rhm

Well done Rainer Herrmann

Why would East return a diamond when he can switch to a trump? Rainer Herrmann

[hv=pc=n&s=sj872hak875dk42ck&n=sa654ht642d6caj83&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1d1h2d4hppp]266|200|IMPs[/hv] West leads the ♣T. East follows with ♣6. Standard leads and carding. Plan the play Rainer Herrmann

Every other fortnight we have a new thread about opening 1NT with a five card major. Obviously it is a trade-off Obviously you can fall on your nose opening 1NT with a 5 card major. What's the point? When you do a preempt you can not fall on your nose? Do you suggest not to preempt any more? Obviously there is plenty of compensation. It would be nice people starting such threads would first do a search what has already been said about a subject they are interested in. I will just mention here one such thread (there are many more) http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/15252-5332-five-card-major-1nt-or-1m/ It is a very old one , but it is still contains very good information about the trade-off. Rainer Herrmann

How often did you make 3NT when you had a 5-3 major suit fit where game in the major would not have made? How often did you make 3NT with a 5 card major because opponents did not know enough about your hand to find the best lead / defense after opening 1NT? How often did you reach a sensible 3NT contract after opening 1NT with a 5 card major, where partner had no fit with your major but just enough strength to reach 3NT? Hard to predict whether you would have reached 3NT anyway after opening 1M but opening 1NT made it easy. Most Bridge players do not even ask these questions and when 3NT made they hardly look how alternative methods in the bidding would have fared. But when they go down in 3NT with a major suit fit, then they start to ponder... Looking for superior solutions and treatments in bidding agreements is desirable, but the ones, who look for perfect solutions, tend to be losers in this game. Rainer Herrmann

The distinction is not so much between European and American, but between a sensible system and - to put it politely - a difficult system to play. This disaster has to do with the latter. Bidding systems require forcing bids. There are three types of forcing bids a bidding system will typically employ: 1) Artificial bids like Stayman or transfers, which by their very nature tend to be forcing. I will not dwell on them. 2) Game forcing bids. 3) Forcing bids, which lump together invitational and game forcing hands. If you lump together invitational and game forcing hands in a bid, you have 2 problems a) If I make a bid, which is natural and invitational I do not like it to be forcing. If partner wants to reject you want that the bidding can stop - not to continue. With invitational hands you either want to be in game (acceptance) or ideally you would like to stop 2 tricks below game (rejection). Stopping in 2NT, 3M and 4m is at times unavoidable but always undesirable, because you will often go down one, when partner rejects the invitation. b) You need to decide which continuations thereafter keep up the force. Since the number of possible bidding continuations is easy to underestimate no wonder casual and partnerships below the expert level get confused and run into disagreements what a certain bidding sequence shows and whether it is forcing. Such disasters are expensive. This thread is a typical example. Game forcing bids rarely have this problem, since every bid below game remains forcing. Simple and easy to understand even for intermediate players. The point is a sensible system gives you an easy bid to unconditionally force to game cheaply and since the bid is game forcing and cheap it can be artificial. That's why I think the Bourke Relay 2♦ is a sensible convention. Among others it lets you play 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥ as not forcing but constructive! The same holds true for 1♣-1♠-2♣-3♣ Of course there are other ways to accomplish the same thing. For example you can play Reverse Flannery and then play 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥ as artificial and game forcing instead. I am European, but if American means a sensible system and European means a difficult one, like the French way of bidding or Forum D I am on the American side. If third suit forcing means it can be an invitational hand I am not a fan of it. If you are a professional partnership with lots of intricate agreements it might not matter that much, but the vast majority play Bridge as a hobby in casual partnerships. Reducing the risks of such disaster should be a design point of bidding systems. Rainer Herrmann

That is why 5♠ is not asking for heart control in such auctions. It is inviting. This hand is probably good enough to jump to 6♠, but if I would bid 5♠ I would do it for different reasons than MrAce. It is unlikely that we have two losers in hearts Rainer Herrmann

Acol used to be a natural system based on: Frequent 4 card major openings light openings, though not by today's standards. Variable notrump A fairly low minimum requirement for responder to bid a new suit at the two level in response to an opening bid at the one level. Acol was based on few forcing sequences, lots of non forcing limit bids and strong two level opening bids. It was a bidding philosophy or style, which favored fast arrival to a final contract over science. Gadgets like 4th suit forcing were only adopted reluctantly and after resistance What is nowadays played as Acol at tournaments has frequently little in common with the original system except the name and even less with the philosophy. Why people call their system still Acol escapes me, maybe it has to do with nostalgia. Rainer Herrmann

What I dislike about this type of problem is being told trumps are 2-2. You can tell that East will follow to the first trick, but telling something you will only discover at trick 5 is unrealistic. At the table you need to judge how well this plan would work if hearts are 3-1 or 1-3 before embarking on it. Rainer Herrmann

Maybe the real issue is playing diamonds before clubs? Rainer Herrmann

Would be nice to know what East DBL of 4NT showed. Having no information I play him for the remaining non spade honors. To make this contract, you need West not having 5 spades, since you have only 2 spade discards in dummy since the fourth diamond will not stand up T1: Win ♠A. T2: ♥A, spade discard T3: ♥ ruff T4: ♠J ducked. T5: spade ruff high T6: ♣ finesse . T7: ♦K T8: heart ruff (I am down if East has 5 hearts and West can overruff, but I deem it more likely East has length in clubs for his doubles) T9: ♦A T10: ♦ruff or overruff T11: exit with the spade ten The layout could be something like [hv=pc=n&s=sjt872hdqjcaqj853&w=skq96h9753d97432&n=sahaq8642dak85c94&e=s543hkjtdt6ckt762]399|300[/hv] Rainer Herrmann

What makes you think this to be the right line? Because it would have worked? When the diamond finesse Is wrong: Your line (touching herats before diamonds) wins over the immediate diamond finesse when West has spade length and hearts are 3-3 (spade-diamond squeeze) or East has both heart honors. Taking the loosing diamond finesse before touching hearts wins over your line when East does not have both heart honors, but either defender holds spade length together with 4 or more hearts or West has both heart honors with spade length. (spade-heart squeeze) Comparing these 2 conditions is not simple However, you can not squueze West between the diamond king and spade length without loosing when West holds the spade length and East the diamond king. Neither defender has a discarding problem in this case and it is hard to see what the spade diamond squeeze gains over the straightforward diamond finesse. Even without computing this in all detail and unless I overlooked something your line looks to me like the inferior one Rainer Herrmann

Admittedly you have some chances to get to 12 tricks that way. Rainer Herrmann

And how long do you suggest to wait for bidding and play of real players to be fixed? :lol: I admit I have been in worse grands with real players to boot. Win the ♠A Play diamond ace. If West drops an honor finesse, run trumps, discard spades from dummy. Decide after cashing all turmps whether West was 1♠=7♥=1♦=4-♣, in which case a double squeeze pops up and your ♥6 will be your 12th trick. This assumes the spade 3 does not appear from West. Otherwise if West discards the spade 3 see below. If West drops no honor run trumps nevertheless and discard spades. Try to squeeze East between the black suits. If you believe the hearts are 6-4 (e.g. East discards 4 hearts), you could try the same double squeeze playing West for 1♠=6♥=2♦=4♣ Rainer Herrmann

1♠ is not a good response to 1♥. 2♣ making immediately clear that you have a stronger hand is far superior even if you do not play this response as game forcing. Why would anyone want to discourage partner with this hand escapes me. And if 4♥ is neither discouraging nor specific it is a bad system. Surely 2♦ instead of 4♥ followed by a heart raise is more appropriate. Rainer Herrmann

deleted

1) Play as Nige1 suggests. 2) I would not have played that way. Now I see nothing better than taking the heart finesse and if the queen does not drop on the next round take the club finesse. The second heart finesse should have been avoided: After ruffing the diamond, ♥A and if no queen drops ruff a heart high. If no queen drops, trump to hand, ruff your last heart high, draw trumps and take the club finesse. 3) 3NT, ♣KQ maybe an inflexible stop, but I expect a spade lead and ♣KQ is even more inflexible should partner bid clubs in response to a takeout double. Rainer Herrmann

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq964hadt95ca98&n=s532hkq6dk743c762&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1s2nd3cdpp3h3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] 2NT was minors, both doubles showed values West leads the ♦A and East follows with the 8 Plan the play. (Assume expert defense and be specific) When you start playing trumps West will follow Rainer Herrmann (Hand taken from German Bridge Journal)

No, you do not necessarily loose spades. But what a statement! Not to loose spades, you suggest first to overcall on a five card suit, then to balance and then to correct. Three actions on limited values where advancer has promised nothing. If you do this to me I would suspect something else than 4♠=5♥=2♦=2♣ and opening bid values. And what is better about this then doubling in the first place and correcting a low level diamond response to hearts? I admit that the lowest unbid minor is suspect when you play ELC. What this amounts to is that if advancer comes in freely with the lowest unbid minor suit at a high level he should have a good suit because support is not guaranteed. Yes we could loose our minor suit fit that way when opponents preempt, but the music is with the majors. Better to loose a diamond fit than a spade fit. At a low level advancer will get corrected by takeout doubler. This is plain nonsense. If your overcall in hearts can conceal spades you have at least as much of an obligation to tell your opponents. There is no standard in this area, if at all only regional tendencies. In Bridge the US does not rule the world, neither by results nor by force and they do not set the standards. I have sometimes the impression when people claim different treatments as better and some opponents run out of arguments this sort of argument tends to come up. They try to take the moral high ground and give the impression the alternative suggestion has some unethical tinge assigned to it. I consider this not only unfair but itself an unethical way of arguing. Rainer Herrmann

You are missing the point. The issue is not missing 5-3 hearts versus missing a 4-4 spades. The issue is missing a 5-3 hearts against any spade fit. Assume the bidding starts (1♣) - DBL -(3♣)-? versus (1♣)-1♥-(3♣) - ? In the first auction advancer can compete with moderate values. Bidding a major will not be forcing In the second one advancer will need substantially more to bid spades even if he has five or six. Some would play 3♠ passable, more would play it forcing or game forcing. But advancer will need a good hand in either case. If advancer is not strong enough you could miss a ten card spade fit easily. Similar arguments apply if responder makes any other club raise. Even if responder bids 1NT (or 2NT) over 1♥ advancer will often not be strong enough to bid a spade suit. Rainer Herrmann

I subscribe to the theory that 1♥ after DBL and a 1♦ response suggests at least 5 hearts and 4 spades. Nobody has explained how one would handle say ♠KJxx ♥AJxxx ♦Ax ♣xx over 1♣, which is a much more common holding than a superstrong hand with hearts after your RHO has opened the bidding. If you overcall with this distribution you are in grave danger of losing spades if next hand preempts. If I overcall in hearts I tend not to have spades, at least not four. With AKx AKxxx Kxx xx I would tend to overcall Make it a bit stronger I double and bid hearts next. A jump in hearts after DBL tends to show six and a strong hand. Rainer Herrmann

1♦ is of course not a free bid but 4♦ is. I would not make that bid on Jxx xx Jxxxx xxx, which in my opinion is just too weak for such a bid. 4♥ is a better bid by East than 5♦. Rainer Herrmann

I believe that DBL of 3♠ (by West) is the modern (original Italian) tendency in expert bridge. It makes sense to me. There is a book "The Power of Positive Bidding (Bidding Secrets of the Italian Champions)", which gives an introduction into this concept They call it Power Double Rainer Herrmann

Obviously a matter of agreement. I am a fan of ELC, but for me 2♥ would show the actual East hand even without ELC. Setting hearts I would have to jump to 3♥ With even stronger hands you cuebid opponents suit first. I do not know what people do with say solid opening bid values and 4♠-5♥-2♦-2♣ and dispersed honors. I would certainly double and correct a reply of 1♦ to 1♥ Rainer Herrmann

Changing the West hand slightly [hv=pc=n&w=sj62h2dj9852c9742&e=skqhajt653dkqt4ca&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cdp1dp1h1sp2s3d3s4dp5dppp]266|200[/hv] As East I would want to be in a diamond game opposite such meager values, though of course it is anything but cold. . East does not just have 18 HCP. He does have on top a 6421 distribution with a fit for partner and West bidding 4♦ says he can not be totally broke. Rainer Herrmann