nullve

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=nullve&s=SQJ9HT542DJ43CAK4&wn=Robot&w=S874HA8DKQ52CQT97&nn=nullve&n=SAT2HJ9DT986CJ653&en=Robot&e=SK653HKQ763DA7C82&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=P1H(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20%21H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P1N(Forcing%20one%20notrump%20--%203-%20%21H%3B%203-%20%21S%3B%206+%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points)P2C(New%20suit%20--%203+%20%21C%3B%205+%20%21H%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%2012-18%20total%20points)P2S(Impossible%20spade%20--%204+%20%21C%3B%202-%20%21H%3B%203-%20%21S%3B%2011-12%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%203C)P3C(3+%20%21C%3B%205+%20%21H%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%2012-13%20total%20points)P3D(4+%20%21C%3B%204+%20%21D%3B%202-%20%21H%3B%203-%20%21S%3B%2011-12%20total%20points)P3S(4%20%21C%3B%204-%20%21D%3B%205+%20%21H%3B%204+%20%21S%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%2012-13%20total%20points)P4C(4+%20%21C%3B%204+%20%21D%3B%202-%20%21H%3B%203-%20%21S%3B%2011-12%20total%20points)PPP]400|300[/hv]

5♦ is a gross overbid on ♠KQJ42 ♥AQJT9 ♦--- ♣A32. Using my gadget instead of Exclusion: 4♠ = club void or no void 4N = diamond void 5♣ = spade void and an even number of key cards ...5♦ = trump queen ask ......5♥ = denies the trump queen ......other = promises the trump queen 5♦ = spade void and an odd number of key cards, but not the trump queen 5♥ = apade void, an odd number of key cards and the trump queen It's much harder to handle voids if they can only be shown by bidding the void suits.

[hv=pc=n&w=s82hat97dq9ckqjt9&e=sajt94hq53dj5ca52&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1sp2cp2np3nppp]266|200[/hv]

So Opener must have the worst hand imaginable?

Fairly standard 2/1 auction: 2♣-2♦ (22+ BAL or GF; waiting) 3♣-3♦ (5+ C, unbalanced; waiting, no 5c major) 3♠-4♥ (4+ S; good spade raise (what else?)) 4♠-4N (minimum; RKC) 5♦-5♥ (1 or 4 key cards; trump Q ask) 6♣-7♠ (trump Q + ♣K; contract) P

Misfit? You have two 8-card fits. That's a double fit. Isn't 3♥ just invitational?

[hv=pc=n&s=skq7hakdj9ckq8532&w=st6hj75dat854cat4&n=s98532ht932dq762c&e=saj4hq864dk3cj976&d=s&v=e&b=3]399|300[/hv] NS auction, pls!

It might be important to be able to discover a fit in Opener's suit (M) after (1M)-P-(1N) and (1M)-P-(1N)-P; (P), e.g. by using a good NT defence.

I kind of like the moden trend in 2/1 where 20-21 BAL is in 2♣ and 2N is stronger (e.g. 22-23). Then it becomes (even) less important to be able to stop in 3M after 2N-[3M-1], so a structure like yours makes a lot of sense. Still, if 2N-?: 3♣ = (standard) Muppet 3♥ = 5+ S and 2N-3♥; ?: 3♠ = 2S4-H 3N = 2S5H 4♣+ = 3+ S, then there are suddenly two ways of finding the 5-3 H fit when Opener has 2S5H and Responder 5S3H, so that doesn't seem like best use of the available bidding space.

One possibility, consistent with the above: 2N-3♣; 3♥-?: 3♠ = 4- S, puppet to 3N ...3N = forced ......P = wanted to play 3N ......4♣+ = slam interest 3N = 5S4-H, NF 4♣+ = same as 4♣+ over 2N-3♥; 3♠ in standard, so promising 5+ S Then the problems after 2N-3♣; 3♥-4♣+ will largely be the same as after 2N-3♥; 3♠-4♣+ in standard, too.

Idea: 2N-?: 3♣ = a) like standard Muppet, but not 4S2-H unless slam interest b) GF, 5+ S ...3♦ = 4 M or 3S5H ......3♥ = 4+ S, (perhaps) not 4S4H .........3♠ = 3S4+H ............3N = 4S3H, CoG ...............P = 3S4H ...............4♥ = 3S5H ............(...) .........3N = 2S4H .........4♣+ = 4 S ......3♠ = 3-S4H, but not 2- S unless slam interest ......3N = no major ......(...) ...3♥ = no M (as in standard Muppet) ......3♠ = 4- S, puppet to 3N ......3N = 5S4-H, CoG ......4♣+ = e.g. like 4♣+ over 2N-3♥; 3♠ in standard ...3♠ = 5 S (as in standard Muppet) ...3N = 2S5H (5-3 S fit impossible) (...) 3♥ = c) < GF, 5+ S d) game interest only, 4S2-H e) a strong option ...3♠ = 2-3 S or 4333 (unable to superaccept opposite c)) ......P = c) ......3N = d) ......4♣+ = e) ...3N+ = 4+ S, not 4333 (superaccept opposite c)) (...) This could be combined with something like 3♥ = as above, but with e) slam interest, either 3S5+m4+Om or 3S6+m ...3♠/N = as above, but denying 5 S ...4♣+ = 5 S 3♠ = f) game interest only, 2-S3H g) slam interest, either 3H5+m4+Om or 3H6+m ...3N = 4- H ...4♣+ = 5 H so that Responder with 3 M and slam interest doesn't have to choose between looking for 5-3 M fit and showing his own shape. Edit: I wish I had put the 'all' in the title in scare quotes, as the above seems perfectly compatible with e.g. the 4♥ response being a (Texas) transfer to spades.

Here's a Puppet Stayman-like 2N response I came up with a couple of years ago, partly in order to solve this problem. 1N-2N = GF, (semi)balanced hands that in more standard methods are suitable for either a) Puppet Stayman or b) Jacoby transfer + CoG 3N 1N-2N; ?: 3♣ = 4-S4-H, likely ruffing value (or else he could just bid 3N, to play) ...Kungsgeten's improvements: ...3♦ = 4 S ......3♥ = 3- S .........3♠ = 4 H .........3N = to play ...3♥ = 5 S or no major ......3♠ = wants to play 4♠ opposite 5 S ...3♠ = 5 H ...3N = 3-S4H 3♦ = 5 H ...3♥ = 5S2H 3♥ = 5 S ...3♠ = 2S5H 3N = to play (i.e. no likely ruffing value) + 4-level transfers enabling the contract to be played by either hand in many (most?) cases

Ridiculous hand from a recent Robot Rebate 55 %: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~~M58415,~~M58413,~~M58414|md|2SAK32HDAQT2CA9632,SJ5HAQJ32D83CJT54,S987HT98765DJ54C8,SQT64HK4DK976CKQ7|sv|n|rh||ah|Board%2012|mb|P|mb|P|mb|1D|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%20%20!D;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|1H|an|One%20over%20one%20--%204%20%20!H;%2011-%20HCP;%206-12%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|1S|an|4%20%20!D;%203-%20!H;%204%20%20!S;%2011%20%20HCP;%2012-18%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|1N|an|Balanced%20minimum%20--%202%20%20!C;%202-3%20!D;%204%20%20!H;%202-3%20!S;%206-10%20HCP%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|2C|an|4%20%20!C;%2010-16%20total%20points|mb|D|an|2-3%20!D;%204%20%20!H;%202-3%20!S;%2010%20HCP;%20biddable%20!C%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|2D|an|4%20%20!C;%205%20%20!D;%2010-16%20total%20points|mb|D|an|3%20!D;%204%20%20!H;%202-3%20!S;%2010%20HCP;%20biddable%20!C;%20likely%20stop%20in%20!D%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|2S|an|4%20%20!C;%205%20%20!D;%205%20%20!S;%2010-16%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|CJ|pc|C8|pc|CQ|pc|CA|pc|C3|pc|C4|pc|S7|pc|C7|pc|DJ|pc|DK|pc|DA|pc|D3|pc|C2|pc|C5|pc|S8|pc|CK|pc|D4|pc|D7|pc|DT|pc|D8|pc|C9|pc|CT|pc|S9|pc|ST|pc|D9|pc|DQ|pc|S5|pc|D5|pc|HA|pc|H5|pc|H4|pc|S2|pc|SA|pc|SJ|pc|H6|pc|SQ|pc|SK|pc|H3|pc|H7|pc|S6|pc|C6|pc|H2|pc|H8|pc|S4|pc|D6|pc|D2|pc|HQ|pc|H9|pc|HK|pc|S3|pc|HJ|pc|HT|]399|300[/hv] 2♦ and 2♠ were, eh, table feel, and making an overtrick (yes, should have been two) was worth 83.3 %. Auctions at the other tables:

1. Pass 2. No

:(

I'm only criticising the use of a priori probabilities here, as if the probability of a 0-3 diamond break isn't affected by the fact that West passed throughout. Here are 100 hands dealt randomly on the condition that the NS cards are as above and West has ♠---♣AKx: As West I would have acted on all of them at this vulnerability, either over (1♠) or over (1♠)-P-(4♠)-P; (P). You may think that's insane, but if these hands are representative and there's a chance that the actual West is anything like me, then the a priori probability of a 0-3 diamond break (~ 0.11) clearly doesn't apply, and I don't think it's even a good approximation unless the field is unrealistically timid or maybe unfamiliar with concepts like 'preempt', 'sacrifice' and (of course) 'Law of Total Tricks'.

I'm still surprised that people think a priori probabilities apply here. If they do apply, then they also apply to the diamond suit, so there's a non-zero probability that West passed 1♠ with ♦QJT9876432 that has nothing to do with whether he was misbidding in some way. Hard to believe, isn't it?

I suppose you mean the Scandinavian Benelux Bridgefriend club, which is a private club here on BBO that posts (or used to post) results, (accumulative :angry:) rankings etc. on a separate website, http://www.bridgefriend.com/.

The auction matters, as usual. The following defence, which makes use of the Obvious Shift Principle, is only poosible if North's primary suit is known to be clubs. [hv=pc=n&s=sk5hqt83dt9853ck3&w=saqt97hakdkj6c952&n=s2h6542da7caqj876&e=sj8643hj97dq42ct4&d=S&v=B&a=P1S2C3SP4SPPP&p=dad2d8d6cac4ckc2cqcTc3c5c6s6skc9]399|300[/hv] Here the ♦8 is encouraging wrt the Obvious Shift suit, clubs (Overcaller's suit). That doesn't necessarily mean, regardless of context, that South has a club honour (or club shortness), only that South prefers a shift to a low club* over a diamond continuation. But here North knows that South knows that North can see that South would have discouraged the Obvious Shift (by encouraging a diamond continuation) without a club honour or club shortness. North also knows that South knows that North knows that if South has ♣Kx, then it's not only sufficient, but may also be necessary, to underlead the ♣A. So when North lays down the ♣A, South knows that it must be to cater for the possibility that South has club shortness. But South knows that North knows that that play can't gain a trick unless North also has the ♣Q. So South unblocks the K to make sure North is on lead after two club tricks. * Instead of just a club shift. Encouraging the same kind of club shift (a low club or the A) both with ♣Kx(x...) and a small singleton club doesn't work in general, so I (currently) believe that if South wants North to play the ♣A and another club, he should play the ♦T (an unusually high diamond, intended as a wake-up signal) instead of the ♦8. The wake-up signal is also used on the relaitively rare occasions (compared with when he either wants partner to continue the suit or make the Obvious Shift) when the opening leader's partner is desperate for a shift to the remaining (non-led, non-OS, non-trump) suit, but hopefully partner if he really is awake, will see what's going on.

Solved.

West led the ♦9, didn't he, so I suppose you meant to say that West held ♥T73 ♦98765 and East ♥KQ6542 ♦Q3. So if, after a top club, three spade and three diamond tricks, West follows suit on a club towards dummy, he must be either 3352 or 3253. But W: 3352 E: 3622 is 3/2*7/3 =7/2 as likely as W: 3253 E: 3721 a priori, and even more likely now that East didn't make any noise over 2♣. So takihg the club finesse seems (very) wrong on that line. Am I missing something?

Auction?

Wow, I didn't see this coming. I may be pathetic, but I'm definitely not a bully. Sorry if you found my post offensive! I tend to enjoy your threads, btw.

Well, maybe this is the time to psyche a weak jump overcall in hearts.