rhm

You make some interesting points. Curiously I always thought the above sequence was a strength not a weakness of pc by allowing you to stop in 1NT when partner is broke and you got 20 HCP. Of course your sequence is even more comfortable when the sequence occurs for you, but it means you will be in 2NT (or higher) willy-nilly when you hold 20-21 HCP opposite a weak hand. Whether to rebid 1NT over 1♣-1♦ or 2NT is a trade-off between playing the 1NT rebid wide ranging (bad) and staying low (not only in 1NT but also in 2 of a major or 3 of a minor) in case partner is weak (good) and having more room to find the best contract. Initially the risk that partner is broke may be small, but not any more after the 1♦ response. Still, I personally do not think the trade-off is worthwhile, because 21-HCP occur so much less often than say 18 HCP. (A balanced 18 HCP hand occurs about 10 times more often than a balanced 21 count) So I keep my range 18-20 HCP, though I may downgrade a bad 21 HCP, but usually bid 2NT with 21-22 and force to game with 23 HCP. Your chances of running into trouble that way exists, but is much lower. For example a balanced 23 count opposite a balanced 0-1 count, where I will be in game, where some others may stop in 2NT occurs less than once per 40,000 deals. I have to worry about more frequent issues. (A balanced 20 count opposite a balanced 0-4 will occur once in 2000 deals and a balanced 21 count opposite a balanced 0-3 will occur once in 5000 deals) But this is a trade-off where overall pc looks superior to me. If you open with 2NT you give up this advantage. With regard to Meckwell all I hear is hearsay, because they themselves keep their mouth shut about their motives. But I think the problems over precision 1♣ are different, because of the lower start of 1♣ and they may be unable to stop in 1NT anyway with 20-21 HCP. Rainer Herrmann

I think this line is right, because chances that 3 rounds of ♣ stand up are no better than three rounds of ♦. However, in ♦ you have chances when RHO is short (switch to a complete cross ruff) or when the ♦ king comes down. Also the ♠8 at trick one is suspicious and this line avoids an early ♠ over-ruff. It is slightly better to cross in ♣ instead of trumps to avoid that somebody discards from a doubleton ♣ on the fourth round of ♦. If you are in a grand and LHO shows out on the third ♦ your best chance still seems to be to play for a cross ruff. This will of course work only among others if RHO has the 9 and 7 of ♥ Rainer Herrmann

You can play that way and most polish players do that. I playd that way for most of my bridge life. It's very hard to untangle and lead to problems every time opener is just 18+ (1c - 1s -2nt - ? and you are lost with 10-11hcp balanced for example). It's for sure playable though I just don't like it. I like the idea Fred mentioned. It seems that bids at 5 level are not used for anything frequent anyway, especially if you have some to show slam try in a major. I think it came up recently in some other thread (about bidding after 1NT and transfer with flat strong hand). Rodwell should really write a book and sell it for like 500$/copy like those poker guys do... I am not Polish, but I play that way. I would be interested to understand your point better. Let's take your example 1♣-1♠-2NT and what I believe is fairly standard Polish club: At this point you are at 2NT in a game forcing sequence. Responder has shown 7+ points and at least 4 cards in ♠ Opener is known to hold 18+ (unlimited), but his distribution tends to be better defined: Opener holds almost always a doubleton ♠ (xxx in a flat hand possible), at most a 4 card ♥ suit, a 5 card ♣ suit, or (rarely) a six card ♦ suit. Opener is balanced unless he holds a ♦ suit, in which case he might be semi balanced. (1♣-1♠-3♥ shows 18+; 5 ♦, 4 ♥ and (1♣-1♠-3NT shows 18-20; 1=3=5=4 and these distributions tend to be excluded from 2NT, as are semi balanced hands with a ♣ suit) Note that responder rebids can be natural over 1♣-1♠-2NT, no need for check-back Stayman etc, 3♠ simply shows a six card ♠ suit, 3♥ promises 5 ♠ and at least 4 cards in ♥. In particular responder can investigate minor suit contracts by simply bidding 3♣ or 3♦. (Of course you can also agree to play something more sophisticated here, for example 3♣ could be played as Puppet Stayman, but for the minors). Compare this with a standard 2NT opening. Here opener is severely limited in HCP, but his distribution is balanced or semi-balanced (including 5 card majors or six card minors). Nothing else is known. Nothing is known about responders hand. Minor suit bids (3♣, 3♦) by responder are geared to investigate major suit contracts. This means that responder must take an immediate decision, whether to risk bypassing 3NT to investigate minor suit contracts with little to guide him except openers overall strength. This frequently leads to bad guesses. Do you really believe standard is in a better position here? My impression is rather different: The many difficulties over standard 2NT have led to a lot of discussions, like the one here, what the optimal structure is over 2NT (Muppet Stayman etc.), while few Polish players bother to invest a similar amount of effort in their superior system over a 2NT rebid. There is of course much less need for that. Rainer Herrmann

Double ♠J 1NT Rainer Herrmann

Huh? If I am "technically" offering 7S opposite a 2N opener, how much less can he expect me to have? Offering 7 over 2N shows quite a good hand! You may be showing 13 HCP, but not 5 controls and such a good ♠ suit I do not buy this. This implies that you can never start a cue bidding sequence after a 2NT opening and a transfer, unless opener super-accepts. Slam invitational or better hands are quite common over a strong 2NT opening and a rebid of 4NT is not a solution to all problems. What a third bid over 4NT sign-off should mean is of course subject to agreement. I do not think that "patterning out" at the 5 level makes a lot of sense opposite a 2NT opener, where you could have played game a level lower. Come on. Whenever you transfer into a major and later bid 6NT the implication is always that you are inviting to bid 7. Why else would somebody bypass 6♠ or introduce a second suit? Who psyches in a constructive slam oriented sequence, unless it is a guy called Zia? An intelligent partner is simply assumed to draw simple inferences. Actually I do not mind very much if opener takes 4♦ as suit, as long as he understands that I would not introdue a weak one. After all ♦ is where I live outside of ♠ and opener is allowed to have a ♦ suit himself. Trouble is if partner did not super-accept over 3♥ there is virtually no hand where opener will now bid 7♠ or 7NT. You are dreaming. Even in the unlikely event, that opener holds a solid ♣ or ♥ suit and 3 ♠s to the king, will he bid 7 with just 6 controls, which is below average for a 2NT opener? (Average expected number is about 7-8). I certainly would not. Opener simply can not assume that all aces and the queen of ♠ are on board. But assuming opener to have ♠ king and both aces among his 20-21 HCP, there is almost always a play for 13 tricks and often it will be cold. While 6NT is often a good bet at MP, almost all pairs in a reasonable field will reach at least 6NT here with this powerful hand opposite a 2NT opener. My guess is if you do not like a convoluted approach the best approach may well be to bid 4♥ followed by RKC with the intention to bid 7NT (7♠ will only rarely increase your trick taking capability compared to 7NT) if opener shows 3 key cards and 6NT otherwise. I am pretty sure, given a strong field, that this will have an above average MP expectation when you reach 7NT (no guarantee but a good bet) and a slightly above average MP expectation when you now stop in 6NT. Rainer Herrmann

Some of those hands partner might correct to 7S correctly if you bid 3H then 6N. I think it gives you the best overall chance of playing 7S with 13 tricks in spades and 6N with only 12 tricks in spades/NT. Technically this sequence offers a choice between 6NT and 7♠. Nevertheless I doubt that opener missing 5 controls and the queen of ♠ will ever be in a position to correct 6NT to 7♠, particularly at MP, if you jump straight to 6NT. This hand is just too good. To help opener getting this decision right you can improve on that by transferring and then cue-bidding 4♦. There is no need to rush bidding 6NT. If opener thinks you are showing a two-suiter he should reconsider when you "correct" to 6NT. The continuation over 4♦ will depend on how good your partnership agreements are: If opener signs off in 4♠ or cue-bids over 4♦, cue-bid 5♦ then bid 6NT next. (This assumes that 5♦ will not be considered a resting place by opener. If you are uncertain bid 6NT directly) If opener bids 4NT just reply to RKB and correct 6♠ to 6NT (showing extras, here the king of ♦). It does not matter whether 4NT was intended as RKB by opener or not. When you continue over 4NT, it is clear that you want to play slam and the reply should be interpreted as a reply to RKB. (But again if you are uncertain about your agreements bid 6NT directly over 4NT) Rainer Herrmann

1) 3♣ opener is most likely to have at least 4 cards in ♣. ♠ suit is a bit weak for a 4-3 fit. 2) 3♦ What else? You opened to get your suits in quickly, didn't you? Since partner negative doubled for the red suits, I do not think showing one, shows extra here. Anyway this hand has improved by the bidding significantly, but not enough for stronger action. 3) 5♦ 4♠ was encouragement enough. Raising ♦ or bidding 4NT would have been weaker Rainer Herrmann

On 2) I suggest the following line: win ♦ ace, ace of ♣, ♣ ruff, ace of ♠, queen of ♠, ♣ ruff, king of ♦, ♦ ruff, ♣ ruff, ♦ ruff If the ♦ gets over-ruffed, hope that East is end-played. If East over-ruffs the third ♦ and tries to get out with a ♣, discard a heart if he plays the highest outstanding ♣ Rainer Herrmann

This does not work. If you try to make all your trumps separately you can never win 2 tricks in ♠, because RHO has only one and will ruff the second one. Rainer Herrman

It does matter, When RHO ruffs the king of spades you are out of trumps. RHO can then cash at least one high club for down one. Rainer Herrmann

Assume that LHO has the queen of hearts. A complete cross-ruff does not work, because ♠ break 6-1 and you require 2 ♠ tricks. To come to 12 tricks you need 2 ♣ ruffs in dummy with the short trumps and you need to establish ♥ tricks. On top you need to keep trump control if they do not break. If LHO has a singleton trump he must have less than 4 cards in ♥. Win the ace of ♥. Play queen of ♣ to ace and ruff a ♣, ruff a heart and ruff another club and cash the last ♦ in dummy. The play diverges now, depending on the number of ♣s LHO had. 1) If the queen of ♥ is still outstanding and LHO followed to 3 rounds of clubs LHO seems to be 6=3=1=3 Duck a small ♥ to the bare queen, discarding a ♣ from hand. LHO will have nothing but spades to return. Win in dummy and feed RHO the jack of ♥. Should he ruff in, over-ruff and draw trumps, discarding the small ♠ in dummy. Enter dummy in ♠. If RHO does not ruff in, discard your remaining ♣ loser and then your ♠ on the high ♥. you remain with high trumps in hand. Whenever the queen of ♥ drops on the second round, ruff a ♥ and draw trumps. Dummy will be high except for the fifth ♥. (If LHO has 6=3=1=3 and drops the queen of ♥ on the second round, congratulate him for the defense of the year.) 2) If LHO does not follow to the third round of ♣ assume LHO to be 6=3=2=2. Now you can make all the tricks. Ruff a ♥, draw trumps discarding your small ♠ in dummy. 3) If LHO does not follow to the second round of ♣, play him for 6=3=3=1 or 6=4=2=1 Ruff a ♥. If the queen drops draw trumps and dummy is high (13 tricks). If the queen of ♥ did not drop (LHO being 6=4=2=1), draw trumps anyway, discarding your small ♠ in dummy, enter dummy in ♠ and pass a ♥ to the queen. Again LHO will have nothing but ♠ to return If LHO has a singleton trump and 4 ♥ give up. Rainer Herrmann

Haven't you now used both of dummy's club entries? But maybe you meant to win the second club in hand. [Edit: nonsensical second paragraph deleted] No, I have not. Where did declarer play clubs so far? Declarer never played ♣ himself and has two ♣ entries ace and queen in dummy. He lost the lead only once before in trumps and the opening lead was a ♦. Also if East over-ruffs in ♦ he can only cash his remaining trump if he held JTxx in ♠ but will then have to lead a ♣ or ♥ himself. Rainer Herrmann

win ace, ruff ♦, play ♠ to the queen. Assume it looses, nothing dangerous can happen short of a defensive cross-ruff, which is very unlikely. Say a ♣ comes back. Win in dummy, cash the ace of ♠ cross to the♥ king and ruff a second ♦. If this gets over-ruffed you still have another entry in ♣ to reach the ace of ♥ If a ♥ comes back ruff a second diamond immediately. In the unlikely event that this gets over-ruffed only a ♣ or ♥ ruff could hurt you. Win the return in dummy and cash the ace of ♠ and then the ace of ♥, discarding your last diamond. Similar if a ♦ comes back ruff in dummy and whether this gets over-ruffed or not next try to cash the King of ♥, the ace of ♠ and then ace of ♥. This line looses sometimes when West has all 5 ♠ or if West has the king doubleton in ♠ and at least 6 cards in ♦ and and either a void in ♣ or a singleton in ♥. This line never looses if ♠ are 4-1 or when East has 5 ♠ . You will loose at most 3 trump tricks. This line also preserves your chances for over-tricks Rainer Herrmann

I beg to differ. First chances are better than even that partner has at least 3 cards in spades and I believe then I am ahead already. Even if we do not have a fit in spades (and partner is short in spades) we may well have a fit in one of the minors and if you have a high level contract in a minor it will be far more difficult to reach it if you pass. Second I disagree with your assessment that few balanced 12 counts are worse. For suit contracts they usually will be and if your balanced hand lacks aces and intermediates it is not even good for no-trump. But people often do not realize this when they go down. Last Thursday I played in a casual partnership and raised vulnerable a strong notrump to 3NT with ♠ xxx ♥ AKTx ♦Axx ♣ xxx Partner held: ♠ KT9 ♥ QJxx ♦ KQJx ♣ QJ and went for minus 200 after a club lead. (not all minus 200 seem to be equally bad) It would not occur to me to open such rubbish as a strong no-trump, but it seems to be the modern trend. Rainer Herrmann

This hand fits my requirement for a minimum opening, playing any system, and I consider myself not a very light opener. But for me, whether to open or not, has more to do with hand evaluation and judgment. I expect a vast majority (roughly 90%) to pass, but I back my judgment. This hand I upgrade due to the honor structure to 11 HCP plus distributional values. I would not open if the hand did not have a 5 card major. Of course the spade suit is weak and to open can easily get you too high. (For no-trump purposes this hand is not worth an opening) But I like to open distributional hands with aces, when it contains a major. I think these are the hands where it pays to come in first. More often I pass balanced hands with a 12 HCP, if the hand has a lack of intermediates and aces, where a 90% majority would open. I am surprised to what extent even very good players are slaves to standard point count, even though many know that it is not very reliable guide for high level suit contracts. Rainer Herrmann

"If I think a hand is not worth 23 HCP I do not bid it like a 23 HCP hand." This hand is a good example If I can differentiate between 22 HCP and 23 HCP, I am sure I would put this hand into the 22 HCP category. One of the best notrump evaluator is the fifth elevator and this does (contrary to what many believe) not devalue jacks but kings and queens for good reason. Another point is that 4-3-3-3 distribution is a distinct disadvantage when you contract for slam on power (much more than for 3NT). Rainer Herrmann

I think you are reading too much in this comment. If your bidding showed a minimum of 23 HCP (e.g. you could have 26 HCP) and you had 23 HCP and 4 cards in ♠ and you are missing at least 2 aces, what would you call such a hand??? Well for me such a hand is "support, but a bad hand in context" (what else?). If I think a hand is not worth 23 HCP I do not bid it like a 23 HCP hand. Nevertheless I think a good strategy is to bid 4NT In the extremely unlikely event that partner shows 1 keycard give up (5♠). In the unlikely event that partner shows 2 keycards without the queen of ♠ give up (5♠). In the event that partner shows 2 keycards with the queen of ♠ bid 6NT (little chance for an over-trick) In the likely event that partner shows 3 keycards bid 6♠ (chances for an over-trick are good) Rainer Herrmann

This is ideal for a simulation I specified for East 4 cards in ♠ less than 4 cards in ♥, balanced, exactly 23 HCP. Since random dealing (2,5 million) took a long time with these constraints I generated only 100 deals. I consider these constraints conservative, because opener may bid 4♠ with 24 HCP Result: 6♠ made on 79% of the deals An over-trick was available on 16% 6NT made on 62% of the deals An over-trick was available on 4% deals 6 ♠ makes on 21 deals, where 6NT is down (55%) 6 ♠ makes on 58 deals when 6NT makes (94%) 6 NT makes on 4 deals, where 6♠ is down (19%) 6 NT makes on 58 deals when 6♠ makes (73%) When 13 tricks were available in ♠, 6NT made always. When 13 tricks were available in 6NT, 6♠ also made with an over-trick. So in 50% 6NT will be the top-score assuming nobody will bid a grand. So in 33% 6♠ will be top-score assuming nobody will bid the grand. So in 17% you should stay out of slam Depending on what percentage of the field will bid a slam you should either bid 6♠ (conservative) or 6NT (aggressive). Everything less (even inviting) is far too timid. I do not think that on these deals there is a lot of difference between single and double dummy play. Rainer Herrmann

Making this contract requires 3 ♣ tricks and a second ♠ trick. West seems to be 4=4=5=0 and since he did not lead ♦, at least one ♦ honor must be with East. Why East did not switch to ♦ once you ducked the ♥ (down two) escapes me. Now you can always establish ♣s for down one and hope for an end-play in ♠. Good defender will beat you, but against average club players your chances are good because West may not see the need to discard the ♥ queen and unblock ♦ honors on the ♣s. East may not able to switch to ♠ to break up the end-play with ♠ Jx or ♠ Tx. So play ♣s from the top and hope. If East plays the fourth ♥ keep your small ♦ and discard a ♠ from hand. Win the ♦ switch and cash your last ♣ and try to throw West in with your small ♦. Rainer Herrmann

And there was a time, when this overcall would not have been espoused, not to mention replicated, by any experts of that time gone bye. And many at that time would have considered it very suspicious, if this bid would have been a success, miraculously finding partner with enough in the suit so that the suit turned out to be blocked. B) Rainer Herrmann

Just to clarify: I have not compared a 3♦ preempt on KQJxx with the 6♦ bid and I do not claim that they are. In fact they are not (even though a preempt on a 5 card suit in a top level tournament was virtually unheard of 30 years ago) I spoke about that I have difficulties when somebody calls legal bids "reckless" Rainer Herrmann

Years ago a leading German pair was invited to the prestigious Sunday Times invitational pairs at that time in London. Late in the tournament when this pair was not any more in contention for winning the tournament they played against opponents, who were. The German player opened 3♦ non vulnerable on KQJxx in ♦ and out. The bid was a success, but came under criticism for "randomizing" the event. It actually cost the opponents the first place. Maybe you can call such a perfectly legal bid "crazy reckless". But in a teams knock-out event?. I have problems defining perfectly legal bids as "reckless" (reckless to whom?) or in any other way as improper, as long as the player tries to serve what he considers his best chance to win. You may decide not to team up with such a person, because your bidding philosophies are at odds. Fine. But there is no such animal as a reckless bid to the opponents. I maintain, my opinion, that a bid is not illogical or bizarre if it has a relative high chance of success, no matter whether you consider other bidding strategies to be less risky and more likely to be successful. (In fact I am with you in this particular case) I do not care. That is why we all bid differently. I do not care whether no leading player would choose this bid. On many master solver's type bidding problems you quite frequently find a leading expert, who happens to be the "odd man out". The bid did not find a miraculous lie of the cards, if about 10% of the deals will find 6♦ the only making contract and many of them would be difficult to find by other means. Every single deal is of course unique and extremely unlikely to occur again. But miraculous in my dictionary is certainly not a 10% chance. Rainer Herrmann

If this is your criteria you could accuse at least 90% of all bridge players (including me) of cheating. For example, did you never jump to 3NT, where thorough investigation (an alternative way) would have told you that the opponents can cash the first 5 tricks in a suit? While I admit that bidding "what you think you can make" is nowadays out of favor and in this case a bit unusual, it is not clear that thorough investigation in the bidding will always lead to better results. Though I do not recommend the unorthodox jump to 6♦, because of its obvious risks, there are many arguments in favor of it: 1.) LHO may have a very difficult decision at favorable vulnerability whether to take a (phantom) save or not. (Give opponents the last guess) 2.) The defense is usually much more difficult when you hide the nature of your hand. For example 6♦ might be beatable on a ♥ lead. 3.) If RHO Lightner doubles it may be anything but obvious to LHO that his partner has a void in ♣ instead of in ♥. 4.) Bidding directly 6♦ may be the best way of reaching a lay-down 7♦ when partner decides to raise with an appropriate hand. (long diamonds including the king; nothing else is needed). ( 6♣ is the most likely small slam to make, but the most likely grand seems to be 7♦) It all boils down to judgment. But to believe you can have an unimpeded bidding dialog over 3♠, particularly at unfavorable vulnerability, at no cost is just a little bit naive. Rainer Herrmann

If you consider the bid weird, I disagree. If one can show that a bid works a high percentage of the time, this matters. Such a bid can in my opinion not be considered weird. The action can be unusual and the bid can of course be criticized. It might still be a bad bid, but it is certainly not weird. No, this happens all the time. This is simply a matter of judgment, as is the question whether I take the slow route in the bidding and exchange a lot of information or not. (I would, but there is research showing that contracts reached in fewer bids tend to be more successful) If I choose 3NT instead of a game in a major, knowing I have an 8 card trump fit there, I may misjudge or I may not. This is simply one important reason why some are better at this game than others and why experience counts. At the table the guy may simply have misjudged that 6♣ has a better chance than 6♦ or maybe he wanted to reach a contract unlikely to be mirrored in the other room. It is not true that 6♣ always makes when 6♦ does. It does not, but 6♣ just makes more often. This is not prima facie obvious to everybody. Holding long clubs himself, maybe he thought it quite likely to find ♦ in dummy after the ♠ preempt. He did. He of course did not know the exact probability for all that. After all we are not allowed to start a simulation at the Bridge table. Rainer Herrmann

Of course I can not remember people doing exactly this to me, but I think I have seen similar actions in literature. The logic behind making the shorter suit ♦ trumps is to discard dummy's ♥s on the long side suit ♣s. (This is exactly what actually happened). This works only if dummy has (at least) 4 cards in ♦ and ♦ break well. The latter condition is one reason why 6♦ will often not be such a great contract. Surprisingly it still works quite often. In your example there is of course no such reasoning, which makes the 7♥ bid not just anti-percentage, but illogical. Rainer Herrmann