rhm

I agree the solution does not work. But from your holding I doubt many would switch to trumps. Attacking clubs looks normal to me. Rainer Herrmann

Sorry, I have to retract my problem. I played like you did. The actual layout was [hv=pc=n&s=sa6542hqj7dack762&w=s9hak92dkt987ca84&n=skq73h8dqj6432c93&e=sjt8ht6543d5cqjt5&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1cd4sppp]399|300[/hv] The only solution, which works is to win in dummy and play a diamond to the ace. At trick 4 play a heart honor and when covered discard a club from dummy. I found this solution appealing. Unfortunately I now discovered it will not work when West is 1444. In this case West can return a heart (not easy to see either). Sorry Rainer Herrmann

[hv=pc=n&s=sa6542hqj7dack762&n=skq73h8dqj6432c93&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1sd4sppp]266|200[/hv] West leads the ♥K and switches to the ♠9 Plan the play. (If you know the deal don't spoil the fun) Rainer Herrmann

I bet that very few know that 2-2=5-4, where the numbers left of the equal sign denote majors and right of it minors, is the worst possible distribution for game chances. It is worse than holding 3-3=4-3. In other words opening a borderline hand with the above distribution risks partner getting you too high. So much for the rule of 20. Rainer Herrmann

Yes, but I would not feel comfortable when vulnerable and I am not sure balancing with 2♠ if a raise to 2♥ is passed round to you is a long term winning decision here. Part-score swings can not always be avoided. The risk is just too high. That is one reason why light openings became popular. The opening side has a big advantage here. Note, in this example you had a a good nine card fit, there was no trump stack, no trump promotion and yet you payed out and at least I believe this was not a case of bad luck. It is not difficult to see if there were no spade fit, you might have been caught even in 1♠ for a substantial penalty. Give LHO a singleton heart and 4 or more reasonable spades and playing for penalties becomes quite attractive at these colors. Good players grasp such opportunities. In this case even though you have the boss suit, it needs an unlikely layout of the remaining cards for you to win the part-score battle. Why start a fight you can not win and where you are in great danger of paying out too much? Rainer Herrmann

My point is that this is not a matter of partnership understanding or agreements. Do not understand me wrong. I do not argue that overcalls at the one level have to be strong. But if you have agreements that overcalls can look like this, in particular when red, you are playing losing Bridge. Rainer Herrmann

I do not require more, I require different. West hand is a model hand how an overcall should not look like, not at any colors, but crazy when red against white. The overcall takes up no space. You have the worst possible holding in opponents suit. In other words the hand has a very low ODR ratio full of quacks It's not even clear you want spade led. Jump raises as mixed are fine, but not opposite such overcalls. I am not surprised nothing is on for opponents. It's not bad luck it's simply bad Bridge Some people should just take lessons in basic hand evaluation before posting here. I am not saying I am endorsing all actions taken by South, which were no doubt aggressive and influenced by the favorable vulnerability. But just compare the South hand with the West hand. KNR values the South hand more than 4 points higher than the West hand. If you can not see the difference, don't post. Rainer Herrmann

deleted

Maybe I can improve your eyesight a bit: Apart from that 4m+1 is obviously 1 step higher, which reduces the possible sequences to any final contract by half, there are numerous bidding sequences where it is anything but clear what 4m+1 is. To give you just one example: 1♥-2♦ 3♦-3♥ Now you can tell me how opener is supposed to ask for keycards in diamonds. I have serious doubts that 4♥ should be interpreted as keycards for diamonds. Jumping to 4m+1 as keycards interferes often with splinter, jumping to 4m when the suit has been bid before does not. Rainer Herrmann

Oh I know that Kantar's books about Blackwood are illustrated by lots of examples. I have them. Conventions are trade offs and different trade offs are not zero sum games It is not too difficult to give illustrations for the most silliest conventions. This reminds me of the following: Rubens in his book "Secrets of Winning Bridge" shows 2 balanced hands with a combined 35 HCP with absolutely no chance for 12 tricks. Danny Kleinman was so impressed by Rubens example, he developed a convention he called "The yellow rose of Texas" to address this pair of hands. (you can google the convention if you like) Rainer Herrmann

Not sure what you claim here. Not every slam needs to be bid by a key-card ask. For example in the sequence given above 1♦-2♣-3♠ nobody forces you to continue with minorwood. You can continue with a control bid in a side suit if you like. Instead of claiming Minorwood to be the only way of investigation, I claim having no timely key card ask hampers sensible investigation too frequently. This is a far cry from claiming it is the sole tool for all slam investigations. Assuming that a king ask is usually a try for a grand, I can not quite see why a valuable bid below game in the agreed minor should be wasted for that purpose. In that sense the analogy to 5NT as king ask over major suit agreement is very different. Surely bidding any side suit above game in the agreed minor after minorwood will make it abundantly clear that you have higher aspirations than a small slam in the minor. Kantar notwithstanding, who needs 4NT as a king ask? Rainer Herrmann

The are 2 major reasons why I think minorwood is a useful convention 1) It is asking for key cards at a low enough level 2) It allows 4NT to be a final contract if no major has been agreed. This is not only quite useful at matchpoints, only particularly needed at this form of scoring. Compared to kickback or Redwood the chances that either side can suggest 4NT is increased. The way I like to play 4NT is not a sign-off but a suggestion to play. It is never forcing after minorwood. It is not the trump queen ask. (Which is the next side suit after a minorwood repsonse). It makes it easy to bypass 3NT in many sequences in the knowledge you can always stop at 4NT. Stopping at 3NT when slam in a minor is cold is a very common occurrence. 4NT can be corrected to any level, though the implication that 2 key-cards might be missing has to be judged. Partner can correct to the minor or still invite further, say with a control bid or 5NT (neither forcing either after 4NT). Rainer Herrmann

I do not want to offer slam, I consider myself too strong for that, assuming partner has his bid. If I bid 5♣ and partner bids 5♦ and I raise I invite a grand. Inviting a grand I have too many holes and I do not see a convincing sequence to get to 7♦. I bid 6♦. Rainer Herrmann

Today the following hand occurred: I was South, GIBs were in other seats: [hv=pc=n&s=s842hakqjdakqcaq6&n=skth98632dj52cjt7&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp2c(strong%20two%20clubs)2spp3h(openers%20suit-5%2B%2019%2B%20HCP%3B%2023%2B%20total%20points%2Cforcing%2C*)ppp]266|200[/hv] The explanation of bids is provided by GIB. I do not understand why the GIB software can not honor forcing bids, which it defines as such by itself. What is so difficult about implementing the concept of forcing bids in the software? Can the developers not align their explanation of bids with the software? I understand that the software may sample the best outcome, but why can the developers not ensure if a bid is declared as forcing and the next opponent passes that Pass is not a possibility of GIBs next bid, even if sampling suggests it could be best. How will GIB ever be capable of a sensible exchange of information in the bidding if it does not honor forcing bids? Rainer Herrmann

[deleted

Playing East for 4 diamonds is unlikely, when spades are 1-4 already. The hand can be made if East has 4333 4432 or 4342. Duck the ♠Q. West could be endplyed at trick 2. He might even switch to clubs. But for the sake of the argument let's assume he switches to a heart and the ♥J does not hold. Play hearts and ruff the third heart. Now play 3 rounds of diamonds and ruff the third diamond. Now play 3 rounds of clubs. If East wins he is trump endplayed. If East ruffs he is ruffing your club loser. If West wins, East will have to ruff the next card on which South will play the ♦J and West is trump endplayed. Rainer Herrmann

[deleted

This is obviously not a good contract and you are in great danger of losing 4 tricks in spades and trumps. To make this contract you somehow have to draw trumps to enjoy your diamonds The defense threatens either to take 2 diamond ruffs plus a spade and a trump or to force dummy in spades and take at least 2 spades and two tricks in trumps Of course you can play West to have ♥Qx of trumps in which case you can draw trumps and enjoy the diamonds. But this is only an 8% chance and will not work when East has ♥Qx of trumps. I can see chances making the contract if hearts split. Win in hand, take the club finesse and at trick 3 play a top trump from dummy and then the small trump. If East does not go in with the queen, assume he does not have it and put in the trump 8 from hand and hope this will force the queen from West. (If West has ♥QTx they can beat this line). If The defense now forces dummy by playing 2 rounds of spades, ruff in dummy, ruff a club and draw the trumps with the heart jack, at the same time discarding your last club loser. This wins whenever trumps are 3-3 unless West has ♥ QTx or the ♥Q side is able to give his partner a diamond ruff and the one who ruffs, returns a spade to his partner to lead a third round of trumps. Chances are not very bright to succeed against best defense (even assuming no East would find to duck with ♥Qxx), but I think chances are better than above and the defense could go wrong. Rainer Herrmann

Third hand opening is all about tactics and in my opinion should be little influenced by 1/2. hand opening style. If you believe in an aggressive opening style in first seat, there is all the more reason to suspect that 4th hand has the strongest hand. How do you like it if you have a strong hand and third seat opens the bidding? Would you not in general prefer to get a free run instead? My third seat openings tend to be influenced whether I am in red or not and little else. In white everything goes, outright psyches, lead indicator, subminimum opening, sound opening. There are still a lot of hands I pass, 4333 with 2 aces and little else for example. But generally I believe in action. In red I tend to open in third what I would open in fourth seat. (Preempts are different in third and fourth seat) However, I do not believe in standard passed hand bidding methods (Lawrence etc). I do not like to open 4 card majors unless I am balanced and the 4 card suit is very strong, AQJx is about minimum, where I would make an exception. Passed partner should be free to raise the major aggressively. This works much better with 5 card majors. I hate passed hand jumping to 2NT as natural. Passed hand should rarely invite game in notrumps, unless opener has promised a good opening. Opener does not necessarily guarantee a sound opening if he takes another bid. So my style is that opener has a lot of freedom and passed hand is somewhat restricted taking strong action except when supporting partner. This keeps us low, unless a fit comes to light. From time to time we might miss close notrump games. When the strength does not add up at the table, it might be prudent for passed hand to believe opponents rather than third hand partner. Do not make close doubles. Druri is essential Does this hurt my constructive bidding? Sure it does, but in practice I had remarkably few instances for regret. However, there is ample reward, particularly at matchpoints. Rainer Herrmann

There has been a lof of research on this and similar questions. But little common wisdom. Hand pattern is only one variable on this issue. For example all else being equal 4M333 opposite 5M332 with a combined 25 HCP has better success chances in 3NT than in the 5-4 Major suit fit. So what are the variables: 1) hand pattern 2) trump quality 3) Is my honor structure more suited for a suit contract or notrump. If the hand is rich in aces a suit contract is more attractive than when you have a preponderance of secondary honors. 4) Are we playing IMPs or matchpoints? At IMPs you will show a profit only if you make 2 tricks more in a major suit game than at notrumps. Notrump contracts have a higher variance in trick outcome than suit contracts, but once you get close to 30 combined HCP 3NT tends to be a safe contract. 4-4 fits are special in the sense that ruffs in either hand has the potential of generating extra tricks. Nevertheless few 4-4 fits play better when trumps do not break 3-2. If you have a 6-2 fit 3NT will very often be a better contract than the major suit game at matchpoints, but sometimes you loose such bets. Yesterday my partner South played 3NT at matchpoints [hv=pc=n&s=sjthakdakj74c8742&w=s542hj7dt92caq963&n=sakq986hq32d53cj5&e=s73ht98654dq86ckt]399|300[/hv] Opponents took the first 5 club tricks and we got a score of 9% Some will claim serves us right, but I am sure in the long run it is the right matchpoint tactic and while most will always end up in 4♠, I would find it difficult to reach this contract even at IMPs. You can't win them all Rainer Herrmann .

It's MP. This might have been a more interesting problem at IMPs. As the actual layout shows game is not ruled out completely, though it will require a good match. In the given layout game in clubs is excellent without the black queens. Even at IMPs a part-score swing is not that cheap either. The fear of going for a number if you double with the given hand is exaggerated. Coming in with a stronger balanced hand, where everyone would bid 2NT, is probably more dangerous. Rainer Herrmann

Maybe I should have said suggested a good suit instead of "promised". Of course I also bid 2♥, but the diamond suit is clearly substandard for the reverse and I would not stretch to reverse with such a suit. Assuming a minimum of 5 cards in diamonds and 17 HCP simple arithmetic will tell you that diamonds will usually be better than that, 6-7 HCP in diamonds being average. Bidding diamonds again should show better diamonds than AKxxxx in my opinion. I might rebid such a suit after a reverse as a last resort, say with a singleton club. What to bid over 2♠ with your suggested hand depends on agreement, but if 2♠ is game forcing a jump to 3NT looks spot on. (Minimum misfit with good stopper in clubs) But even if a jump to 3NT shows something else just bid 2NT followed by 3NT, even if partner suggests diamonds. Big deal. Rainer Herrmann

I do not like the 3♦ bid though many would make it. 2♥ promised already a good diamond suit in an unbalanced hand I think 2NT is better not least because it shows the club stopper and leaves more room. Preserving space is crucial on these auctions With a good hand East should bit 3♦ over 2NT with Qx or better. With ajxxx qxx xx xxx or similar bid 3♥ showing doubt about clubs With the actual hand East should bid 3♠ over 2NT. West bids 3NT and East 4NT. Rainer Herrmann

I pass but it is close. They might well go down 2 and then not doubling could be expensive. In my experience take-out doubler almost always raises in this position with 4 cards in hearts being not vulnerable. It looks likely to me that we have 2 heart tricks, 2 spade tricks and at least one trick in the minors. So the question boils down to, is it more likely they go down 2 or that they will make? I admit I really don't know but I suspect that the matchpoint winnners would double frequently. Rainer Herrmann

It was neither a nasty misfit, nor troublesome nor an awful trump split, was it? Awful trumps splits are a bit difficult at a notrump contracts anyway. But I will not start to question your brilliant linguistic capabilities, which undoubtedly exist I found the deal boring and a triviality to play properly, but could see that it might be of interest to some. I only suggested that it would better fit into other forums, which are specifically designed for people with lesser experience. Rainer Herrmann