Siegmund

I did a sim myself this afternoon, and it confirmed the conventional wisdom of S > C > D > H (based on how many tricks worse "this opening lead followed by double-dummy defense is" compared to double-dummy from the start.) I do plan to look at a few typical layouts. Apparently I just got lucky, anticipating an antipercentage lie of the cards that turned out to actually work the time I did it. Good lesson for my mind as to how fixating on just a few situations can skew our perception of the overall percentages.

Doesn't anybody think it's important that we KNOW spades is the declaring side's best side suit? (They should have 8 or 9 hearts; 7 spades; only 5 or 6 of each minor.) The more I think about it the more I think spades is the worst of the 4 suits to lead. If declarer has both HA and HK, yes. But if dummy has a high heart, and partner's singleton is small, declarer pulls all the trumps without loss when he takes the percentage play. We can get that trick by forcing declarer in diamonds, too. (And if the trump position is the feared Axx opposite KJTxx or similar, we can ONLY get our tricks by forcing him in diamonds while we still have a spade stopper.) That was why I led the DA at the table -- the old adage about "if you have 4 trumps, lead your side's longest suit to force declarer". It turned out, on this particular deal, to be necessary. I posted the hand to get a feel for whether it was a good idea in the long run or not. I get the feeling so far that its a possibility nobody ever thinks about, and I am not sure if that is because a spade is so good, or just because we all had a blind spot.

The early voters seem to like the spade. The spade does seem obvious, in a way, but at the same time, seemed bad to me. Partner almost surely has only 4 spades - with 5 he'd more likely overcall 2S than double - leaving the opponents 7 to our 6, and me with no spots. With Jx/Tx I might well lead a spade anyway; but with 8x decided I would be finessing my partner out of a spade, perhaps out of one more spade than declarer could finesse him out of without my help, and little chance of setting up two spade winners for our side. At the table I wound up leading an unhappy DA but only after agonizing over a club instead. The only comfort was seeing the SQJT appear in dummy (partner had the ace, but declarer had Kxxx for the other 3 spade tricks.) If I had it to do over again I think I would try the club not the diamond. But I think we (I include myself, on many previous occasions) lead the spade automatically more often than we should.

Matchpoints, favorable. Your hand: ♠8x ♥Q6xx ♦A9xx ♣T8x. EDITED auction: LHO deals and passes, partner passes, and RHO opens: (The first few responses were posted with an "RHO deals and opens 1H" incorrect auction) Pass-pass-1♥-pass -2♥-X-pass-3♦ -pass-pass-3♥-all pass What is your lead? How obvious do you think it is?

Answers will vary a lot, depending who your usual set of partners and opponents is... here is my stab, which I feel is representative of quality regional-level players but not necessarily of top pros: Frequency: Nearly universal: Texas, Gambling 3NT Lebensohl or one of its variations. (maybe three-quarters textbook leb.) Frequency will drop off rapidly as you move down to intermediate players. Common, but ask about it before you assume it's in effect: Capp/DONT (most people know both, and many play whichever their partner du jour prefers) Smolen Ogust (I think it's more common than feature - but again, there's more than one set of responses, so don't use it unless you've talked about it first) Uncommon: Sandwich Very rare: Namyats Usefulness: Lebensohl (or something similar): vital Ogust: helpful, but not spectacularly better than features Sandwich 1N: I consider it very useful (and the natural alternative downright dangerous), but we've had threads on sandwich where people who play in very strong fields feel differently. Cappelletti/DONT: neither is my preference, but SOMEthing to get some 2-suiters into the bidding is good. Gambling 3N: ~shrug~ Smolen Transfers: zero Texas Transfers: useful, and no better alternative - but only a modest improvement over putting them all through 2-level transfers. Namyats: modest but imo not worth the cost of reduced minor-suit preempt ability

3 for me. Yes, its a slight overbid. Having 0 defensive tricks instead of 1 is a good reason to overbid. It's an otherwise perfect hand for preempting. I do occasionally make a 7-card weak two, usually when unfavorable, but not on this kind of a hand - more like QJxxxxx Kx xx xx.

Similar to eyhung's post: My own practice, with my regular p, is that attitude (with Obvious Shift) applies, unless third hand is known to hold at least six cards in the suit - basically when opening leader is leading his partner's preempt. Perhaps changing to 5 would be better. And of course there are a few other rare situations where both my attitude and my count is already known -- maybe I've made a support double of the suit partner led or something -- but in general it's an attitude situation for me. I am aware that most people use suit preference a lot more in this situation than I do. I don't have any good ideas for how to tell if it's on or off, except an agreement based on 3rd hand's promised length.

It looked to be as if you calculated EV only of passing vs. inviting, not of raising directly to 3NT also. My simulations in the past did include 5422s and 6m322s, which will increase the variance - overtricks when long suit runs, down-several disasters when a doubleton is wide open - and make exactly 8 tricks a bit of a harder target. If your results are a bit more stable, that is as it should be :P

Eh? Opposite 15, passing wins 33.6% and ties the rest -> +33.6% net Opposite 16-17, passing wins 42.8% and loses 57.2% -> -13.6% net 57.4% of -13.6 and 42.6% of +33.6 makes pass a winner by 6% per board. At MP, Pass>Invite, by your own figures. You appear to have found a rare hand that is Invite>Bash>Pass nonvul at IMPs. You didn't calculate the equity for bashing, but it looks like -1.23 imps/bd opposite 15, and the same +1.42 as you showed opposite 16-17, for +.29 net vs passing. Vulnerable at IMPs, it will be Bash>Invite>Pass. I don't recall simulating specifically a 3-2-3-5 hand with lots of tens before. It is a topic worth investigating more -- I wonder how many other examples we can find where invites are best. (If you take all 8-counts without 4-card majors as a whole, for instance, it won't be.) What restrictions did you put on opener's hand, incidentally?

My point here was that pass-or-bash outperforms invitational sequences at double-dummy, and since the defense against pass-or-bash will be somewhat worse than against an invitational sequence, I expect pass-or-bash at the table to outperform invitational sequences by even more than double-dummy analysis predicts. I need to verify this. My intuition tells me that there aren't many hands of this kind. If hand makes good game opposite maximum it usually is good enough to play 2NT opposite minimum. Do you refer to dd simuls here or to real bridge ? Both. I am surprised you think it would be rare. It is common for a hand to play 1 trick worse opposite a 15-HCP hand than opposite a 17-HCP hand -- if you have a 40% chance of failing in 3NT opposite 17 you will VERY often have a 40% chance of failing in 2NT opposite 15. Typical percentages, aggregates from DD sims (semibalanced hands with no 8-card major fit): 17 opposite 8: 57% 9+ tricks, 30% 8 tricks, 13% 7- tricks. 16 opposite 8: 39% 9+ tricks, 37% 8 tricks, 24% 7- tricks. 15 opposite 8: 18% 9+ tricks, 37% 8 tricks, 45% 7- tricks. One can try alternate acceptance rules, according to whether opener has a 5-card suit, has two tens, etc, but I've not found one yet where the 2NT bid ever showed a profit at MP. I agree that it is defended more precisely. I don't agree with "much more". This one is hard to quantify by simulations. My at-the-table experience is that, with a good partner, the defense from trick 2 onward is a LOT easier. Completely aside from what the simulations say, my own experience defending 1N-2N-3N is what made me convert to the bash or pass philosophy. This one is a bit easier to quantify (I ran a bunch of data for this in the spring but need to write up an article on the results): the improved quality of the opening lead, all by itself, gains about 0.2 tricks per hand for the defense.

Even double-dummy at matchpoints, pass or bash shows a profit, at least if you evaluate by straight HCPs or any of the obvious adjustments to them. It shows a larger profit at IMPs, of course, and you bash with more hands at IMPs, because you don't need a 50% chance of a profit when the upside is so large. The problem is really that we don't have a precise enough way of evaluating playing potential at notrump, and we open so many different hands with 1NT nowadays. There is just no such thing as a large body of hands that a ) make 9 tricks more than half the time opposite a maximum b ) make 9 tricks less than half the time opposite a minimum but - this is the hard one! - c ) make 8 tricks often enough opposite a minimum to justify inviting with them. What happens to a lot of these 8-counts is that while they are 60% games opposite a maximum, opposite a minimum they might be 30% 9 tricks 40% 8 tricks 30% 7 tricks... such that there a small upside to getting to game (60% gain 40% loss -> net +20%), but a larger downside (70% break even 30% loss -> net -30%) to inviting and getting dropped. Add to that that 1NT-2NT-3NT is defended against much more precisely than 1NT-3NT because the defenders know each others' high-card strength, and I think "pass or bash" is the way to go at either form of scoring. (I do still have an invitational sequence in my system with my regular partner - but if I am playing 2/1 with 2S->3C and 2N->3D transfers, I am DEFINITELY passing or bashing. There just aren't words to describe how hideous it is to go through 2C with an 8-count without a 4-card major.)

PASS. Almost all of them. All of the 4333s, and all of them without a 4-card major, for a start. When you have a 4-card major and a small doubleton, you're using 2C not so much to try to reach 3NT as to gain an extra trick playing in a major. For some reason the field doesn't know this yet. And as long as the field insists on going down in one too many notrump, I will keep taking it to the bank :)

Tough hand. I am tempted by X then raise 3S to 4S, to be honest. If I don't do that, I give in to shameless matchpoint greed and would rather bid 3N than 4C.

You can play 2S->3C and 2NT->3D using the in-between step to sort out invitations, and do without a notrump invitation entirely... or you can find some other way to separate the invitations from the bust hands. I would be wary of using 2S as both a NT raise and your ONLY way to get to clubs. I have played, for some time, a 2S response that shows either a NT invitation, or HHxxxx in either minor, or a few strong hand types... while using 1NT-2NT to handle the club bust.

In a double-dummy analysis, K from KQxx(x) and Q from QJxx(x) substantially outperforms low, against almost any notrump contract, with or without good spots. I remember being quite surprised when I saw this back in December or January, and we had a thread discussing reasons why small was still (in general) the better lead single-dummy.

You're going to have a very hard time characterizing never jumping to 7 over 5NT as an "unusual" agreement, requiring disclosure beyond checking the Blackwood box. The world is FULL of people who whisper silently to themselves "zero, 6c, one, 6d, two, 6h" and then reach for the 6H card and wouldn't dream of leaping to 7. I actually know quite a number of admittedly non-experts, who are very fond of asking for kings even when one ace is missing, with an eye toward playing 6NT rather than 6 of a suit at MPs. (I've told them the rationale behind allowing the 7-jumps, etc, etc, and they don't believe it's as useful as reaching the good 6NTs is. I am not 100% sure they are wrong.)

Just the right number of offensive tricks for 3D at this vulnerability. If you bid only 2D "because its only a 6-card suit" or "because it's a textbook weak two," you are a chicken. If you bid only 2D because you're concerned that the DAK might produce two defensive tricks and that's a flaw for a preempt, I will respect your opinion though still think 3D is the better bid.

Congratulations on having much better luck at filling your room block than we seem to have in my corner of the world. Discussion on improving the financial performance of the D19 regionals has recently turned to trying to get more pro teams to attend, solely because they are more likely than other attendees to stay in the host hotel for the week - with the idea that just a few extra such teams could fill up our room blocks.

The thread might be more properly titled "6-level decision" since two 5-level decisions have been made and the 5-level has already been used up. I pass, and see whether the preempt worked. I can't tell if the limit for the other side was 10 tricks or 13; so I will let them guess too. Bidding on feels like a way to guarantee that they either bid a making slam or collect as large of a penalty as possible against us.

Impossible for me too. I will find out the CK is missing and give up at 6S. It's a mighty strange combination, catching responder with KQ in diamonds and xx in the other, such that my Axx of diamonds not only is no diamond loser, but enables me to avoid a club loser. If a relayer knew South's shape was 5-4-2-2 with SADKDQ, I guess for them it would be biddable. But I would know only that south had no singleton or void, and would certainly expect another minor loser. I would be a lot more worried about going down in six on a club lead (if South has 3+ cards in both minors) than about a miracle seven.

If you had asked me a year ago, I would have voted 1NT out of principle and stubbornness. I have come around to bidding 2S with 3 on this type of hand, and ONLY on this type of hand - strong 3-card support, and a small doubleton or worse in an unbid suit, and an extra flaw for each of the alternatives (a second unstopped suit for 1NT, and only AJxxx for 2C.)

For NABCs and entry fees, it's certainly true. (Otherwise they'd never get away with what they charge!) If nothing else, the fees are small in comparison to the travel and lodging bill. For local players, the cost sensitivity can be quite high. NABCs and many regionals rely mostly on out-of-town players, while as tournaments get smaller, the proportion of locals gets larger. The opposite of my experience. If it is true in District 20 they are blessed with some unusually favorable site rental conditions for their large regionals. There are lots of small sites to choose from, and only a few larger ones. As a result, the cost of a large site is higher - often much higher - on a per-square-foot basis than a small site. In District 19, Penticton is blessed with a particularly cheap large playing site (it rents an industrial-convention center, rather than a hotel ballroom) and can turn a profit on that one large tournament. Our next-largest regionals, Victoria and Seattle, struggle to break even because site rental is so expensive. Spokane and Yakima are much smaller events held on much more favorable terms. Anchorage is smaller still, and has unusually high director travel and lodging expense, and still turns a substantial profit every year, as do almost all our sectionals. (Or, putting it another way, we could run regionals in Spokane and Anchorage for $10 a session, but in Seattle we should charge $15. Instead we charge $13 everywhere, and make the small tournaments prop up the big ones.) I've often questioned the "bigger is better!" attitude behind the planners of the NABCs. I would be a LOT happier to see almost all the regional-rated events dropped from the NABC schedule, and the NABCs shrunk down to fit into a reasonable regional-sized location. I know I am outvoted :)

While I freely admit that the posted hand is suspicious, and it's very possible that a single incident can be grounds for convening an ethics committee, I think it's extremely hard to imagine a law/reg that would support an adjustment in this case, but not support an adjustment in the case of beginner's errors or genuine psychs that strike gold. I see that in the past couple hours, the "Rule of Coincidence" has been mentioned by name. This hand is similar in spirit. The classic RoC situation was a hand where both partners deviated from their announced agreement (one overbidding and the other underbidding, or both playing as if they had the same alternate agreement) on the same hand. RoC said this could semi-automatically be treated as proof that a concealed agreement exists, justifying immediate adjustments and penalties. I started directing just at the time that RoC was being carefully removed from example hands in the ACBLscore tech files and US directors were being (re-)educated to remove it from their arsenal. It's been pretty thoroughly beaten into my head that RoC is a Bad Thing that we don't want to have back. (Stand up and take a bow, bluejak.) As for past events, I would hate to have to choose between Wolff's and Piltch's version of just about anything.

So do I. My only complaint with how the whole event has been run is that I haven't, at any time including right now, been able to tell what the format for this event was. The number of rounds, number of hands, bracket breakpoints, changed so many times it made my head spin. In this particular case, we were clearly told it was going to be matchpoint-expectation-based scoring (though there was still no clarity how the field's results vs. the preset scores would interact) before we bid. And I wish that rule hadn't been changed after we had bid! (I voted to use CTC style scoring. That was what I believed was in effect when we bid the first round so in some sense feels like 'less of a change'.) Pick a format. Stick to the announced format, good or bad. I am making lots of notes of things I need to pin down in advance when I run one of these :)

This comment applies not just to this board, but to several others in the set. We were told that the scoring would reflect matchpoint expectations; but it seems, uniformly, to be a "find the best spot" contest instead. There are quite a number of contracts in this set of 16 that appear to depend on finding a key card or something similar - but I don't remember ANY where the scores for a partscore and a game in the same suit were nearly tied. Seconding the remark that, depending on the exact probabilities, 8 for 5C and 5 for 3C is more like what I expect (or 10-7 if we insist on normalizing them up, which we shouldnt).