kgr

Maybe not, but I simply wondered if I should have done better. in fact.. - I played the ♣2 without too much thinking and when the ♣2 hit the table I wondered if I would have done better to play the high ♣ to pretend I had ♠A - At the end of the evening I was convinced that this was my worst play of the evening. - When I was rethinking this in my bed, I wondered if it was really that bad. - The next day I wasn't sure if low or high club was best play. ...and so I posted the question here :) (to be honest: I'm still not convinced that low is better than high)

You cannot signal a club honnor if playing obvious switch. You can only signal the ♠A/K

Thank you all for your thoughts. This was the full hand: [hv=pc=n&w=sA865hKQd864cKT54&n=sQ97hA596dcAqj976&s=sjt432h842da32c82&e=skhjt63dkqjt975c3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c(2+)1dp2cp2d2s2n3s3nppp]366|300|MP's[/hv] MP's Partner leads ♣A (This shows an even number if he also has the ♣K) You play obvious switch: A low ♣ denies the ♠A, a high ♣ promises the ♠A. I played the ♣2 and partner continued with the ♣Q.

Did you post this question because you want to know why I posted the question, or you want to pretend that I'm trying to defend my decision? :rolleyes:

Partner knows I don't have much and maybe he started from ♣AKJxxx or even ♣AQJ9xx with a side entry. If I play small then he hopes I have a high club (Q, T) or a 3-card. If I play high he will maybe return a high ♠ hoping that I can return a club through declarer?

Partner does not know that dummy needs ♠K as entry (that I have the ♦A).I think it is best that partner switches to ♠, but I'm not sure when that is most likely.

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt432h842da32c82&e=skhjt63dkqjt975c3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c(2+)1dp2cp2d2s2n3s3nppp]266|200|MP's[/hv] MP's Partner leads ♣A (This shows an even number if he also has the ♣K) You play obvious switch: A low ♣ denies the ♠A, a high ♣ promises the ♠A. Is it best to play low or high?

Why different bid at different vulnerability?Is it because you don't really expect to make game, but really don't want to miss it when vulnerable & at the given vulnerability you don't mind to defend and try to defeat opps? Would it then even be a more clear pass at MP's?

I don't see difference between SAYC and 2/1 or how 2NT can be not forcing. You don't need an agreement to have it forcing?

You didn't really motivate me to try it :)

[hv=pc=n&s=sj7652hj7dj73ck93&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(15-17)2h(Natural)]133|200[/hv] This was at MP's. If you bid 2♠, - would you also do it at IMPs? - How much weaker can you be?

We start 3th/5th. My partner now asks to start 2nd (iso 3th) from 4 small (max Txxx) in trump contracts. Do you think it is better/clearer for defense to start 3th from 4 with an honor and 2nd from 4 without an honor? J642 T642 J86 Thanks! Koen

See http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/52654-simple-6s/page__p__631300__fromsearch__1#entry631300 I think that this is another disadvantage of DD analysis. It will delay decisions (it has to take anyway) to later tricks and take extra risks of ruffs in the mean time. If it can finesse in trumps, but will never do, and go down if trumps are 4-1 and it will delay playing trumps from the top. Because the risk of a ruff is smaller then trumps 4-1. Then it will later play the trumps from the top anyway, having risked a ruff in the mean time.

I analyzed this in Jack, after starting with ♥A, ♠ to A and ♣ to A: Expected score for playing: - ♣K: 766.8 - ♠8: 533.8 It is not clear for me where the difference is coming from. If ♠are 4-1 then West can go wrong by ruffing the 2nd Club low. Or if West has 4c♠ and 2c♣ he can go wrong by ruffing the 2nd Club. But I don't think this is a good explanation of the result of the analysis. ....Probably this is another failure of the DD analysis: If West has ♠QTxx then you are down if you start with ♠AK. Therefor Jack prefers to start with ♣ because he knows DD that he will go down when starting with ♠AK and that he can make against that distribution when he does not start with ♠AK (can make if he finesses later in ♠). But when he has to play on spades later he will not finesse anyway and still go down.

RHO had singleton ♣T and ♠Q73. The contract only makes if you run ♣ after only playing ♠A.

I would think that 4♥ would have created a FP, but maybe probably it shouldn't because after 4♥ you told your hand and don't need the FP anymore.

MP's[hv=pc=s&n=sj86ha3da7cakqj42&s=sak952h982dqjt3c5&d=s&v=b&b=13&a=2s(Muiderberg)p4n(RKC)p5h(2%20of%205%2C%20no%20SQ)p6sppp]266|200[/hv] LHO leads ♥6 (3th/5th): ♥6A52 and you play ♠6 from dummy: ♠63A4 How do you continue?

5c Major 2♥ is Good 7 to 10 (we bid 1NT with less)

Or a compound squeeze if you play West for ♦Qxxx. If West keeps ♠Q ♥Jx ♦Qxxx then you get to a double squeeze with ♥ as the double suit. If West keeps ♠Q9 ♥J ♦Qxxx then you get to a double squeeze with ♠ as the double suit.

Suppose that GIB is West and knows from the bidding that South has ♣Kxxx[hv=pc=n&s=shAdcKT32&w=shdxxcQxx&n=shdAxcAJx&e=sxxhdQxxc]399|300[/hv] South plays ♥A and GIB deals a bunch of hands that it thinks are consistent with the bidding, then runs DD simulations of each of them. GIB sees that South will always make all tricks DD. So it can as well discard a ♣ as a ♦. Then there are only 2 ♣s out and South can play them from the top. So when West runs the DD simulation it should run for every deal it generates for South a DD simulation from Souths viewpoint. ...I'm not sure if something like that is done.

I wonder if the latest versions run a DD simulation from 1 hand. It should run a DD simulation for all hands. I mean: It does not take into account that e.g. the declarer has a guess?

This was the full hand: [hv=pc=n&s=s85hak8dk3cakqj84&w=sq974hqj62dqt42c2&n=sat3h975daj98ct95&e=skj62ht43d765c763&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1cp1dp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

If you run the ♦9 then 12 tricks is the maximum. I was thinking to play the ♦K and taking the ♦ finesse with the J. And play for some squeeze (for 12 or 13 tricks depending if finesse holds)?

[hv=pc=n&s=s85hak8dk3cakqj84&n=sat3h975daj98ct95&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp1cp1dp3n(6+C%20strong)ppp]266|200[/hv] How do you play this 3NT at MP's? LHO leads ♥Q. (can be from QJT.. but also from QJ..).

We ignore conventional DBLs 1NT-(DBL pen)-? Pass: Opener will mostly RDBL, but not always (That is making it more difficult for LHO with a weak distributional hand. He is not sure that 1NTX will not be passed) RDBL: C or 5cH&4cS or D&H 2C: D or 5cS&4cH 2D: H 2H: S 2S: C (invitational) 2NT: D (invitational) 3C: distributional minors & weak 3D: distributional or GF majors 3H/3S: preemptive 1NT-(DBL)-Pass-(Pass) RDBL-(Pass)-? Pass: 9+ 2C: C+other 2D: D+S 2H: H+S, no preference 1NT-(Pass)-Pass-(DBL) Pass-(Pass)-? RDBL: 5c minor 2C: C+ other 2D: D + M 2H: majors What if opponents run after a forcing pass situation? - If they run and responder showed strength, DBL is penalty - If they run and responder didn’t showed strength, DBL is negative. - If responder bids at the 3-level this remains RUBENSOHL if he has a non-limited hand. If he has a limited hand, he bids naturally (2NT for both minors) (i.e. 1NT – (PASS) – PASS – (DBL))