegal to open 1NT with a singleton, particularly with a small singleton. Do I want to be in 3NT? I'll tell you after the first trick ;) .

1. It may be balanced or not. 2. If you have the hand shown and if you are playing "best hand", then all players have exactly 10 HCP. In that case opener must have a distributional hand, something like x-4-x-6; the best contract should be 2♣ and you should get there by bidding 1NT. If you are not playing "best hand", 1♥ can be anything up to 18 (19?) total points if distributional. 3. Yes. Though probably not with a 5-card suit, I guess. 4. I don't like what GIB does here but anyway - 2♠ is natural and strong, 1♠ is 4SF and strong, and if I am not mistaken 1♠ does not deny 4 spades. If you are weak, you cannot show both ♦ and ♠. (Edit: I was wrong here, 1♠ shows 3- spades, not 4.)

That was GIB, can't help it.

Yes, it turns out I should have put down an option for this. I don't want to add it now because several others have already put down their marks for splinters at "others, strong with support". I suggest you do the same. Thanks to all for answering and voting so far.

I was thinking of the simplistic interpretation kind of "if you have 9 cards in trumps, bid on the 3 level". I am aware, of course, that it does matter if you are vulnerable or not when you go down 1 or 2 doubled, etc. But taking this into account here could mean that (B) would be a mixed raise if not vulnerable but GF if vulnerable. I am not ready to go to such details in my bidding system even if it could work out well in theory if played correctly. BTW, I bookmarked your link. :)

[1] opposite a cuebid is great, opposite a splinter it is horrible. With [2] a splinter is exactly what I hoped to hear. I don't doubt splinters are useful. I just think they may not be useful enough if, for example, a splinter is the only way to show a slam-going hand or if the point range for these wonderful bids is too narrow. By the way (inspired by [2]): If opponents bid splinters, does that mean I should lead a trump?

I would appreciate comments about bidding in situations where advancer jumps(!) to the 3 level in opener's suit: [A] (1x) 1y (p/1z) 3x (1x) 2m (p) 3x [C] (1♠) 2♥ (p) 3♠ where x is any suit, y is any other suit and 1z may be anything up to 1NT. In my homecountry's official bidding systems these jumps show a "power raise", a game-going hand promising 4-card support at least opposite partner's major suit. This almost never comes up. GIB plays a "mixed raise" in situation [A] which I find far more useful. Or far more annoying if played by the opponents. So I wonder if it makes sense to play a mixed raise in and [C] also. Many articles on the internet just mention [A]. One in particular (http://tommybridgeblog.blogspot.de/2010/10/mixed-raise-response-to-overcalls.html) explains that the Law of Total Tricks is behind the mixed raise. I concluded that the mixed raise should not be played in and [C] because partner is forced to the 4 level with a 9-card fit, which is not covered by the Law. Then this article by Larry Cohen (https://www.larryco.com/bridge-learning-center/detail/79) also refers to the Law but later gives an example of a mixed raise in situation . To sum it up, I am confused, and in addition I wonder if it is a good idea to play a mixed raise after an opening of 1M, at least at IMPs, because they may bid 4M trying to defend against our 4m contract and happen to make it. I'm also considering the "Western Cuebid" asking partner to bid 3NT with a stop in their suit. GIB doesn't play this but to me it seems a good idea particularly with , where partner bid a minor suit. What is your choice in the three situations and why?

Three days ago I faked a splinter bid. I am not proud of this but I had a good hand with trump support and wanted to show support beyond game. Scrolling through the GIB commands, I found the only way of doing this opposite partner's rebid of 2♥ was a splinter bid of 4♣ or 4♦. Robot partners so far had been quite patient about occasional lies, so I thought I might bid 4♣ now and if I hear 4♦ just hope for a ♣ control and head for a slam. Well, my 4♣ bid got doubled but I went on as planned with the deserved result of losing 8.14 IMPs because those players who just jumped from 2♥ to 6♥ made their slams after a ♠ lead! :( [hv=pc=n&s=sakq82hkt9dk93ct6&w=s97643hdj85caq942&n=shaqj8542dat74c87&e=sjt5h763dq62ckj53&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1hp1sp2hp4cd4dp4np5sp6hppp]399|300[/hv] OK, OK, I got the message: Next time I fake a splinter and get doubled, I will not assume my partner has a control ;) . Anyway, this is not my point. My point is: Does it make sense to play splinter bids at all? Let me add a few words to make this point more clear. In my home country's official bidding system a splinter in a simliar situation shows exactly 17 - 18 points. A splinter bid directly over a 1M opening bid shows exactly 14 - 15 points AND 4-card support of the 5-card major AND, of course, a singleton or void. As you can imagine, these hands come up less than once a year. Isn't that a waste of a wonderful bid? I mean, in the board above if a jump to 4♦ simply were a second-level cue bid with trump support and a slam-going hand, my partner would have KNOWN that a slam can be beaten by leading clubs, and we could have won 2 - 3 IMPs by peacefully playing 4♥ ... (By the way, although successful here I don't believe that jumping to 6♥ is the winning action in the long run.)

I play 1NT - 3♦ as 5-5 or longer in the majors, invitational or better, with some partners. Bidding on is simple: 3♥, 3♠ (and 3NT) are to play, and everything else is positive. If you do so, you may play 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ as 5-5 in the majors and weak. With 6-4 you just bid the 6-card suit, to keep it simple; so all you have to bother about is the 5-4 hands. With 5-4 weak you may bid Stayman, and if opener responds 2♦, you bid the 5-card suit to play. With all stronger hands I sometimes play what we call "Smolen XL", which is an extension of Smolen. Smolen means, if 2♦ comes up after Stayman, you bid 3M to show 4 cards in this major and 5 cards in the other major, game forcing. Smolen XL can also be invitational: You always bid the suit below the 5-card major, so that you can stop in 3 in the major. That is, 3♦ (not 3♠) shows a 5-card ♥ suit, and opener has the choice between 3♥, 4♥, or 3NT. If opener bids 3 in your major but you are game forcing, you just raise. Smolen XL is more useful if you open 1NT with 5-card majors because then you may play it with 5-3 hands also in order to find 5-3 fits with opener's 5-card major. In that case, 1NT - 2♣ - 2M - 3♦ shows exactly 3 cards in partner's 4+-card major and 5 cards in the other major. Opener selects between 3♥, 3♠, 3NT, 4♥ and 4♠; and if opener is weak and partner is strong, partner will raise 3M to 4M or start slam bidding. This is not perfect but fairly simple and useful. Not sure if this combination is better than what you do currently. By the way, I'm not sure if I understood your problem about the 2♠ bid. You know that you don't need 2NT to invite to 3NT, right? Play "pass or blast" instead; use 2NT as a transfer to ♣, and 2♠ is free for anything else you feel you need.

@Stephen Tu I agree you need adequate coverage of those (20) 21 - 23 points hands. And yes, I was putting advancer's forced answer at 0 - 7 points. If advancer can be stronger, overcaller can be lighter. Edit: My country's official bidding system has recently undergone a major overhaul. I have just checked the new system description: The overcall here is at 20+ HCP. (Just mentioning; I am not suggesting this should be a universal truth.)

Well, there is not so much space between the forced answer to a 2♠ overcall (i.e., 2NT to 3♥) and game (3NT), and if advancer has to jump with a maximum in order to prevent overcaller from passing his bid, there is even less space. While on the other hand there really IS much space between 17 points (17 overcaller + 0 minimum advancer) and game, and there is still some space between 24 points (17 overcaller + 7 maximum advancer) and game; especially if you have to play in NT without tricks from a long suit and with a very limited number of transitions between the hands. What I want to argue is that the 2♠ overcall should at least be invitational with substantial probability for game. I do not believe that you write positive in the long run by rasing to the 3 level just for the fun of it. Yes, spades, but no points. 9xxx in spades will not stop the 5-card ♠ suit opener has already shown. I mean, if 2♠ asks for stoppers (among length features) and advancer is asked to bid 2NT with ♠Kxxx ♥xxxx ♦xxx ♣xx (or equivalent or better), or 3NT with ♠Kxxx ♥Kxxx ♦xxx ♣xx, I believe that can work. But not opposite 17 or 18 points, rather opposite 20+ points.

Sorry Helene, but I don't agree here. According to my notes (probably from the book by Lébely/Bessis), double + forced response + (pass) + cuebid is always the gf hand (24+ points, they say). [A different thing: If opener rebids, then 20 points are sufficient for a cuebid (and I certainly wouldn't mind 19 or a good 18) but obviously this applies to a situation where advancer can still settle in our major suit on the 3 level, not in spades.] If we take this as given, what can we do with the OP's hand? A new suit would describe the strength but should be longer. A raise should be based on 4 cards in ♥ but if we are desperate enough with a really strong hand we may thing of playing game in a Moysian 4-3 fit. The other option is pass. Pass with 19 points? Well, partner has 0 - 7, we may not have a good fit, so unless everything is perfect, which full game are we heading to play in? And if we are not heading for a full game and don't have a fit, we better stay low. My point for pass is this. First let's assume opponents do not voluntarily bid on the 2 level. Then they probably don't have a fit, so West should have 4 cards in spades, probably 4432 or 4423 distributed. East has 2344. You are sure you want to force partner on the 3 level at a total of ~ 20 points? On the other hand, let's assume opponents do have a fit. Then they will not let you play 2♥, they will bid 2♠. Now West has less cards in spades and more cards in useful suits, better than 3433 unless we are very unlucky. So when the bidding comes back to East at a level of 2♠, East can now double again to show exactly 3 cards in ♥ (because with 4 cards we would raise and with 2 or less we would have a different bid), probably 4-4+ in the minors and some additional points. If East rebids 3♥ now, that would be a 5+ card suit and we may even find a game in ♥.

@tnevoliln: Thank you for your explanations. Here is one maybe final point from my side. We were talking about the possibility of setting the point requirements for a full game to 25/26. I understand your reasons for not wanting to do so. But there is something we have not discussed so far. It is the question which hands are weak, which are strong and which are invitational. For example, opposite a 1M opening 11 - 12 point hands are typically considered invitational. There are many situations. If you set your full game requirement to ~ 26, all point ranges can remain and your point-counting system can easily be intrgrated into almost all standard bidding systems. If you have the full game requirement at 28/29, everything changes. I wonder if people are willing to undergo the trouble of changing all the bidding ranges for testing your system. Indeed I did this once for trying Zar points but except my that-time partner I don't know anyone in my environment who found it worth trying. And Zar points are relatively easy in that respect because all the ranges just multiply with 2.

This is true but these two models are not independent. I mean if you analyse a situation and you think you understand it, and then a computer analyses the situation by means of a complex model, you expect it to get a similar result, at least qualitatively, right? I believe your model is somewhat similar to what climate scientitst do to understand the warming of the earth. Use a formula or a set of formulas and determine a multitude of coefficients from a huge set of data. So if simple physics tells us that the temperature should go up when the CO2 content increases, and if the model would tell us that the temperature should go down instead, that would be quite spectacular. On the other hand, the influence of water vapor is too complicated to treat it with simple physics because you have opposing effects, so that's where you need the model. But I believe most of the situations in your analysis are more simple than the water vapor example. Although some might not be. Yes yes. But still, when one of these coefficients is positive, you expect a higher probability of making more tricks. This is certainly a precise formulation but it does not help to understand the problem of these figures. The problem is this: You have a hand with an average side suit, you add a king in the opposite hand in this suit, and the combined value of the hand rises by 2 points equivalent of the probability of making 2/3 of a trick. You have a hand with a singleton in a side suit, you add a king in the opposite hand in this suit, and the combined value of the hand rises by 1 point equivalent of the probability of making 1/3 of a trick. You have a hand with a void in a side suit, you add a king in the opposite hand in this suit, and the combined value of the hand rises by 2 points equivalent of the probability of making 2/3 of a trick. This is strange. I can't prove it wrong, but I find it strange. I see, OK. This is true for independent random events of equal weight on a single variable. Is it correct that you kept the other coefficients constant in this part of the test and only determined the value duplication coefficients? In that case I would accept the test. If you did it within a multi-factor analysis, working with several variables within one test, I wonder if you could have additional noise from other sources. 5 points sounds OK but not too much considering that a contract can make an overtrick or be 2 - 3 tricks down depending on play. 0.5 means still 32 % of being wrong. Well okay, that's the borderline figures. I never had a 10-card suit. :) Well with ~ 400k boards (boards are independent, observations are not), voids have ~ 4.5 %, voids by the playing party in a side suit have ~ 2 %, that is ~ 8000 observations. Voids opposite some definite combination of honors, you are down to ~ 1000 events. That seems to be on the safe side. But I started to understand why you need 400k boards :) . If your figures are correct, what could that mean? Could it mean that the opponents, when they know declarer is very short in a suit, lead their aces carelessly promoting tricks for declarer?

Hm, last month the 53rd European Team Championships took place in Budapest, the results are here: http://www.eurobridge.org/repository/competitions/16budapest/microsite/Results.htm and if you click on a round and then on a table you get the individual scores such as here: http://www.eurobridge.org/repository/competitions/16budapest/microsite/Asp/BoardDetails.asp?qmatchid=34985 This is high-class bridge, definitely good data but probably not sufficient quantity for you, I am afraid, even if you check for earlier years. Another possibility perhaps if you write to the BBO people, they might give you the accumulated data of these new "Free Daylong tournaments". That is ~ 10000 participants @ 8 boards each EVERY DAY. Worth writing another crawler for it, I guess ;) . Not all of this is high-class bridge though. (Edit: and three of the players are always robots.)

I think that either should work. "Evelyn" seems a bit easier but doesn't carry the other ideas as easily as "Evolin". If your system is good, any name will do. People even remember "Cappelletti" ;) . Though in that case misspellings are frequent, understandably. No, I disagree here. These coefficients don't come up randomly, they come up for a reason. For example, if you hold AKQ opposite xxx you can expect that those three honors in one hand will cover the three losers in the other hand. But if you hold AKQ opposite x, there is only one loser in this suit to be covered and the other two honors will make a trick only if you have losers in other suits. But sometimes your opponents will take their tricks in those other suits, so your honors become worthless. Or you may have to guess which card will become a loser and you discard the wrong card. This is why AKQ opposite x gets -1 point, it is worth 1/3 trick less than opposite xxx. Even worse opposite a void, you may not be able to access the honors when you need to because you cannot play to them from the other hand. This is why here you get -3 points for AKQ opposite a void. I would never be able to predice the coefficients correctly, of course, but it should usually be possible to predict if they are positive or negative and if they are high or low. There is always a reason. But I admit that sometimes the things may be so complex that we cannot understand the reason easily. Not really. We are talking about the trick-taking probability of certain cards under certain circumstances (that is, opposite short suits). That is what the computer calculates. You are calling them "duplications" for good reasons but the computer doesn't know that word. I know I appear fussy here but it will become clear in a moment why I am doing this. Correct. In other words: The ace covers the singleton and the singleton covers the next round(s). This is why the ace opposite a singleton gets its full value while an ace opposite a void gets -1. A void does not only control the first round, it also controls all following rounds. That makes the "duplication" thinking difficult for K/Q opposite a void. Back to that king: 0 opposite a void while -1 opposite a singleton means that the king opposite a void is more likely to take a trick than a king opposite a singleton - and I cannot believe that. I could believe 0 for both and I could believe -1 for both but not the combination. Also +1 for that queen would mean that a queen opposite a void is more likely to generate a trick than a queen opposite more cards, and I cannot believe that either; and I don't think that other people will find that easy to believe. 400k boards is a huge amount of data. I am honestly respecting this. Yet voids are quite rare and you are optimizing many parameters at the same time. I can imagine that these numbers are statistical errors but I cannot be sure. If you want to make sure, you might divide the boards into 4 packages of 100k each, make 4 separate evaluations and compare the coefficients: Do they fluctuate or are they stable? I am aware this is a lot of work. You don't have to do this for me and you don't have to do it fast.

Yes, you do. But you cannot compare trump-play and NT-play evaluations that easily. If you play trumps, you get +6 points for playing in a 4-4 fit, correct. Then you subtract one point for each honor in a side suit, typically ~ -7 for a full game of 4M, so you are down 1 point in trumps, so far. Then you get points for shortages, maybe +3 for playing 4432 against 4315. So you end up +2 for trumps and play a full game in 4M. While if you had 4432 against 4333 you'd only get +1 for shortages and prefer to play 3NT because you are unlikely to generate an additional trick if you play trumps. That is the idea as far as I have understood it.

Hi, tnevolin: Probably :) . You may want to add a phrase under that table saying: "In other situations, HCP points do not deviate from the base values." That might do it. I suggest you call your points Evolin points. It carries the ideas of your last name, "evaluation", "evolution" and can be remembered with the name "Evelyn". You are right. I am not sure how much other people care about this or that. Time will tell. I believe I found a small error in your new description within the Examples of section "High card combinations in side suit (out of 4 top cards)". AKQT6 gets +2 points for 4 out of 4 top cards, but it is 4 out of 5. I think you wanted to write AKQJ6. And in the section "Value duplication: high cards in your hand against partner's shortness (out of 3 top cards)", I cannot understand why a Q opposite a void should get +1 point; and I also cannot understand why a K opposite a singleton should get -1 while opposite a void it gets 0. I tend to think that these are statistical glitches, is that possible? I would expect -1 for both opposite a void (and perhaps also opposite a singleton), but this is just a guess. I think I would keep the figures at 0 until I have better evidence. Sorry, I have no idea where to get you more data.

Hi tnevolin, great work! I only have some suggestions for cosmetic repairs. First, I suggest you keep the HCP base values the same for all contracts and all suits. To compensate for this, you add an HCP adjustment for trump contracts: Each honor card (top 4) in a side suit: -1 Mathematically it's the same, obviously, but I find it easier to remember and easier to use particularly if you are not sure which contract you will end up in during the bidding. Similarly, I suggest you omit that large table "number of cards in trump suit" and replace it with an algorithm: For each card more than 2 in the trump suit: +1 For each card less than 2 in the trump suit: -1 This will end up in exactly 2 points less than before, so you can change the contract requirements to 4 major: 27/26 5 minor: 30/29 Small slam, T: 33 Grand slam, T: 38 which is in closer agreement with traditional values and may be accepted and remembered more easily. Actually I would prefer "For each card more/less than 4 in the trump suit" rather than "2" since we are aiming for an 8-card fit, not a 4-card fit. But I don't see a way of improving this without messing up more important things. By the way, with the "critical contract requirement" I find two values for playing 4 in a major (or 5 in a minor), currently "29/28". Is that for discriminating between MPs and IMPs - because in IMPs you may want to play full games with as little as ~ 40 % success chance depending on vulnerability?