dokoko

Obviously it's contrary to the law, but that's how humans act.

You are surely right! I think most experts will "go for the touchdown" - i.e. bidding thin games consistently - because they know it's right (and need no outcome to prove it). That said I think opening light has other goals. Imho the aim is to be in the bidding more often, forcing opps to overcall rather than open and enabling partner to preempt by raising our light opener which he couldn't had we passed. Light openings only lead to light contracts if used occasionally. Opening light by design otoh need not lead to thin games as partner expects it and can adjust the standards for game bidding (I guess most experts do). Below expert level, however, the gain from consistently opening light will not outweigh the loss from not adjusting subsequent bidding correctly. And opening light occasionally is losing strategy at any standard.

Not quite! They can do it because they are better (i.e. they are more apt to handle the situations that arise). They do it because it is theoretically sound to do so (when you can handle it).

Right you are!

I insert the 10. [1] If it holds the trick, I finesse ♠Q and continue with the ace eventually. If spades are 4-1 I play a spade to the 9 take the club return draw the last trump and hope for the ♦K onside. If the spade finesse loses, I will win the return in hand and cash ♠A. If spades are 4-1, I am in the same situation as in [2]. [2] If it is covered (as expected) I win in hand and continue with ♠A and ♠Q. If spades break 3-2 I am home. Even if East wins and gives partner a heart ruff, I can discard a club on the hearts, eliminate the hand and then run a diamond from dummy. If spades are 4-1 and a club comes back, I win in hand, play a spade to the 9 and finesse ♦Q. If this wins, I am home; if this loses and opps can manage a heart ruff I am down. Otherwise I have to rely on the ♦J being onside. If spades are 4-1 and opps duck ♠Q (best) see [1]. So I think I win when spades are 3-2 or ♦K is onside (ignoring a 5-0 trump break). It might be better not to finesse ♠Q in [1] in case West has the stiff ♠K or East wins the second round of trumps with ♠Kxxx.

Deleted double post

It's not about experts "picking their spots". When they open light they usually "have their bid", because they open light by design. Their methods cater for that (e.g. they might not invite with 11-12 but perhaps with 12-13 or 13-14 depending on how light they are supposed to open). Whether they reach "thin" or "sound" contracts depends on how they respond not on how they open, as responder is expected to know what he can count partner on.

seems I didnt describe our method well - at least no other poster understood it. For example with diamonds agreed: - cuebids below 4♦ (if available) show a control in the bid suit, saying nothing about KC - 4♦ is waiting - 4♥ (the Turbo bid [Kickback]) shows an even number of KC, saying nothing about specific controls - 4♠/5♣ shows a control in the bid suit with an odd number of KC - 4NT shows a heart control (the Kickback suit) with an odd number of KC An alternative would be 4♥ showing an odd number of KC; cuebids bypassing 4♥ would then show an even number of KC. My question was just whether there are good reasons to prefer one version to the other.

Honestly I don't think OP is interested in sophisticated treatments to distinguish 54 from 55 hands or the like. Using a competitive non jump as control showing with no established fit wasn't what he wanted to learn. So either keep things simple or start a new thread.

talking of "forcing cough" system? ;)

With a weak one-suited hand you may as well pass 3c. I think a better use for the 3d response is an invite with a major or the other things you put into it. Opener bids in a p/c style, where 3nt says he would cooperate with any invitation (3h says don't like h, 3s says like h not sp, 4cl says like both M but would remove 3nt) - structure proposed by Kokish-Kraft.

I'd rather miss your "odds-on" 5♦ opposite ♠x, ♥xxx, ♦KQ9xxxx, ♣xx or 4♠ opposite ♠863, ♥xx, ♦KQJxxxx, ♣x! But maybe you want to blame partner for preempting when he was missing the ♦A.

My partner is more likely to have x,xxx,KJTxxx,xxx (where even 3d might go down) than x,xx,AQxxxxx,xxx (where game is at most 50%). Even if partner guarantees 7 cards with 2 of 3 tops in diamonds and has the hoped for singleton spade, he needs ♦J along with his top honors (or ♦AK) to make game a good bet. Partner bet on the hand being theirs and was wrong. No need to penalise him. If you reach a good game at the other table, congrats and 6 imps to you; I will get the points back on the hands where a more flexible preempting style is called for.

There are two notions called "Cue bid": - bidding opponents suit as a general force - I think this is not what you are talking about; - bidding a side-suit after agreeing a trump suit to show a control in the suit - this is what you seem to have in mind. A Splinter bid is a bid showing shortness in the bid suit and agreeing a trump suit at the same time (if not agreed before). The purpose is helping partner to evaluate his hand and showing a control at the same time. If a shortness is present, it is usually helpful to start slam investigation with a Splinter. A Splinter bid is usually a jump, but there are exceptions. Conversely a jump showing a control is usually a Splinter, but there are exceptions, too. Your sequence 1NT-2H;2S-4C is used as a Splinter bid by most experts. To play it this way you should have an agreement on what to bid with a slammish hand containing 6 spades without a shortness. Without such an agreement, the mentioned sequence would show a control that might (but need not) be a shortness.

If you look at it from East's side, you see: If declarer has Jx(x), he has a stopper whatever you do, so finessing against dummy won't cost. If declarer has xx(x), he has a sure stopper if you play the ace, but won't take a trick if you finesse against dummy. If declarer has Kx(x), he will make two tricks if you play the ace, but only one if you finesse against dummy. Finessing against dummy can only cost if partner gets in and doesn't continue spades (which he should). So East should play the 8 (as he did) and continue with ace and another. As a general rule: When partner leads a low card you should always consider finessing against dummy's honors (judging whether such a move is more likely to gain or to lose). But you should not finesse "against partner" (i.e. if dummy only has low cards you should play high - lower of equals when suit is headed by a sequence).

Playing the Q wins when W has ♠AKxx and saves a trick when he has AKxxx. It also wins when a robot sees reason to do something stupid. Playing the 9 wins when W has ♠AJ10x/KJ10x/J10xx (or J10xxx and E has ♣A) and saves a trick when W has AJ10xx/KJ10xx. It also wins against some weak human opponents holding AJx(x)/A10x(x)/K10x(x) in the East seat (against those playing low is even better) or against a robot doing something stupid. You have to judge which scenario is more probable (given that West didnt lead the jack). In the actual position your only chance is to play for RHO being an idiot, which seems to have worked at some tables.

Seems i missed the point of the hand. As you cannot draw trumps before discarding losers on the clubs the plan cannot be to establish clubs. I would try to ruff out the spades, planning to lose one diamond and two trumps (if spades are 52 i need to drop ♥10) As I have to come back to hand by ruffing, there are two apparent dangers: - if trumps are 4-1 I might lose control - if LHO has a singleton club he might overruff, cash the ace of diamonds and remove dummy's trump. So I plan as follows: ♠ ruff, ♣A, ♣Q discarding ♦K if not covered. If LHO wins and plays trump, I will lose one trump only if noone has ♥K10xx. If RHO covers ♣Q I ruff with ♥A and then play ♠A, ♠ ruff and ♣J discarding ♦K. I didn't calculate but this seems to win most of the time.

I would have played as you did. Seems our only hope now is West started with xx/Txx/KQxxxxx/x (I would have opened 3d on that, but perhaps he would not). If West started with 4 trumps, 2 rounds of diamonds will kill dummy's side winners (even if East switches to a black suit after winning ♦A there is no way home). If West started with seven diamonds to the ace, ace and another would force us to ruff high. If West started with xx/Qxx/KQxxxxx/x a diamond to the ace and a black suit back will leave us with a certain trump loser. Perhaps 3NT would have been better - at least you tried to get there.

Playing UDCA the 2 is present count and the 7 is original (=reverse present) count, in Standard it's the other way round. It seems some posters got that wrong (lost in double/triple negation territory). In the situation given you can play any method you like (so choose the one that seems the most "natural" to you). But you might consider cases where you are not free in choosing your card (a high spot or honor has to be kept or you need to unblock). So on opp's lead original count in Standard or present count in UDCA (playing small from two remaining and highest dispensable from three remaining) seems best, while on partner's lead the opposite (high from two remaining) would be my choice. But I would rather play a method that both partners rate "normal" and sometimes deviate for technical (or tactical) reasons, than one that tends to be forgotten or misinterpreted.

Auken-Welland open 1c on a weak 5M332 usually. This is playable, you will sometimes miss a 53-fit but there will also be hands when opps lead up to your 5cd major in 3NT or play in your 5cd major. There's no reason not to play forcing NT (with or without Kaplan Inversion) together with Gazzilli. In fact with my regular partner we play Kaplan Inversion (1h-1s = 1rd force with less than 5 spades, 1h-1nt = 5+ spades) and 1h-1s-1nt is Gazzilli (clubs or 16+ pts) to save space. Our 1d is 5+ unbal or 4441 with black singleton (1444 is easier to bid when responder shows spades over 1d than over 1c).

The following method is becoming popular among experts in the last years: 1♣ 2+ clubs, contains all balanced hands outside the 1nt range (including 5♦332 and - if you wish - 5M332), responses hereto are T-Walsh (1♦ shows 4+ hearts, 1♥ shows 4+ spades). 1♦ 4+ diamonds unbalanced. 1M is usually unbalanced if 1♣ can contain a 5cd major, with 2/1 responses 1NT is 14-16 (15-17 if you don't open light) - regularly with 5cd major. The unbalanced 1♦ opening makes it easier to handle interference as opener is known to have real diamonds (usually five). In uncontested auction most use transfer rebids by opener over 1M responses, as 1NT isn't needed as a natural bid. The usually unbalanced 1M opening avoids rebids on non-existing minors over a forcing or semiforcing 1NT response. The T-Walsh structure (not allowed in ACBL land) makes it easier to find 53-fits in a major when opener is balanced (an option not available after a 1♦ opening); without a 4cd major responder can bid 1♠ as a transfer to 1NT allowing opener to declare. Most partnerships include some version of the Gazzilli Convention. This is a basically natural approach which allows you to include a great deal of sophistication if you wish. There are several variations in use: - the 1♠ response to 1♣ (transfer to 1NT) contains non-inv hands with no major, stronger balanced hands and either inv+ diamond hands or inv+ club raises (depending on agreements) - 2♣ shows a good hand with the other minor (transfer or natural raise respectively). - the T-Walsh transfers are accepted either with any hand containing 3cd support (unlimited 3cd accept - forcing) or with less than 16 pts and 3cd support (limited 3cd accept - nonforcing) or with a weak NT [or unbal with 3cd support and comparable strength] (wk bal accept). The latter treatment allows a 1NT rebid with 18-19. - after 1♣ - 1red - 1NT usually 2♣ is used to show either a weak hand with diamonds or any invite. Some use 2♦ as an artificial game force while others play second-round transfers by responder. - after 1♥-1♠ and 1M-1NT, a 2♣ rebid (Gazzilli) shows a strong hand or clubs. Some have reversed tne meanings of 2♣ and 2M, showing 5M+4♣ by the latter while the Gazzilli 2♣ rebid shows a strong hand or a 6cd major. - many play 2M as 9-12 with a 6cd suit (a "not so weak" two) to keep the 1M opening up to strength when used with a one-suiter. - 2-level jump responses are played as weak by some (ranges vary) and invitational by others - depending on systemic details some use Reverse Flannery responses to 1m openings. A good structure for a serious partnership IMO.

you really jump to 3s on JTxxxx/Axx/AKx/A?

Assuming advanced players using unusual methods not thoroughly discussed, i bet their "agreement" is as follows: 1. If a player judges action is called for but doesn't know how to act, he will hesitate (naturally as there is no simple solution to his problem). Partner will get the message and choose the best action from his point of view. This will be a guess and can be argued as such (and accepted by most TDs) if successful. Obviously advancer didn't suggest the specific action taken. 2. First Player will normally not hesitate if he is unsure whether to take action at all, because he will fear that partner will act (on the hesitation) and will run when it might be better to stay. This kind of agreement obviously is never explicit but any experienced player will "feel" it is wrong to hesitate in situation 2 (because of previous accidents) but it's ok to hesitate in situation 1 (because of some good results). This even applies to casual partnerships as the claimed experience isn't partnership-specific. In fact I can't remember ever being asked "What would you bid if you were unsure of your methods?" by a TD resolving an UI situation. And even then, I guess, away from the table most ppl would first decide what methods would apply if undiscussed and then select their call based upon the method chosen. This is not the pragmatic approach a reasonable player would use at the table. So my reasoning as TD would be as follows: 1. By choosing your unusual methods you are responsible for any problem that may cause. 2. A hesitation in unclear situations tends to require partner to act. 3. So any action is deemed influenced by UI unless there is evidence to the contrary. You may put it the other way round: A pass without hesitation suggests partner is happy in 2h, the hesitation suggests partner isn't that happy. Hence a non-pass is suggested by the UI.

correct me if i'm wrong but stolen bid double seems legal in this case ;) (opp's stole your natural bid and now you dbl for penalties).

There might be another problem if the 1D out of turn was made on a 4-bagger. To avoid a penalty (if a 1D overcall is judged comparable) 2nd hand might overcall 1D arguing they wrote on their CC that they sometimes overcall on 4 card suits. So IMO if a canceled call is replaced by a "comparable" call (representing a subset of the meanings of the original call) the replacement should be disallowed if the hand is not a genuine part of the subset in question.