MickyB

Obviously, there was meant to be a 'not' in my previous post. Unfortunately, the second option isn't viable in my methods. I'll give the others some thought - thanks.

Josh, I like the idea of this but I've played it before. If the auction starts 1H:2C 2H:2N do you now bid 3S on any hand with four of them? What would you bid on KQx AKxxxx xx xx?

In the UK, we have petrol (expensive fuel) and diesel (more expensive fuel)

Wow@double

The best theoretical strategy for the defender is to cover *at most* one-third of the time. If he does this, declarer will pick up Kxx and KT, but never Kx. If he covers more than one-third of the time, it becomes profitable for declarer to start playing him for Kx instead of KT. In practice, the best thing to do is to not cover with Kx, because if declarer believes you would frequently cover he will now pick up the suit. The flip-side of this is that if you have KT, you hope that declarer thinks you would frequently cover from Kx.

What would you prefer? That LHO had neither major? The most problematic hands for him to have are probably 5-3, 5-4 and 6-4 in the majors, particularly if he's not strong enough to double then bid a new suit. Preferring to preempt on 1462 seems bizarre, it just increases the (admittedly still small) chance that they have no game on.

I suspect I would have opened it at the table, but I marginally prefer a pass. Preempting 2♦ takes away a few steps in the auction, but in return they get cuebids at various levels and information about the lie of our cards on defence. Most of the times that we "push" them into the wrong contract will just be noise - for every ten times their uncontested auction would have been better, they might have eight times that they reach a better spot after we preempt. Obviously, to steal a Hrothgar phrase, I'm pulling numbers out of my ass, but you get the idea. The times that preempts work best are when you reach a sensible final contract before the oppo have sorted themselves out on a hand where assets are reasonably evenly split. Say you can make 2D and they can make 2S; LHO may find he has the choice between passing 2D out and bidding 2S which will fetch a raise from partner. If you are preempting on a five-count opposite a passed partner, there is no chance that this scenario will occur. This is being demonstrated at the highest level by the Italians. Fantunes play intermediate-strength twos, were it is much more likely that there is a part-score battle on (especially in third); Likewise, if I have deciphered their CC correctly, Lauria-Versace play IJOs except at favourable.

If the Q holds the trick, there are six relevant holdings for RHO - K7 K5 K2 K75 K72 K52 So, Kx and Kxx will occur with the same probability. As there is a non-zero chance that the defender would have covered with Kx, it's better to play for him to have started with Kxx and play the jack on the second round. If RHO covers, there are four relevant holdings for him - KT K7 K5 K2 As we have seen above, there is no need for him to cover with Kx, so if he does cover you should, in theory, play him for KT; However, Kx is three times as likely as KT, so if you believe that the defender would cover more than one-third of the time when holding Kx, you should play him for that instead.

Well, there's a 24-hour event held every 18 months or so at the Young Chelsea in London - does that count? :P I played 180 boards of relay precision with mr1303, we were both fairly tired by the end of it.

That assumes that a partscore hand is as likely as a game, doesn't it? With my assumption that partscore is twice as likely as game, the figure would be 60 + 350 * (1/3 + 1/9) ~= 215 Rubber bridge seems to have died out in London - all the "rubber" clubs actually play Chicago instead. Is that the same everywhere? Sorry, misread your post, thought you were considering part-scores and game/slam deals to be equi-probable. Hang on, isn't this methodology still flawed? I think it is ignoring the fact that, if we were to convert on the next hand, we are not 350 points better off - we are 350 points *minus the value of a part-score* better off. That makes sense really, having a part-score in cannot be worth that close to half the value of the game. Fourth attempt at a calculation :rolleyes: x = The "added value" of the part-score y = The value of a game x = y/9 + 1/3 * (y - x) => 4x/3 = 4y/9 => x = y/3 The highest stake game in Manchester is £5 per hundred, that's been rubber, not chicago, the last two times I've played - Chicago is certainly more common at the lower stakes.

With no one vulnerable a game is worth 350 plus the trick value. (Before making game, your expectation is zero; after making game, your expectation is 700/2 + 500/4 - 500/4.) Suppose that two partscores are always worth a game, and that it's twice as likely that you can make a partscore as that you can make a game. Having made a partscore, we'll convert it to game 2/3 of the time (1/2 when the next hand is ours; 1/6 when the opponents make a partscore but we then convert). With these assumptions, a 60 partscore is worth 60 + 350 * 2/3 ~= 240. Hang on - one-quarter of the time, the next hand will be ours and we could have bid and made a 100-point game on that hand. Haven't you credited that success to having 60 in? Also, your final calculation seems to come to 300-odd, not 240. In theory, the part-score will benefit us 1/4 of the time immediately, when the next hand is ours in part-score; and 1/16 of the time after two part-scores have been made, one for us and one for them. 60 + 350 * 5/16 ~= 170. However, I'm not sure this reflects the true value of the part-score. It simplifies our objectives - we no longer have to bid to a high level on "game values", which makes it harder for the opponents to work out whether to compete. It also leaves us more room to investigate slam when we need it, but this is probably counteracted by the unfamiliarity of the situation for most players.

DavidC's, please :D I don't know Matula's version but I'd be surprised if ours was not simpler than his.

I've been through a fair few partnerships in the juniors over the past few years. I think all of the factors listed have played a part. Some have ended due to one member becoming too old for the U20s or U25s; A couple only really started because there was no-one else of a similar standard available, and, in those cases, bidding style+system contributed to the split. I suspect that professionals have more reason to stick together - it's more attractive to hire an established partnership.

Thanks :) It really is an impressive number of selections from the contributors here. I'll try to hand over to Andy+John in a reasonable position! Kevin - yup, as Roland says, it's England's turn to have two teams this year. Gold/Townsend are playing for both weekends for the team known as "England", others will only get one weekend (barring withdrawals). The other teams in the event will tend to be much more consistent between the two weekends.

Splinters below game, exclusion above.

No, he didn't. I'm not American, but I'm amazed to hear it described as an 'atheist country'. Can you imagine an atheist being elected as president?

Yay, I aimed closest to the middle! Do I get a prize?

Yup, double at any conditions. Be glad that you're 2623 not 22(63). What if pard bids 5m or 4N now? I think I'd leave 5C, but bid 5H over 4N or 5D. How much less before I'd pass instead of doubling? Hm. Turn the KC into the queen and I think I'd still double, make it the jack and I'd pass for sure.

I just gave the test to my housemate, who is possibly the most right-wing person I know. He scored -1.5, -0.15

-3.75, -3.9 Looking at the phrasing of the questions, it doesn't surprise me that the majority are coming out very negative.

FWIW, I've heard it said that the democrats are "to the right" of the majority of mainstream political parties in Europe.

Agreed, the 1C opening would be *terrible*. 1D ok perhaps. In a similar vein, but more workable IMO - 1C strong 1M can be four if 11-12 bal or unbal with clubs (possibly also with diamonds) 1D nat, or 1D either minor if you want 2C to be a preempt Likewise - 1C/1D nat unbal or better minor on 17-19 bal. Alternatively, short club and unbal diamond. 1M nat unbal or 11-13 bal 1N 14-16, or 13 with no 4M Trouble with that is you start wanting to open three-card majors, which is generally frowned upon :rolleyes:

Nah, this is easily worth forcing to game on if RHO had passed or bid 2S. 5H in sleep, doesn't have to be right but we'll defend 4S far too often if we do anything else.

Yup pass > 1H >> 1S Pass first then you can bid like crazy later, it's the only way you'll ever come close to describing your hand. Opening 1S will just land us in the wrong strain a significant proportion of the time - way more often than 1H will miss a better spade fit, most of the time if pard doesn't have four spades then we'll be happy to play in hearts.

I think the likelyhood is the exact opposite of what you say. You are quite unlikely to be weak over the preempt, much more likely to be strong. More to the point, what auction are you preempting against? 1H-3S-4H-4S P-P-5H-P P-5S? It's rare for the preemptor to take another call, so there's no need to stop his partner from showing that he has a hand suitable for bidding 4S.