ochinko

I don't know where you play, but generally it would be very wrong to make this assumption. Just to give you an example, I played in an 8 boards tourney yesterday where we finished third. First was a pair with a star player in it. Against us that pair made 5♣ +1 where depending on the defense it's +1 or +2. We still lost 4 IMP as there was only one pair that bid 6♣, and many went down in 3NT. On the very next board we lost another 8 IMP against the star who played 6♥ where 7 were cold. While it's understandable that 7♥ was hard to find only 44% of the field ended in 6♥. My point is that most lads will either be in another contract, or not able to strip the hand, and exit safely.

With that hand I expect my partner to bid the same number of spades as opps would bid in hearts up to level four. (If I open 2♠, that is.) Come on, we haven't thrown away all that we've learned in the good all days when we believed in the Law, have we?

I have a good 6 cards spade suit that I'd be willing to bid to second level, right? So why would I not bid it right away given that partner is a passed hand? Opps are most likely to compete in hearts where I am short, so I must take away at least some space from them. The only downside to 2♠ is that we could miss a game. I don't think that's too probable though given that I have a 7 loser hand, and partner should have more than 7. In short, I bid 2♠ at all vulns and forms of scoring, and there's no other call I would consider.

That was true when we saw the dummy but not anymore, because if East started with only one heart, on the second heart he had to discard a minor suit card, as we drew his only spade. So if we know that West had 5 hearts, and East had 1, this is only because we saw East discarding a minor suit card after which defenders have 17 between them. I am not nitpicking, I just focus on the a posteriori probabilities as I find them to have more practical value.

I do. What lawful method would allow you to know 4 cards more in West's hand if spades are 1:1, and hearts are 5:1? In the absence of opponents' bids you can only arrive at that conclusion if you draw spades once, and hearts 2 times. By that time you'll know 3 cards from East's hand, and 3 from West's. Because you know that the remaining 3 hearts are in West there are 3 slots less in his hand for putting any unknown card, not 4 as you say. So the odds are not 11/18 to 7/18 but 10/17 to 7/17 or 58.8% to 41.2%.

How did you get this Frances? When I check it I also got 57%, but I thought it was a lot of work, using Pavlicek's dual calculator and then adding the percentages and even dividing them. Did you use a clever trick? Let me venture a guess: LHO has at 1 heart and 1 spade (11 vacant spaces). Rho has 4 hearts and 1 spade (8 vacant spaces). So, chances that LHO holds a specific card is 11/19 = (11/(11+8)) Close. You have to draw one spade in order to see that they break 1:1, but you have to draw hearts three times in order to see that they are 4:2. So now you know that the one with 2 hearts has 9 slots to put ♣K, the other one - 7. Oops, my bad. The one with 4 hearts has 8 slots, not 7, because there's only one more card that is known, which makes it 52.9% to find the King in the guy with fewer hearts. Edit: I am not able to calculate how much the chance for finding both Kings in the hand with fewer hearts increases, but bid_em_up definitely has a point so maybe we should always go for the squeeze as being more attractive than a finesse. :(

How did you get this Frances? When I check it I also got 57%, but I thought it was a lot of work, using Pavlicek's dual calculator and then adding the percentages and even dividing them. Did you use a clever trick? Frances is quite right. It depends on how many cards you assume known in the defendants. With 4:6 which is minimum in order to know the distribution in hearts and spades it's 56.2%. With 5:7 it gets 57.1%, etc. I have my own calculator, but there are many.

Hm, it seems like I got carried away. (75% * 1/2 * 64%) + (50% * 1/2 * 64%) + 36% = 76%, not 92% :( So the total is 76% * 0.52 = 39.5%. I hope I did it right this time.

I ruff the lead, and play ♣10 for a finesse. When LHO shifts to diamonds I ruff, get back to dummy's Ace with a trump, cash the ♥Q, and repeat the club finesse.

This is my 4 cards ending, and we are in dummy:[hv=n=sh2d3caq&s=s2hda10c4]133|200|[/hv] First case: West has longer hearts. We play a diamond to the Ace and draw the last trump. If West has the ♣K as well, he is squeezed. With two cards left he has bared his King if he didn't drop the heart. If West doesn't have the ♣K we make if East has both Kings. East is squeezed when we draw the last trump. When neither the last heart, nor ♦K has appeared all we have to do is to cash ♣A (Two combined 50% chances give us 75% total). Second case: East has longer hearts. Now if one of the defenders has both Kings he is squeezed, and when we ruff our last heart all we need to do is to cash both Aces. (50% total) And, of course, 36% when hearts are 3:3. All in all approximately 48% chance for making 7♠ or 92% after the spades hurdle is cleared. I play for ♠1:1 (52%).

Tough. The systemic bid would be 2NT, but there's no source of tricks in our hand, and all the spades are behind us. So it's either 1NT, pass or double. With 3 Aces and a King it looks better to play in a suit, which points to a double. But I think I prefer the opener to lead, so 1NT finally. After all it's MP. I reckon 1♠ is down one, but as I can't double for penalties, I'll try to make 1NT for +90 instead. That's more realistic than expecting to make 8 tricks when spades are trump bit only 1NT or less when the given hand is declaring. Edit: Sorry, the systemic bid is double, and convert partner's bid to NT, but I still like 1NT best. From Helene's explanation it looks like LHO opened with ♠AQ108 and thanks to that we could be the only pair to stop at a part score and get a positive result, rather than go down in 3NT or 4♠ with 24-28 points in the line.

Actually, I like telegraphing my hand when I have the chance. That's what the bidding is all about. If I move early we may 1) find a better part score than opps 2) find a good sacrifice 3) not blow a trick on the lead when we become defenders. Edit: 4) push opps to a higher than makeable level. If your style is not that aggressive, pass is ok with me. What I don't like here is treating the hand as one suited, and bid our weaker major with 1 or 2♠. It may work by fooling opps too, but to me it's still a psyche that is out of place here. Double risks playing with ♦4:2 when partner is 3:3 in the majors, and both 2♥ and 2♠ are better. What will you call after it goes 1M from LHO, pass from partner, 1NT from RHO? Now you're even worse that those that doubled initially.

Awful waste of values in the minors, but it still can't hurt much to bid 2♣ (Michaels) in these vulns.

In the beginning North sees 4 defensive tricks, as he sits behind the 1♠ opener. When partner jumps to 4♣ though clubs could hardly provide a trick in defense anymore, and it is also certain that partner doesn't have a trick outside. Sitting North I'd be very glad if opps stop at 4♦ because from my POV it looks like 5♦ have great chances.

To me this reluctant NT from opener shows only half a stopper: Qx willing to play NT against Axx. Now if partner has ♠J10, she'll abandon the idea, even though with our AKx we stop spades 3 times on a spade lead, and opps can't harm us with their nine spades. And all that because we insisted to show our small club instead. We can't bid 3♠ after 3♥ showing doubt as that would wrong side the contract when our spades are Qx:Axx.

Of course not in all cases it would make sense to expect four cards when the fourth suit is raised. But as Mikeh said as well, 3♠ here would show a hand better than the expected minimum, not worse.

But they think that a 3♥ bid in this auction would show 4 cards? Huh. Who was the author? You can easily see the authors in amazon.com. What you won't see there is the list of the editors, so I'll mention some of them instead: Marty Bergen, Larry Cohen, Fred Gitelman, Mathew Granovetter, Ron Klinger, Alvin Roth. What was your source again?

It is from Standard Bidding With SAYC. If there's any other book featuring SAYC that says otherwise, I'll admit I was wrong. According to it: "FSF can be used in a large variety of situations. The most common are: - When looking for a stopper for a no trump contract. - When lookin for delayed three-card trump support." I will quote their summary about FSF: "A bid of the fourth suit at the two-level or higher is forcing for one round and may be artificial. By partnership agreement this bid may be forcing to game. In response to a fourth suit forcing bid opener will: - Return responder's first suit with three card support (jump raise with extra values). - Rebid his own second suit at the cheapest level (weak hand). A jump rebid shows extra values. - Rebid his own first suit at the cheapest level (weak hand). A jump rebid shows extra values. - Bid NT to show a stopper in the fourth suit. - Raise the fourth suit (with four cards)." Example: 1♣ 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 2NT is explained as "showing a heart stopper and a minimum opening".

Me thinks some are confused on what 2s and 3s means :D 2s does not, repeat does not, ask for spade stopper....it asks you to describe your hand more...B) that is not the same thing. 3s does not repeat does not deny a spade stopper...:) The repetitions doesn't make your post any more clear, trust me. Do you think that 2NT doesn't necessarily show a spade stopper? I can't tell. As for 3♠ it wasn't in the answers, and pounding on it looks like trying to hijack the thread. Furthermore, at least in SAYC raising the fourth suit shows 4 cards, so I don't see how exactly that bid describes your hand better. Even if you think it couldn't show that here, it looks like it shows extras that you don't have. It also isn't clear from your post whether _you_ think you know what 3♠ means. I believe it implies that you do, but I can't be sure. It just looks like trying to make your partner as confused as yourself, so that you can win the post mortem. As Frances said, it is important whether FSF is game forcing or not. If it is not, then 3♣ is ok as saying "Sorry partner, I opened very light. Could we stop at 3♣, please?" If it is GF, I still think 2NT is the proper bid.

2NT. Partner asks if I stop the spades. I stop them twice. Why would it be more important to show my additional ♣x instead of ♠AK? I expect 3NT to be easier to make than 5♣.

As much as I prefer to take the underdog's side, I have to say you're out of line, barmar. 1. This is not some article that Fred wrote advocating ducking by IMP players, just an explanation of a line of play. And a beautiful one, too. 2. Fred himself says he doesn't feel strongly either way. 3. This is advanced/expert forum, so let's hope younger players' minds won't be corrupted too much by that shocking ducking.

It is simply wrong not do disrupt a precision club opening whenever you have the chance. Most of the time the system tends to find the best final contract if we don't interfere. I would prefer to be 5-4 in the minors but my 1NT bid has to do more with directing the defense rather than with suggesting a sacrifice in the minors so I bid it. I don't mind passing that much but I'll laugh in the face of anyone who'd say that interfering 1NT would help the declarer more than the defense.

I may hesitate a bit to balance at IMP but never at MP. I like to have an agreement that after opps open strong NT or precision 1♣ we almost never look for a game, and this gives us the opportunity to fight for the part score extremely aggressive yet without fearing of exciting partner too much.

I play it even simpler than the standard. Any new suit from an unpassed hand after an intervention is forcing, and doesn't deny fit. Any new suit after a double is non-forcing and denies fit.

Really? Is that a Geography textbook? A History textbook? Certainly not a bridge textbook. A can see the point of this textbook and probably have it (suspecting it is buy Hardy but too lazy to search thru several). Get rid of one of those ♣ x's and I'll open 1NT, but with 7 of them I think about about opening 1♣ and jump rebidding 3♣ (although that makes me choke a bit also). The problem with opening 1NT on Wayne's hand here is, IMHO, you have a wide open suit and worse support when transfered and passed in a major perhaps -1 when 3♣ has play for an OT. With those good clubs I can construct hands with good play for a 6♣ (5♣ ice) where after 1NT you end up in 3NT and are set. .. neilkaz .. I don't think a minor suit without an honor deserves mentioning, let alone repeating with a jump. AQ is at least as good as xxx, and if your partner has 5 card major, he won't repeat it, and you'll miss it. Whereas over 1NT he could transfer with it, and you'll know there are 5. If you really bid AQ-AQ-AJ-xxxxxxx with 1♣-?-3♣ you'll go down in 5♣ when 3NT makes, or worse - go down in 3NT when 6M makes.