Blofeld

My leads tend to be awful, but I'll try the ♦T at MP, and the ♥6 at IMPs. [Edit because I can't tell my suits apart]

Yes, but it would be also be interesting to know the effect of having a side suit when making a standard pre-empt. e.g. Opening 2♠ with 4♥s on the side. Assume that we're never to going to find the heart fit. How often will this cost? How often will it gain? I suppose that ideally I'd like to see both sets of data. Figures for the ideal case, and figures that may tell us when it's relatively safe to distort.

I bid 3♣ because that's what I've got. I'm an optimist, and still have slam ambitions. 4♥ cuts those out (though it's the only other bid I'd consider).

Can I just check: your guidelines for the suitability of preempting are based on the probability that our par score is a sacrifice? If so, I imagine that 5440 hands rank highly because it's likely that there are big fits all over the place. But your preemptive methods need to be able to locate the right fit. Unless you're checking the probability that we have a sacrifice in our longest suit? It's interesting data, but if you have enough time, I'd really like to know precisely what it represents. :D

I disagree with this. I might try 3NT, but if I'm playing down the line, then it's 5♥ for me.

Sorry, I voted for splintering on the assumption that there was an agreement that it would be a splinter (and if there is, it's a bid that I'd like to make on this hand), whereas I wouldn't usually expect such an agreement.

To be overly pedantic, it does guarantee (i.e. probability 1) a finite number of tosses, but the # of possible numbers of tosses is infinite.

Why is an adjustment correct? There has been no misinformation. There was a misbid (2♣), but there's no reason to think that this was fielded by partner. Nor has being reminded of what your bid actually means (as opposed to what you wanted it to mean) affected your later bidding: you were always going to pass. So I think no adjustment.

The two advantages to opening aggressively in the majors more than in the minors (that I can see) are: 1) 1M is more preemptive than 1m. We knew this already. 2) Hands with major length are more likely to have a game on with the same HCP strength. We also knew this already (as a matter of common sense), but these data help to quantify the effect. So passing on the borderline minor hands has less risk of missing a game than on the same hands with majors instead.

Mmm, I find it interesting that the only distribution shown with a void scores a way above the rest - I too would be interested in seeing some more freak distributions. Many thanks for this, Tysen - it's amazing to be able to look through that table.

Remember that partner passed in first seat!

If I'm going to mastermind by passing first time round, I'm going to have to pass now. 3♦ looks like a fit non-jump to me. Maybe I can come in later.

A slightly related case: There have been times, playing with a pickup partner, where I may a bid, seeing more than one possible interpretation for a bid, but knowing that my hand fits (or nearly fits) either [or occasionally any of more than two] one. In this case, I really don't feel that I can say anything other than "undiscussed". I can't pick one of the options, because that effectively misinforms the opponents if my partner thinks it's the other option, and to tell my opponents that I have a hand fitting both options is surely giving them far more information than they're entitled to. Or perhaps whenever there's more than one possible meaning for a bid that I've made, and partner and I haven't discussed it, I should say "a hand fitting one or more of ... [option a], [option b], ..." ?

I like 3♠ as well.

I don't quite follow this. Opposite a minimum classic-shape takeout double with your 'wasted heart values', say: Kxxx KJxx x KQxx we find that 4♠ is very likely to make with chances of an overtrick, while they may well be taking 10 tricks in hearts. Even without the ♣Q, the hand might just scrape up a takeout double. Yet even opposite the working 8 count here the spade game has some play. If I've been made to pass first time, I can't imagine bidding anything other than 4♠ at my second turn.

When supporting with three cards, the important thing (though not obligatory, according to agreements) is to have a shortage somewhere, so that ruffs can be taken in your hand. Trump quality is also nice, but less so. Personally I don't like the style of opening 1♦ on this sort of hands. It makes it harder for partner to judge where the hand will best play. Do those who play it drop false preference on the auction 1D - 1M - 2C - ?

Be reasonable, Roland; nobobdy is suggesting that one use quick tricks as a sole criterion for deciding whether or not to open, only that they should be taken into consideration (of course, one need not do this by explicitly thinking in terms of 'quick tricks', just by recognising that aces and kings have extra value).

Apart from the table manners rules, which are common sense, the only one of the above that I would treat as absolutely inviolable is Dr Todd's suggestion.

What's the actual occurrence rate, though? We have an anecdotal 1 in 30, but there's no reason that this ought to be correct in the long term. On the other hand, my gut feeling for it is that it is going to be more common than a gambling 3NT.

In the passout seat, and after you passed 1♣ I can't think that 1♠ promises 5.

I prefer to regard them all as variants of the rule of 52. They're much easier to work out for yourself than remember as an arbitrary number.

That's not true, Wackojack. At level 3 and above, you can have an agreement to allow a singleton of any rank in a 4441 hand or an honour singleton in a 5431 hand opening 1nt, so long as you're strictly within the agreed point range.

Mmm, I don't fault your rewinding it. My point was more that while I perhaps see too many redoubles, they tend to be more justified than in your experience.

I admit that redoubles probably see too much use in the games I play in, but I don't see quite so many of them going down. Over the past month, I've seen five redoubled contracts. Of these, three made (two with overtricks) [edit: just noticed, Dwayne was the redoubler in the third :blink:]. Of the other two, one was a redouble for rescue that was passed in a pick-up partnership, and one was after the beginning 1NT-X (their escape mechanism didn't allow them to play there, and so they chanced 1NXX, which was bound to be a big swing in one direction or the other).

Isn't 7♣ the spot, going down on the bad split? I know I'd want to be in it.