nullve

One of my cockier moments, and sims suggest I was wrong. :(

Me, reversing: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=nullve&s=SAJ54HQJ962D6CAT7&wn=Robot&w=S76HAT7DA532CQJ52&nn=Robot&n=SKQTH53DQJT97C863&en=Robot&e=S9832HK84DK84CK94&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=PP1H(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20%21H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P1N(2-%20%21H%3B%206-11%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points)P2S(Opener%20reverse%20--%205+%20%21H%3B%204+%20%21S%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%2018-22%20total%20points)P3N(2-%20%21H%3B%208-11%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points)PPP]400|300[/hv] :(

Well, Opener's hand is too strong for a 15-17 NT (really!) and rebidding 2N with 6D(322) shape is hardly a distortion.

Possible standard 2/1 GF auction, especially if 3♦ denies three hearts: 1♦-1♥ 2N-3♣ 3♦-4♦ 4N-5♠ 5N-6♣ 6♦-6♥ 6♠-7♣(?) 7N-P Yes, Opener would have bid the same way up to and including 6♠ with AKx Ax JT9xxx Ax. :( A fantasy: 1♦-2♣(!) 2♦-2N(!) 3♣-3♦ 4♦-4N 5♣-5N 6♦-6♥ 6♠-7N P

2/1 GF and semi-forcing 1N are incompatible?

2♠-1 is a good save against 1N=.

Don't you believe that some balanced 21 counts are worse than some balanced 20 counts you would never upgrade?

3N

So 3♣ promised 17 hcp?!? Then West was unable to generate a single deal consistent with the auction and play so far and probably ended up picking the T over 3 at random. I only noticed that from West's perspective South would need to hold both the ace and jack of spades in order to have had as much as 15 hcp (and thus AJx Qx Qxx KQJxx) initially.

From the full hand one can see why a walrus West might play the T instead of the 3.

I think so. I want to be in game even opposite MAX with hearts. Yes. I expect 16-17 total trumps and at least 9 tricks in spades, so by LoTT there should be at most 8 tricks in hearts.

Very attractive if I have the system for it. Balancing over (1♠)-P-(4♠)-P; (P), too. Not that I expect a random West player to be like me, but...

Have you considered 1♣ = "♦ or BAL" 1♦ = "♣" 1♥ = "♠" 1♠ = "♥" ?

I know that was a response to Cyberyeti, but did you read my post? You said upthread that bridge is a game of probabilities. Yet you use the fact that partner might have a 4441 near-yarborough as proof that the choice between 1♠ and 2♣ is not close! (Of course, opening 2♣ fails miserably opposite a more probable 1444 near-yarborough, but I won't hold that against you. :))

I (or, rather, nullve-nullve) currently play P = "0-10 (semi)BAL" 1♣ = "NAT or 11-13/17-19/26+ BAL", in 1st seat NV, but recently I've been toying with widening the Pass range, as in P = "0-13" (semi)BAL" 1♣ = "NAT or 17-19/26+ BAL", which makes the 1♣ opening more natural, less overloaded(?) and also has the effect that third hand can often bid more aggressively opposite 11-13 BAL. E.g. the bidding can now go P-(1♥)-2♠ = "WJO, frequenly 5c suit" instead of, say, 1♣-(1♥)-X = "4+ S". Openings in 3rd seat (i.e. responses to Pass) have to be less natural than in 1st seat, though. One idea: P = "0-7, usually BAL" 1♣ = "8-10, nebulous" OR "16+, unBAL w/ primarily a minor" OR 17+ BAL (I imagine a form of T-Walsh over this) 1♦ = "10-15, nebulous" 1M+: more or less as in 1st seat.

Board 4 from last weekend's Weekend event - Survivor (2 of 2): [hv=pc=n&sn=You&s=skj2ha43da875caq4&nn=GiB&n=sq3hkt952dq9ct876&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1cppdp1hp1np2np3nppp]266|200[/hv] First four tricks: 1. (♠4)-♠3-(♠7)-♠J 2. ♥A-(♥8)-♥2-(♥6) 3. ♥3-(♥J)-♥5-(♦2) 4. (♥7)-♥9-(♣2)-♥4 What is your line and why? (It's matchpoints and East-West are GiBs) Hint: ( I could have posted this (and November hand) in the Expert-Class Bridge Forum or Interesting Bridge Hands Forum, but...)

I'm not sure I would play safe even at IMPs! Well, I actually think it is safe to lay down the ace, because a 0-3 trump split must be almost Fukushima-rare given the auction and the vulnerability. (The a priori probability of a 0-3 trump split most definitely doesn't apply!)

Serious misbid, really? In my 2/1-like system this is still a 1♠ opening :( , but mainly because I believe (or have believed until now that) I tend to get away with it on this kind of hand (~ 21 hcp (the way I count) and 6(331) shape). But maybe I've been fooling myself. Anyway, here are 100 hands dealt randomly on the condition that South has ♠AKT864 ♥4 ♦AKQ ♣A63: The hands where I believe North might pass 1♠ if given the chance: I guess we're mostly interested in the hands where 1♠ might conceivably be passed out: The same hands with some double dummy results underneath: 5. Q J 9 7 5 A K T 8 6 4 3 2 K T 6 5 2 Q J 7 4 A 9 8 3 8 4 2 T 9 7 6 5 A K Q J 3 T 8 4 2 Q A 6 3 K J 9 7 5 (3N=, 4S-1) 9. J 7 5 9 A K T 8 6 4 Q 3 2 9 7 5 2 K J 6 4 A Q T 8 3 T 5 4 2 9 7 6 A K Q J 8 3 T 5 Q J 9 7 4 2 A 6 3 K 8 (4S=) 28. 9 5 A K T 8 6 4 Q J 7 3 2 K 7 2 Q J T 6 5 3 4 A 9 8 T 8 7 6 5 3 4 2 A K Q J 9 7 5 2 Q T 8 4 A 6 3 K J 9 (3N-2, 4S-2, 5D=) 45. J 9 7 5 3 2 A K T 8 6 4 Q Q J T 8 6 3 K 7 4 A 9 5 2 5 3 J T 7 A K Q 9 8 6 4 2 T 8 7 K 5 4 2 A 6 3 Q J 9 (3N+1, 4H-1, 4S=) 56. J 9 3 2 A K T 8 6 4 Q 7 5 T 5 3 2 K Q 9 4 A J 8 7 6 9 6 3 2 J 8 7 A K Q T 5 4 K J 9 8 Q T 4 2 A 6 3 7 5 (3N-1, 4S+1) 57. - Q 7 3 A K T 8 6 4 J 9 5 2 9 7 6 5 A K T 2 4 Q J 8 3 T 9 4 3 2 8 6 5 A K Q J 7 Q T 5 4 J 8 2 A 6 3 K 9 7 (3N-1, 4S-1, 5D=) 59. 3 2 Q J 9 5 A K T 8 6 4 7 Q 7 T 9 6 5 4 A K J 8 3 2 J T 9 8 7 6 5 A K Q 4 3 2 J T 8 5 K Q 2 A 6 3 9 7 4 (4S-2, 5D-1) 75. 7 2 9 5 A K T 8 6 4 Q J 3 J 7 6 3 A K 5 4 Q T 9 8 2 T 6 4 9 8 5 3 2 A K Q J 7 J 9 7 4 K T 5 A 6 3 Q 8 2 (3N(S)-3,3N(N)-2, 4S-1) 77. 7 2 9 5 A K T 8 6 4 Q J 3 J 5 3 2 Q T 9 8 6 4 A K 7 J 6 5 4 9 3 A K Q T 8 7 2 9 8 7 J T 4 2 A 6 3 K Q 5 (4S-1) 90. 9 7 3 A K T 8 6 4 Q J 5 2 3 2 K Q J 9 8 5 4 A T 7 6 J T 9 8 7 4 6 3 A K Q 5 2 9 8 7 5 J 4 2 A 6 3 K Q T (3N-3, 4S-2, 6D=) 99. 7 Q 9 5 A K T 8 6 4 J 3 2 J T 6 9 8 7 3 2 4 A K Q 5 T 6 5 4 J 9 7 3 A K Q 8 2 Q J 8 7 4 T A 6 3 K 9 5 2 (3N-2, 4S=, 5C=) So opening 2♣ is potentially a big winner on 8 of these 11 hands. But how would you reach the makeable games (and maybe even the one slam!) after a 2♣ opening, Rainer?

Why not?

This was also my line at the table. Unfortunately, I was inhabiting the wrong universe: [hv=pc=n&s=saha9652d84ckq754&w=sk52hqjt7da95cj86&n=sj943hk843dq2cat3&e=sqt876hdkjt763c92&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1hp3h4d4hdppp&p=dad2d3d4d9dqdkd8c9ckc6c3sas2s3s6c4c8ctc2s4s7h2s5c5cjcad6s9s8h5skc7hthkd7sjsqh9hjd5h3dtcqh4sthah7h6hqh8]399|300[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=saha9652d84ckq754&n=sj943hk843dq2cat3&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1hp3h4d4hdppp]266|200[/hv] West leads the ♦A, gets an encouraging 3 from East and continues with the ♦9 to East's king. East then shifts to the ♣9. Your plan? Would be fun to hear from non-experts first.

If both sides can make 4M, there must be at least 10+10=20 total tricks. Adjustment for singletons? :unsure: NS can make 11 tricks in spades by finessing diamonds through West. If NS play in spades (on a 9-card fit) and EW in hearts (on an 8-card fit), then there are only 9+8=17 total trumps but 11+11=22 total tricks, so LoTT is off by no less than 5 total tricks!!! Some of those can be accounted for by the presence of a double double fit, but in order to account for all of them I think we need a much better understanding of how the quality of double fits translates to total tricks. Note that if EW play in clubs instead of hearts, LoTT is "only" off by 3 total tricks. And those can be accounted for by the presence of a double double fit (surely worth 2+ total tricks) and the absence of cards that only contribute on defence (surely worth 1+ total tricks).

I think most bridge players don't, although they should unless they can come up with something better.

---