nullve

I agree with all of you. :( It would be better to give dummy the ♥T, as Phil suggested, OR provide an auction (such as 3♠-4♠; P) that gives East reason to fear that declarer has the stiff ♥K.

Forget the title. Here's something I thought about a few years ago: Suppose South * is playing a spade contract * has something like ♥KTx in hand opposite ♥J9xxx in dummy * has reason to believe that East has the ♥A * has reason to believe that East doesn't know everything about the remaining heart distribution * has plenty of entries to dummy How should South play the heart suit for only one loser? Hint 1:

Here's a structure over the "positive relay" (2♣ over 1♦-1M; 1N and 2♦ over 1♣-[1M-1]) that is * objectively worse when Responder has 7-9, 5S5H; * objectively better when Opener is bal.; * hopefully still good enough (well, maybe not for the SR diehards on this forum) when Opener has "16-18" unBAL: (spoiler added 24 February 2019) Added, starting 23 Feb 2019:

Possibly of no interest to anyone else, but I'll post anyway: "NF Gazzilli" is a name I've been using for each of the following rebids, 1♣-1♦; 1N = "10-12"1, 3-S2-H6+C / "16-18"1, 3-S2-H5+C, unbal. / 17-19 bal., 2-3 H 1♣-1♥; 1N = "10-12", 2-S6+C / "16-18", 2-S5+C, unbal. / 17-19 bal., 2-3 S 1♦-1♥; 1N = "10-12", either 2-S3-H6+D or 2-S5D5C / "16-18", 2-S3-H5+D, unbal. 1♦-1♠; 1N = "10-12", either 2-H6+D or 2-H5D5C / "16-18", 2-H5+D, unbal., in my vaguely 2/1-like system where (roughly) 1♣(1st/2nd NV) = "nat. or 14+ bal." 1♣(V, 3rd/4th NV) = "nat. or 11-13/17+ bal." 1♦ = "nat. unbal., F1", and 1♣-1♦ = 0+, 4+ H, may have longer S unless GF 1♣-1♥ = 0+, 4+ S, denies 4+ H unless GF 1♦-1♥ = 0+, 4+ S, may have longer H unless GF2 1♦-1♠ = 0+, 4+ H, denies 4+ S unless GF2, but more generally it could be any NF 1N rebid (in any system) that behaves like Gazzilli in some interesting way. But although the listed 1N rebids are all similarly defined, * over 1♣-1R the 1N rebid began as a 17-19 NT. (as in "Swedish" T-Walsh). Then was allowed also on wildly offshape hands (effectively raising the lower limit of other strong rebids by 3 hcp, making it easier to cope with responses on "air"). And it finally had to double as lebensohl (narrowing the range of Opener's 2♣ rebid); * over 1♦-1M the 1N rebid began as "10-12", nat. (effectively narrowing the range of Opener's 2♣ and 2♦ rebids). Then it had to double as "true" Gazzilli for a while before it reached its current form (after I threw out e.g. 10-12, 1M5D4C and "16-18" hands with 3+ support), when it sometimes makes sense for Responder to pass 1N again. Also, beyond the description of Opener's 1N rebid, the two types of structure have been so different that lumping them together under "NF Gazzilli" has seemed a bit pointless. Until a couple of days ago, when it occured to me that if I change my system to 1♣(1st/2nd NV) = "nat. or 14-19/23+ bal., F1" 1♣(V, 3rd/4th NV) = "nat. or 11-13/17-19/23+ bal., F1" 1♦ = "nat. unbal. or 20-22 bal., F1" and 1♣-1♦; 1N = "10-12", 3-S2-H6+C / "16-18", 3-S2-H5+C, unbal. / 17-19 bal., 2-3 H 1♣-1♥; 1N = "10-12", 2-S6+C / "16-18", 2-S5+C, unbal. / 17-19 bal., 2-3 S 1♦-1♥; 1N = "10-12", either 2-S3-H6+D or 2-S5D5C / "16-18", 2-S3-H5+D, unbal. / 20-22 bal., 2-3 S 1♦-1♠; 1N = "10-12", either 2-H6+D or 2-H5D5C / "16-18", 2-H5+D, unbal. / 20-22 bal., 2-3 H, then it might suddenly make sense to play very similar structures both after 1♣-1R; 1N and 1♦-1M; 1N. For example (brief outline): (m = the opened minor; M = Responder's shown major) 1♣-[1M-1](=4+ M); 1N-?: / 1♦-1OM(=4+ M); 1N-?: P = < positive values* and no good reason not to pay 1N opposite a bal. hand 2m = < positive values* and a good reason (such as having 5 M) not to play 1N opposite a bal. hand ...P = (usually) "10-12", 6+ m ...2M = bal. ...other = nat., usually "16-18" 2Om = positive values*, relay [doubles as a transfer to H if m=♣ and M=♥] ...2♦ = "10-12", "6+ D" ......2♥(M=♠) = 7-9, 4+S5+H ......2M = 7-9, "6 M" ......2M+1 = GF relay (=> 2N = 4+ S) ...2♥(m=♣) = "10-12", "6+ C" ......P(M=♥) = 7-9, "6 H" ......2♠(M=♥) = 7-9, 5+S4+H ......2♠(M=♠) = 7-9, "6 S" ......2OM+1 = GF relay (=> 2N = 4+ H) ...2♥(m=♦) = "10-12", "5D5C" ...2♠ = If possible: "16-18", 4+OM5+m. Else: same as 2♥, but no H tolerance ...2N = bal. ...3♣+ = "16-18" unbal., e.g. nat. 2♥(m=♣,M=♠) = 7-9, "6 S" [a pure transfer to S] 2♥(m=♦,M=♠) = 10-12, 4+S5+H [like inv Flannery by Responder] 2M = 10-12, "6 M" [like an IJS] 2♠(m=♣,M=♥) = 10-12, 5+S4+H [like inv Reverse Flanery by Responder] * here 'positive values' means 'GF' if m=♣ and 'GF opposite "16-18"' if m=♦ In more detail: 1♣-1♦; 1N-?: P = 0-6, 4-S4H 2♣ = 0-6, either 5+ H or 5+S4H / 7-12, no game interest opposite "10-12", catchall ...P = "10-12", 3-S2-H6+C ...2♦ = "16-18", 2-H4+D5+C. ...2♥ = 17-19 bal. ......P = 0-6, 5+ H ......2♠ = 0-6, 5+S4+H ......(...) ...2♠ = "16-18", 3S1-H6+C [in case Responder has 5+ S or 4S1-C] ...2N = ? ...3♣ = "16-18", 2-S3-H3-D7+C 2♦ = 7-9, either "6 H" or 5+S4+H / 13+ ...2♥ = "10-12", 3-S2-H6+C, to play opposite 7-9, "6 H" ......P = 7-9, "6 H" ......2♠ = 7-9, 5+S4+H ......2N = GF relay ......(...) ...2♠ = "10-12", 3-S1-H7+C? [doesn't want to play 2♥ opposite 7-9, "6 H"] ...2N = 17-19 bal. ...3♣+ = "16-18", 3-S2-H5+C, unbal. 2♥ = 10-12, "6 H" 2♠ = 10-12, 5+S4+H (...) 1♣-1♥; 1N-?: P = 0-6, 4S3-H 2♣ = 0-6, 5+ S / 7-12, no game interest opposite "10-12", catchall ...P = "10-12", 2-S6+C ...2♦ = "16-18", 2-S4+D5+C ...2♥ = "16-18", 2-S4+H5+C ...2♠ = 17-19 bal. ......P = 0-6, 5+ S ......(...) ...2N = "16-18", 1336 ...3♣ = "16-18", 2-S3-H3-D7+C 2♦ = 13+, relay ...2♥ = "10-12", 2-S6+C ......2♠ = GF relay (=> 2N = 4+ H) ......(...) ...2♠ = "16-18", 2-S4+H5+C ...2N = 17-19 bal. ...3♣+ = "16-18", 2-S3-H5+C, unbal. 2♥ = 7-9, "6 H" 2♠ = 10-12, "6 S" (...) 1♦-1♥; 1N-?: P = 0-3, 4S4-H 2♣ = GF opposite "16-18", relay ...2♦ = "10-12", 3-S2-H6+D ......(...) ......2♥ = 7-9, 5+ H ......2♠ = 7-9, "6 S" ......2N = GF relay ......(...) ...2♥ = "10-12", 1255 [pref. opposite 7-9, 5S5H] ...2♠ = "10-12", 2155 [pref. opposite 7-9, 5S5H] ...2N = 20-22 bal. ...3♣+ = "16-18", 2-S3-H5+D, unbal. 2♦ = 0-3, either 5+ S or 4S5+H / 4-6, any ...P = "10-12" / "16-18", 2263? ...2♥ = "16-18", 1-S3H [in case Responder has 5+ H or 4H2-D] ...2♠ = 20-22 bal. ......P = 0-3, 5+ S ......(...) ...2N = "16-18", 2-S2-H6+D4C? ...3♣ = "16-18", 2-S2-H5+D5+C ...3♦ = "16-18", 2-S3-H7+D? 2♥ = 10-12, 5+ H 2♠ = 10-12, "6 S" (...) 1♦-1♠; 1N-?: P = 0-3, 3-S4H 2♣ = GF opposite "16-18", relay ...2♦ = "10-12", 2-H6+D ......(...) ......2♥ = 7-9, "6 H" ......2♠ = GF relay (=> 2N = 4+ S) ......(...) ...2♥ = "10-12", 2-H5D5C ...2♠ = "16-18", either 4+S2-H5+D or 4144 ...2N = 20-22 bal. ...3♣+ = "16-18", 3-S2-H5+D, unbal. 2♦ = 0-3, 3-S5+H / 4-6, any ...P = "16-18", either 2H6D(32) or 3163? ...2♥ = 20-22 bal., 2-3 H ......P = 0-3, 5+ H ......(...) ...2♠ = "16-18", 4+S2-H5+D ...2N = "16-18", 2-H5+D4C? ...3♣ = "16-18", 2-S2-H5+D5+C ...3♦ = "16-18", 3-S2-H7+D 2♥ = 10-12, "6 H" (...) (Responder's ranges should be taken with a tiny grain of salt.) 1 This thread isn't about hand valuation, so readers can interpret "10-12" and "16-18" the way they wish. But for me, '"10-12"' and '"16-18"' are just more legible ways of writing 'rules of 19-21' and 'rules of 25-27', respectively. 2 [3 Oct 2017:] Maybe it's best to respond 1♠ with 0-3, 4S5+H, because if the bidding goes 1♦-1♠; 1N-2♦, then Responder can pass comfortably whether Opener then bids 2♥("20-22 BAL") or 2♠("S reverse"). Originally added to the next post (starting 16 March 2017) but moved here 5 May 2020 because of space issues:

Why not play two-way doubles in these situations?

deleted

Double. I never overcall 2♥ with only 5 H here unless I've agreed to play split-range Michaels.

Good point. I'll have to think more about that. Only if it meant that I also gave up the 9th trick. (We're playing IMP Pairs.)

I concede that if declarer decides to play on spades first so that partner gets in and can play a second heart, then 2 entries are enough. But sometimes declarer will be able to remove one of my entries first (say, by taking a losing diamond finesse), so when partner finally gets in he won't be able to clear the heart suit by playing a third heart. Yes, but I've already explained why I don't think he has one. Yes, basically. But e.g. ♠J9xx+♦QJ9x might be enough. Yes, but we're only comparing small targets, aren't we?

I suppose the bidding at the other table went something like this: [hv=pc=n&d=e&v=n&a=1n2c(Capp)x4c(I have excellent support)x4h(partner is an idiot)xp(partner is an idiot)ppp]200|150[/hv]

On board 7, set 4, in my R16 BFF Challenge match against you (which I lost by 1 IMP), I opened 2N with ♠AJTxx ♥AQT ♦KTx ♣Ax. What is this hand really worth? Surely more 18, but maybe not as much as 20? The element of gaming here was that I was expecting a favourable (Bird/Anthias-style) lead if I just didn't mention spades, so the choice was really between 1♣(!) and 2N. This time, that decision was enough to lose the match as partner understandably forced to game with ♠x ♥xxxx ♦xxxx ♣KJxx and getting a spade lead from ♠7x just wasn't enough. That was board 9, set 1, NV vs. V opposite a passed hand. A bit childish, perhaps, but I didn't expect partner to get too excited without a fit. That was board 3, set 2. I have a lot of experience with opening 2♣(!) on hands like this against GiB, and the truth is that it's a HUGE net winner. But since I would then just be exploiting a bug in GiB's bidding and I've wanted to test my (other) bridge skills in these BBF Challenge events, my strategy has been to not do it. But overcalling 1♦ NV vs. V opposite a passed partner seemed completely harmless.

Yes, but you don't expect 2 entries to be enough, do you? No. It's just very likely. Why? Don't you expect partner to have diamonds? Not very likely, perhaps, but I'm not giving up, i.e. by leading a heart.

East knows that their side has 9+ spades, so opps must have 22+ cards between them in the three remaining suits, which means they have an 8c+ fit somewhere. So East can infer there are 17+ total trumps.

Too bad. I was hoping for some asymmetric warfare.

I'd open 1♣ and rebid 1N over both 1♣-(P)-1M-(P) and 1♣-(1M)-X-(P), but I won't cherrypick hands like Opener: 1) 94-T4-KJ76-AQJ95 2) 94-T4-KJ7-AQJ954 Responder: a) JTxxx-AQx-Qxxx-x b) JTxxx-AQxx-Qxx-x c) JTxxx-AQxx-Qx-xx d) KTxxx-AQx-Qxxx-x e) KTxxx-AQxx-Qxx-x to prove that it's a better strategy with 2245 than opening 1♣/♦ and then rebidding 2♣.

I think East has a double or triple heart stopper, and West probably a heart honour or 3 H since otherwise he might have chosen to correct to 4♠. So although it's certainly possible that partner has ♥Qx (although AK is maybe not the kind of double stopper that East would suggest 3N with), it doesn't seem likely and I won't risk losing a crucial tempo by leading a heart if there's a good alternative. For a club lead to be crucial when the goal is to beat 3N, partner will probably need to have 5+ clubs, but that also seems unlikely given that both opps were happy to play 3N instead of 4♠. But partner is extremly likely to have 5+ D on this auction, and he doesn't need to have much else in order for ♦K to at least be a non-losing lead. So I'll lead the ♦K. (Leading my singleton spade is of course out of the question.) I agree with 2♥, but this is the absolute minimum I can have.

Would be fun to see your 2♣ opening (8-11 bal. with 4+ C) in action.

nullve for complete ******** thread of the year.

I voted that West is more to blame. Although I agree with most of what Rainer said, I think the ♥Q (bad total trick-wise) is largely weighed up for by the ♠QJ (good total trick-wise). What noone has mentioned yet --- maybe because they have a different experience with LoTT than I do --- is that that the 5T(332) shape, like 4T(333) shape but unlike 4T(432) shape, is worth roughly -1 total tricks. So when basic LoTT actually gives the correct answer on this deal, it may have something to do with the fact that NS has a double fit, which is a standard +1 total trick adjustment.

Stuff that probably belongs in this thread: After 1♣-(1♠) I've long been faking "system on" in the sense that P = "0+, 4+ H" (same as 1♦ response without intervention) ...X = "same as 1♥ over 1♣-(P)-1♦-(P)" ...1N+ = "same as 1N+ over 1♣-(P)-1♦-(P)" X = "0+, either 4+ D or bal." (same as 1♠ response without intervention) / "0+, 4+ S" (would have responded 1♥ without intervention) ...1N+ = same as 1N+ over 1♣-(P)-1♠-(P) (...) An obvious theoretical cost is that when Opener has a hand with which he would rebid 1♠ = rules of 19-27, either 4+S2-H5+C or 4144 / rules of 19-24, 31(54), 4054 or 4153 (see NOTE below) over 1♣-(P)-1♦-(P), he will now have to find the least lie among, say, X(NV) = "3+ H or 14-16 bal." / options on strong bal. hands (irrelevant here) 1N = NF Gazzilli: rules of 19-21, 2-H6+C / rules of 25-27, 2- H / 17-19 bal., 3- H 2♣ = rules of 22-24 ("13-15"), 2-H6+C. But when Opener NV has, say, 10-12 hcp and 4153, none of these alternatives come even close to describing what he has. So in an attempt to solve this problem I've seriously considered both the silly-looking a) 2♠(NV) = rules of 19-21, either 4054, 4144 or 4153, which at least gets the range and shape across pretty well (but likely one level too high), and the spectacular b) P(NV) = rules of 19-21, either 4054, 4144 or 4153, which clearly invites disaster opposite an unlimited Responder. But, of course, there's a third possibility: c) switch between a) and b) depending on the meaning of Advancer's pass. A problem with c), of course, is that opps can't be expected to have meta-agreements covering (1♣1)-1♠-(P2)-?: 1 rule of 19+, nat. / 14+ bal. (NV) / 10-15, either 3154, 4054 or 4153 2 0+, 4+ H, so I also need to know what to do in case opps don't know what they're doing. NOTE: The idea behind opening 1♣ with 10-15 hcp and either 3154, 4054 or 4153 is, as I've touched upon in several other threads, two-fold: to free up the 2♣ rebid over 1♦-1M = 0+, 4+ OM avoid rebid problems over 1♦-1♠ = 0+, 4+ H when 1N = "NF Gazzilli": rules of 19-21, either 2-H6+D or 2-H5D5C / rules of 25-27, 2- H 2♣ = Gazzilli-like: rules of 22-24, either 2-H5D5C or 5S6+D / rules of 22-27, 3 H / rules of 28-30, any 2♦ = rules of 22-24, 4-S2-H6+D (...).

I was torn between 3♠ and 4♠ when deciding to preempt on that hand. I expected you to bid 3♠ and I felt I might need a swing because of the self-inclicted small disaster on board 7 and a couple of potentially catastrophic passes (on boards 6 and 15) by GiB. Unfortunately, I went for the "normal" 3♠ and it didn't occur to me to continue with 4♠. Although I'm sure I made some horrible mistakes (the "misguess" on board 9, set 3, being an obvious candidate), I'm quite happy with the way I played in this match except for the nullo play on board 3 of the 3rd set, which cost an extra undertrick and, of course, 2 IMPs, more than the margin of victory. It's also a small consolation that my MP score was 54.6875 %. Anyway: good luck in R8, smerriman!

I won the 3rd set against smerriman 39-23: http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:cd4c280e.8b7b.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1475727452&u=nullve

How? Will your partner sometimes double for takeout with 3 H?

3♣

Goren and I blame North 100 %.