rhm

Typed all for hands into the evaluator (with all spots.) Results: North: 10,30 South: 11,70 East: 10,40 West: 5,20 In all: 37,60. It seems to me, that the calculater, or at least the way it is used, is not perfect. On the NS hands, 3NT is completely laydown, while any of those hands will not make a laydown facing the East hand. Edit: Ok, not laydown, but will often make. It seems to me, that as the calculator is geared to handle bot balanced and unbalanced hands, Aces and Kings might be overrated for balanced deals, while intermidiates are underrated. Looking at the North hand, it seems quite likely, that this could be such a deal. You got the directions wrong East: 5.20 South: 10.40 West: 11.70 North: 10.30 K & R is a poor evaluator when it comes to notrump contracts below the slam level. The 5th evaluator is far better in that respect. The South hand is clearly worth more than the North hand and what difference K & R assigns. K & R is not bad for high level trump contracts. It counts a lot for distribution and honors in long suits. Rainer Herrmann

So assume West bids now 5♦. Are there many hands given West's bidding where slam is worse than an even chance? As I said before I think West should not move over 5♦ with his actual hand, because he has done more than enough already. Once partner made another move over East's slightly dubious 3NT (xx, QTxx AKxxx AJ would be more appropriate) I think I would not stop below slam. I am with Fred and Rodwell seems to be of the same opinion that with good diamond support you should raise immediately even without extras. This means that you need to apply judgment when you look for slam. That is do I have more than minimum and and is my hand suitable for slam? Rainer Herrmann

Most play a direct 5♥ as a slam try (particularly at this vulnerability), usually asking for control of ♥. It is not your partner, who preempted. Furthermore even if you have the agreement that 5♥ is preemptive here, I would not do it. It may be anything but clear to the opponents who is sacrificing here unless you have to tell them, when they ask what a jump to 5♥ means. It is unusual for players to sacrifice at unfavorable vulnerability. In fact I rarely assume opponents to be sacrificing at unfavorable vulnerability. Of course they sometimes misjudge or it may turn out that way. If you let yourself be pushed to 5♥, you might well play undoubled, opponents being satisfied to have you pushed to the 5 level. That is the major reason why I would bid on over 4♠ unless my partner doubled. Chances to escape a double are good! Rainer Herrmann

I would not have taken either decision. Nor would I pass with the West hand in third position, also conservative. I doubt that you would have reached 3NT if only North had opened the hand in fourth position. The two tens in South hand makes pass too conservative, but neither ten was really instrumental for the success of 3NT, though the ♥10 is nice. I would distribute the share 30-70 between N-S, but neither did something terrible. It was a bit unlucky. It is fairly rare that opponents have 4 top tricks in 3NT and no chance of developing a fifth trick in time. Rainer Herrmann

Frankly I am not impressed by these arguments and I find them circular For the sake of the argument let us assume we can categorize 12 HCP hands into -average, - (significantly) below average and - (significantly) above average. Now your argument goes "When it comes down to it, you aren't going to win by downgrading often" Why? Essentially you treat below average hands the same as average hands, but presumable you will upgrade above average hands. What it boils down to is that you either overbid below averages or underbid average hands. Of course you can get lucky by doing so but the odds are not with you. Note, that this has nothing to do with the question whether an aggressive or conservative style is more successful or whether the hand in question should be opened or not. It has to do whether hand evaluation is a sensible practice in the first place and whether you should correct point count or not. But if not, why upgrade then? Something is illogical here For me the above hand is clearly below average not worth its 12HCP. The reason is simple: No first round controls and no intermediates. Nevertheless I would open the bidding in 4th position, but only just and because I am aggressive in fourth position. I would not open in first or second position. "Kx and QJx while not great are fine, the Q and J are worth more when together" Well let us assume you have 12 HCP If you give one player 3 aces and an opponent 4 kings and deal the remainder randomly, the player with the 4 Kings will not have much of a chance in the long run against the player with 3 aces . If you give him instead of 4 kings 4 quacks (qj) it gets even worse for him. But if you distribute 12 HCP over quacks they necessarily have to be all together. So this "togetherness" argument tends to apply whenever you have lower honors and since you need more of them to get to the same point count people claim He my hand is not so bad, the queens and jack work together. Another circular argument. Rainer Herrmann

I consider 5♣ a mistake. Sign off at 4NT with this minimum, if not playing minorwood. You might disagree, but I find that bidding 4NT again is hopeless and must be based on ♣QJxx or alike. You already showed minimum with 3NT, you cannot bid 4NT to show the same hand again without a big reason. Partner is unlimited. 3NT after minor suit agreement does not limit your hand very well. It just says 9 tricks may be easier than 11 or more with something suitable in the unbid suits. I like to play 4NT natural in minor suit slam auctions, showing a slam unsuitable hand. But whatever you play, you should have a bid to deny interest in slam when partner makes another try over 3NT. In the context of a previous force to game bid I consider East's hand as slam unsuitable. Change the East hand a little, e.g. change the two major suit queens to the ace of ♥ and a small ♠. This hand would still be minimum for a game forcing 2♦ but more suitable for slam and slam would in fact be reasonable. I know of course that 5♣ more or less denied the ace of ♥, but he could have had the ace of ♦ instead. Anyway bidding 5♣ with this hand is just asking for trouble. It is true that opener is unlimited, but this is no good reason to cooperate. If that is all West needs for slam he will bid slam over any action by East. Rainer Herrmann

Looking at this hand I wonder what 3♥ should show at this stage. Assuming that 3♥ is forcing I wonder: Should 3♥ show more than a raise to 3NT would? If yes, why? Should any of responders 4 minor rebids be forcing on opener? If yes, why? If a ♠ lead is beating 3NT and you bid 3NT how likely are you to escape a ♠ lead? By far the most likely hand opener is to hold at this stage is a hand where he has enough to raise but concerned about one of the majors. Should 3♥ even guarantee 4 cards? Rainer Herrmann

Playing any system can not be done without judgment. 2/1 is no exception. If 2/1 is poorly understood by many this is not a problem of 2/1, neither is this unique to 2/1. But 2/1 does solve a lot of problems with strong hands without creating many new ones. It tends to be at a disadvantage with invitational hands. Rainer Herrmann

I would not call 4♦ a mistake, but borderline. I prefer it to be minorwood though. If not minorwood, why not 4♣ instead? I consider 5♣ a mistake. Sign off at 4NT with this minimum, if not playing minorwood. 4♦ was borderline, 6♦ now was too much . Bid 5♦ over 5♣ Partner can deduce that you would not have bid 4♦ missing AK of ♥, AK of ♦ and the ace of ♣. If he has 2 red key cards in addition to the ace of ♣ he can use his judgment and raise 5♦ If you play2/1 game-forcing without limiting your hand any further, you must judge in slam auctions, whether you are minimum or have extra. West has a little, but East does not and few controls. Rainer Herrmann

Oops. Good point Rainer Herrmann

1♥--2♦ 3♦--3♠ 3NT--5♣ --> Splinter 5♥--5♠ 6♦ Simple and effective. Splinter in later rounds are still often overlooked. 3♠ is not clear. 5♣ could have been bid one round earlier over 3♦. 5♦ is reasonably safe from North's perspective. This would be tougher at MP. Rainer Herrmann

3NT is okay as a two way shot. It might make and it does preempt. The downside is: You are vulnerable and 3NT could be expensive LHO probably knows which major to lead is best for them. You may also preempt your side if 3NT is not best If playing no fancy methods I prefer 2NT. A good player will usually not want to play 2NT. He will either sign off in a minor (weak) or raise or show his major suit stopper. Rainer Herrmann

It is easy to construct hands where declarer has the ♠ King and ducking at trick one gives declarer the contract. For example if declarer holds ♠KJxx ♥AQ ♦AKxx ♣Q9x declarer simply cashes one diamond and runs heart when you duck. He has always 12 tricks Declarer last discard was the ♠ king, so you had to keep the ♠ ace Declarer has Q9 in ♣ and Ax in ♦ You had to keep J10 in ♣ to avoid a finesse against your partner and had to come down to a singleton queen of ♦ . What are your partners last 4 cards? He has to keep Kx in ♣ and Tx in ♦, but gets now thrown in with a ♦ to lead from the king of ♣. If you win trick one and return anything but a ♦ I do not see how declarer could come to 12 tricks on this layout. Rainer Herrmann

Fair enough I have changed the simulation with the North hand fixed: If South has 3 cards in ♠, 9-11 points with 3,2,1 for void, singleton, doubleton If South has 4 cards in ♠, 8-10 points with 4,3,1 for void, singleton, doubleton Result 1000 deals game made in 319 cases double dummy but 3S was already down in 310 cases average number of tricks in a ♠ contract slightly less than 9. Game try, even vulnerable, is still borderline I suppose. Rainer Herrmann

It most certainly does not. If south gets the decision right all the time then about half of the acceptances will make game. You also didn't include downgrades (your algorithm counts QJ doubleton of a side suit as 4 points, and singleton king as 6!!! points) or make an allowance to include 3(334) 11 counts which are clearly constructive raises. I mean the way you wrote that, Jxx Jxxx Jxxxx K is a constructive raise. You seem to forget that a simulation of a large number of deals is done by software and I make it a habit to check a few of the generated deals, whether they make sense or not. All your quarrels are unlikely in a random simulation and matter perhaps on 3 of the 1000 deals generated. They do not affect the overall result. And by the way what a silly conjecture is "if South gets all the decisions right" ? Is this South supposed to be party of the next cheating scandal? Rainer Herrmann

I think 5♥ is clear. Of course you could be down or 7♣ could be cold, but anything else looks too optimistic to me. I would never pass or DBL and I do not think it is close. I would hit 5♠ only in the pass-out position. Rainer Herrmann

I did another simulation (1000) deals based on the North hand My specification for South 3 or 4 card support in ♠ 8-10p including distributional points for short side suits as follows If South had 3 card support in ♠ 123p (doubleton, singleton, void, but voids were very rare and South was usually short in ♥) If South had 4 card support in ♠ 135p for short suits Result game in ♠ was on in 222 deals 3♠ made in 588 deals This confirms my suspicion that a game try is against the odds. Rainer Herrmann

Why are hearts likely to play a trick better than spades opposite a game-try? I admit that "likely" may be an overbid. I did a simulation (1000 deals) with the South hand specifying 2 and 3 for the small cards I specified for North 5 or 6 cards in ♠ At least 4 cards in ♥, but ♥ never longer than ♠ 13-15 HCP Result: 3♠ made on 721 deals 4♥ made on 442 deals 4♠ made on 375 deals So when game makes double dummy, game in ♥ was almost 18% more likely to make than in ♠ Also if you accept my restraints for the simulation, 4♥ can hardly be criticized vulnerable at IMPs As you can see from these statistics playing in ♥ had on average an advantage over ♠, but this advantage was reduced because surprisingly often it was better to play in ♠, when for example trumps broke 4-1 in ♥ One more consideration: North may have bid 3♥ to find out which game to play rather than whether to play game. If you bid now 3♠ over 3♥ you can say good bye to your 4-4 fit in ♥. Rainer Herrmann

If I would do the same, How can I blame him :) I'd rather overbid than play in the wrong strain. Rainer Herrmann

The question is: Is 3♥ forcing and if yes, how is South supposed to show that he prefers to play in ♥. It is true that you would like to sign off, but in ♥. Unfortunately this is not possible if 3♥ is forcing. As it turns out it does not matter whether you play in ♥ or ♠, but if anybody can anticipate this it is North not South. From South perspective North is more likely to have a much stronger hand with 5-4 or 5-5 in the majors than the actual one. From South perspective with a likely trick more in ♥, I would rather overbid and be in game in ♥ than playing 3♠. Rainer Herrmann

West with 3 aces and 4135 (1098x, A, AJx, AJxxx) might have bid more than 2♠ or might have bid 5♠ Is West not 3 times as likely to hold 1098x, Ax, Ax, AJxxx, if you assume he has this distribution? Would West bid differently without the jack of ♦ or East with the jack? Running the ten looks right to me. Rainer Herrmann Yes, but E might not have played low on the 10♦. a tad embarrassing if declarer has the second diamond and partner now has to ruff with say doubleton KQ of trumps. Yeah, and if East does not have the jack of ♦, a tad embarrassing if declarer has QJ of ♦ and partner has to ruff with say doubleton KQ of trumps instead of putting up the king and shoot a club back through declarer. Rainer Herrmann

North 100% He needs ideal cards. Partner never has them. Opponents silence makes it likely that partner has minor suit values. It is not the end of the world if you miss a vulnerable game on a combined 18-20 HCP. Make North slightly stronger, a major suit queen or a void in ♣ and 3 little ♦ and the bidding would be alright. Rainer Herrmann

2♦ followed by ♠ raise, or a jump raise if that is played as weaker. Simple and effective. Leave the remainder to partner. I would not use Jacoby 2NT, even if it were available. Rainer Herrmann

West with 3 aces and 4135 (1098x, A, AJx, AJxxx) might have bid more than 2♠ or might have bid 5♠ Is West not 3 times as likely to hold 1098x, Ax, Ax, AJxxx, if you assume he has this distribution? Would West bid differently without the jack of ♦ or East with the jack? Running the ten looks right to me. Rainer Herrmann

And what would he do with 5♠ (or even 6♠ with a bad suit)? If he is short in ♦ he is likely to have more ♠. Otherwise assuming that this hand would have bid 2♠ with 4 cards I would expect partner to show ♣ support with only 4♠ and shortage in ♦. Give him the queen of ♣ and the rest of his few points in ♠, KQxxx or Kxxxxx. If I knew partner to be is short in ♦, I would certainly raise ♠. Rainer Herrmann