luis

Ok we have GIBs double dummy analyzer. Let's say we have fixed declarer's and dummy hands, it would be a nice idea for GIB to create random hands for East and West and then display the probability of a card being the right card to play based on the say 100.000 hands examined. Then when analyzing the hand we will have a good idea about which was the RIGHT line to play the hand regardless of how the cards finally lied. We can display for example 68% next to the trump ace saying that if you play the trump ace at this time you will win 68 over 100 hands assuming all the opponents hands are equally likely. This would be so great and I guess it is not very very hard to do it What do you think? Luis

And when you do have 5-5 what do you do? It's impossible to think 4♣ shows 6-5 just because you do have 6-5 here :-)

The original poster specifically said: "Partner could have passed over 3H and doubled 3S next round to show a lighter take-out double, but has a hand not prepared to risk 3H being passed out." I think the construction you make is a hand that has no problem with 3♥ being passed out because that won't happen. A balanced 22 count for example with 2-3 in the majors is an example of a hand that is not prepared to risk 3H being passed out. Luis

Aren't [hv=s=sjxxxxhxxdaxckxxx]133|100|[/hv] or [hv=s=sjxxxxhxxdaxckxxx]133|100|[/hv] normal hands? Seems to me if you bid 4♥ and he passes (which he probably will), you just missed a reasonable slam. At least bidding 4♣, gives him the chance to show a diamond control, if he has one. No? Tell me Luis, what am I missing? You are missing the forest but you did see 2 trees. You have a slam in the 2 hands you posted, but what is more likely ? That you can make 4♥ or that you have a slam in clubs? And in how many hands will pd bid 4♠ over 4♣ thinking you have a 5-5 hand so his 6 or 7 spades should play well opposite a singleton? I don't have the answers to those questions but it is my feeling that there are more hands where pd will bid 4♠ over 4♣ than hands where 4♣ will lead you to a club slam. And I have the feeling 4♥ is a solid game in both scenarios and the only way to convince pd that you want to play 4♥ opposite a singleton even when he has 7 spades is bidding 4♥. Luis

3!d protecting pd, There are many hands where pd can't bid over 2♥ and we have a game so I take the risk and protect my pd bidding what I have. Luis

Seriously? x QJTx Axx AKQJx I'm not saying such a hand is likely, or that you couldn't construct many hands pointing the other way. But it wasn't that hard to construct this one, I did it in about 15 seconds :( I think your construction has a flaw. I'm based what I say in the description of Frances about style. The hand in question knows for sure that opener has a weak 2 in spades so 3♥ is not going to be passed out therefore you can double 3♠ for takeout later. A hand that "needs" to double 3♥ and can later double 3♠ has to be in my view either balanced and strongish or a superbomb. Luis

I wonder since when underleading an ace is a safe lead? :-) The last time I underlead an ace it was because dummy had shown a control in that suit, therefore the king, dummy did indeed had the king but unfortunately it was singleton, declarer was missing that ace and a losing finesse in a side suit, 6♣ rolled home and I just disappeared from earth for a couple of hours. Luis

It's hard to construct a hand that matches the bidding where 4♣ leads to something better than 3♠x But well we'll see :-)

Heart from longest and stronges intending to force declarer early and make him lose control of the trump suit, pd has some trumps, maybe 4. Luis

Pass, balanced hand and I have a trick. Luis

Close between 4♣ and 4♥ I think I'm going to bid 4♥. The hand is bad, 2 small diamonds and void in pd's suit, with only 1 or 2 hearts pd won't really know what to do over 5♣ and I'm afraid 11 tricks can be worst than 10 tricks, so I bid 4♥ showing a strong suit so pd will know he has to pass this with any normal hand. Luis

I hate NFBs completely, when your side has the majority of the high cards you need to be descriptive otherwise you will be guessing whenever they preempt or sacrifice to their safest level of tricks. Luis

Great post sceptic I agree 100% with your posts. If every time somebody feels offended will post a goodbye thread to increase his ego then this would be a horrible thing. I just hope this good bye is the final good bye, this is for bridge discussions not for good byes and emotional rambling. Luis

You left BBO and the forums and your blog some months ago after some incident and then came back as everybody predicted, now you announce leaving again. In all seriousness do whatever you want, why should we care? Good luck, Luis

About opening 1NT or not with 5M I like opening 1NT with 5 card majors but let's think you don't have that agreement with your pd. Whenever you start with 1♠ - 2♦ You should then play 2NT as 15-17 a hand that you didn't open 1NT because of the 5 card major, that will be descriptive to pd. With a balanced hand in the 11-14 range feel free to rebid the major even with 5 cards. A jump to 3NT will usually show 18-19 balanced. Support the minor only with an unbalanced hand with 4 card support for the minor. I think this is quite easy to handle. You could revert the meaning of 2M and 2NT which is more SAYCesque I think but inmediately teling pd when you have 15-17 is a good idea. There is a nice exception in the sequence 1♥ - 1♠ Because only now opener has a 1NT response available then: 1NT = 11-14 balanced 2NT = 18-19 balanced 2♥ = 6+ cards And when you have 15-17 balanced you need to bid 2♣ or 2♦ even with 3 cards Hope it helps Luis.

Maybe he should wash the vegetables before eating them? I agree with the others that said this is a complete nonsense, dogs are dirty but this dog is probably just fertilizing the plants and the kids can't get sick because of him. Your friend has the right to ask the nighbour to prevent his dog from reaching his garden, but based on how you present things I'm probably going to take the dog's side, sounds like your friend has a problem with dogs and is creating strange stories to do something really terrible. Luis

Thanks a lot for sharing the problems! Very nice set! My humble answers below: 1. Pass, If hearts are fine I can defeat 1NT and if hearts are not fine I might get in trouble bidding 2he with a defensive hand. 2. a) 2he, not vulnerable I don't need to overbid, specially at MPs B) 4♦ but I wouldn't bid 1NT (see a) 3. 5♣ desperate defense, opener has a two suiter and Qx of spades is really bad. Might be a double fit hand. 4. East 100% the negative double is debatable, and then over 3♦ the pass is terrible, he should bid 4♦ instead asking opener to pick a major. A direct 4♦ over 1♦ is also better. Opener is just bidding what he thinks he can make. 5. 1♦ and 1♥ are fine 3♣ with a balanced hand is horrible, balanced hands should open NT or rebid NT otherwise things get quite difficult. 3♦ is fine 3♥ is probably fine 4♦ I don't like he already said 3♦ with 3 cards so why repeat the same? 3♠ looking for 3NT sounds like a better bid 4♥ is fine 5♦ is terrible, 3♦ already showed 3 cards in diamonds, 4♦ was bad and why now 5♦ ? Is pd stupid or something? 3♣ is bad but in the context of no spade stopper can be understood. Both 4♦ and 5♦ are really bad bids So East 70% West 30% Luis

My personal record for a weak 2 is 16hcp :-) Lowest of course is 0hcp. The variability depends on position and vulnerability, following the Robson-Segal principles with a twist. The twist is that in about 5% of the preempts I make I introduce a random distortion, for example opening a good hand NV vs VUL or a horrible hand VUL vs NOT. This is known to both the opps and pd and disclosed properly. Luis

The problem of a gun is that it can point to both directions.... My view is that if you play a relay system where you can find all the information you can about a hand you should use it to full extension. The principle is that as long as you need to get information to determine the best strain/level you should be asking. For example if you think 4♠ is your most likely result but if pd has some cards that he could have you might be cold in 6♠ and you have the way to ask you should do it. This will cost in the hands where you end in a pedrestrian contract and the opponents can use the information to defend double dummy and defeat the contract. This will win in the hands where you find a contract impossible to find by your opponents. This will be neutral when your opponents could find the same contract you found or when your pedrestrian contract is not in danger due to the information you gave. That is the basic of a relay/scientific system, if you are going to bash because you think you have to hide information then better play natural methods. That is my view. Luis

I agree a lot with many different posters here, I agree a lot with Richard's initial comments and I agree a lot with Inquiry's comments. This is a hand that should go straight to the AC since no matter what the TD does he should recommend himself both sides to appeal since there are bridge matters involved that might change the decision and the TD can't rule on bridge matters only on the rules. The TD should rule - Missinformation (assumed since I think the CC says nothing about 2♣ by a passed hand) - Damage (EW win game in spades and they are defending 3♣) - Damage not related to the MI Result stands, both sides should appeal, or the TD himself should send the hand to the AC. Why the damage is not related to the MI? Because the fact that 2♣ can be weaker than what EW expected is not enough to assert they would have bid something with the proper explanation. They already know 2♣ is less than an opening bid (passed hand) so what would they change if they are told that 2♣ instead of 8-10 is 0-10 ? The TD can't create a bid that didn't happen at the table based on just this so the result should stand. Now to the AC I think the AC should further investigate the agreement that NS have about 2♣ to determine if they should get a PP or not. The result will still stand since EW probably failed to play bridge passing with such good values on a hand where one opponent opened in third seat and the other made a non forcing weakish bid. The fact that the opening was in third seat should not be overlooked to determine that it was EW failure to act what caused the problem and not the way 2♣ was explained to them. I would return the deposit because there probably was a problem in the way 2♣ was explained to EW but I won't change the result. Luis

Well it's certainly a nasty problem. Options are pass, 5♥ and 4NT It's true that pd has passed over 2♠ with shortness but I wonder if pd has to bid with something like: x KJxx KJxx Qxxx Or similars, where not only 5♥ or 5♦ are good games but you are quite close to a slam even with the wasted cQ. So I'm between 5♥ and 4NT I think I will choose 5♥ and hope for the best. Luis

My theory is that whatever you do the only wrong option is pass. Weak distributional hands were created to disturb your opponents bidding, if you let the train go you won't catch it later. I would open 3♠, 4♠ or 2♠ depending on the opponents, match, tournament etc. It's a positional bid. 1♠ seems wrong because pd will end up doubling something that they can make. Luis

1♠ of course. Best argument? Lead directing

You failed to alert 2♣ as "Natural" But hell your pd didn't alert 1♠ as natural either so it was a flagrant infraction. You failed to alert both your natural bids. All bids should be alerted and you must say what you have in your hand For example when you bid 2♣ you alert "Natural with 3-4-3-3 and 12 hcp" when pd opens 1♠ he alerts "Natural with 5-3-2-3 and 13 hcp" Then the opps if they need may ask about specific honors like "Do you have AK of clubs or just 3 small?" And you tell them what you have in specific suits It's the only way to properly defend a hand. Maybe we can just hung the TD? Yes, that is probably better, if that guy can be a TD then I'm probably a ballet dancer. Luis

No, the hand is not good enough to stay :-) I prefer hands where I have nothing so I can play the defense. When you have a nice hand they start preempting here and there and it becomes painful as in this very precise example. I would double with a normal 1♥ opening so I have to pass here showing a not normal 1♥ opening. Maybe pd can bid 6♥, maybe he will double in that case I think I will bid 6♠. Luis