rhm

I agree. If you play forcing passes in anything but clearcut cases (you are strong like in a game forcing situation, they are not) you - create a lot of dubious sequences with the likelihood for misunderstandings - require complex rules to remember - usually only shift the headache to partner to make the final error for little gain if at all. Finally I have never understood why opponents at favorable vulnerability can not have game (or slam) in hand. Forcing passes are overrated. Rainer Herrmann

It would not occur to me with a source of fast tricks to sign off, vulnerable at IMPs with the North hand and it would not occur to me with the South hand not to respect partner's sign-off after having given a good description of the hand. After all North can see the vulnerability just as much as South. North hand is the very type of hand where 3NT makes with few HCP. If North had the KQ in ♠ instead of the ace, 3NT is more likely to go down. Aces are underrated even at 3NT. Rainer Herrmann

To me 2N looked attractive on this hand. My question to you : What were your specifications for the simulation. Assume this hand bids 2N: Is it still possible to end up in ♥, when ♥ would be better? I think the answer is clearly yes, but it is not clear how often you would end up in notrump, where you should end up in ♥ or you end up in 3 ♥ where a ♥ raise might put you in game. (But the opposite may also be true, game goes down and after 2N you stop in 3 ♥. Assume this hand bids 3♥. Is it still possible to end up in 3N, when 3N would be best? It seems to me the answer is almost always No. Another interesting question: 3N might be down more often with the right opening lead. But how often will it make on a ♠ lead? Rainer Herrmann

I would not have opened the bidding, but I am aware that this is nowadays a minority view. (The hand is not worth 12 HCP) I think standard is to rebid 1♠ over 1♥, unless that is supposed to guarantee an unbalanced hand. Without this agreement anything else tends to deny ♠ and 1NT does not appeal anyway with two small in ♦. If partner makes a non forcing rebid over 1♠ (e.g. he preferences into ♣), you have to pass, because you can not correct to ♥, which would show more in standard. Rainer Herrmann

It does not look counterintuitive to me. Your major chance is the finesse, not the drop. But you require 4 tricks from the finesse. In ♠ that is far less likely than in ♦, where only a singleton ♦ queen with East will hurt you. So play for the drop in ♠ and finesse in ♦. If you were in 2NT and needed only 3 tricks from the finesse it would be correct to play for the drop in ♦ Rainer Herrmann

so after P P X P are you ready to pass? Yes because partner wanted to double TWO diamonds and is stil doubling them into game after hearing a raise! He expects me to have a bad hand with a diamond void! How do you know in deed and how many do you expect 3 ♦ to go down? The fact that partner passed 2♦ does not guarantee he wanted to pass a reopening DBL from you. In fact if you would give this sequence to people without this prior discussion and the diamond void in your hand, I doubt that most would interpret this as a penalty double in the first place after the raise. And even if it would be a clearcut penalty double. which an auction where opponents have raised each other rarely is at the part-score level: Partner may infer that you are short, but he may still not expect you to be void (which is a big difference) and he will certainly not expect that you have no aces and his shortage in spades may not even help him to get ruffs or spade tricks for the defense. All indications are that 3♦ will be very close to making, particularly after the DBL reveals the trump break to a competent declarer. Rainer Herrmann

so after P P X P are you ready to pass? No, I would still take it out into 4♣. 3♦ doubled is much more likely to make than going down 2 or more. The odds you are laying against yourself are crazy, if you pass. Yet many make this mistake over and over again. This hand is terrible for defending (no quick tricks). Rainer Herrmann

Why? Do you really need an answer to this? Read the rest of my previous entry you did not quote. This is supposed to be "Advanced and Expert Class Bridge" not "Beginner Discussion" To avoid a misunderstanding I do not claim that 2♥ is clearcut and DBL wrong. Only I can see an argument for both philosophies and I slightly prefer to rebid 2♥ with 5-4 in the majors. What is more important as usual is that you have an agreement what you would do with 4 cards in ♥. One advantage of DBL is that partner may want to pass. This is far better argument for DBL than that you "show" ♦. Rainer Herrmann

Well, maybe because ♥ are much more important than ♦. Few would double with 5=5=3=0, why wouldn't you show you have ♦ too with a DBL? If partner has 4 (or more) ♥ and an invitational hand it may be quite important for him to know whether you have 4 cards in ♥ and he can invite with 3♥ or not. Double would indicate something like 5♠=3♥=4♦=1♣ or 6♠=3♥=3♦=1♣ This is anything but silly Rainer Herrmann

For me - and I believe in standard neg doubles - Dbl then 2D shows a weaker hand than the one shown. I double and then pass, misfit. How can double followed by 2♦ be weaker than double followed by pass? What is opener supposed to bid with 2=3=3=5 and no spade honor? Rainer Herrmann

Well they pay bonuses for game and slam. Of course you do not know where you are going when you pick up a hand, but you should immediately evaluate how suitable your hand is for a high level contract. If I downgrade a hand and make a trick more in a low level part-score, who cares? Precision at the game and slam level is what matters This is just too simplistic: HCP works reasonable in low level notrump contracts. For game decisions, particular suit contracts HCP is a poor guide and even you indirectly admit this by speaking about numerous "adjustments". I am not so sure you would make one notrump, but yes HCP works well at the one-notrump-level (BIG DEAL!) That's why I downgraded to 16 points Differently to you I would be quite worried to go down in 5 spades! I open 1 Diamond and I am not in trouble I would be worried that partner will consider his hand not worth an invite (7-8 HCP with few controls) and we end up in 1NT and 3 overtricks Of course I would Rainer Herrmann

Nonsense. The question what a hand is worth is derived from its trick taking potential in play not from standard point count, which often is a reasonable and sometimes a poor approximation to that. The popularity of standard point count has more to do with its simplicity than with its precision. For example point count adds nothing for useful intermediates. It is well known that aces are undervalued by standard point count and lower honors overvalued; yes even for notrump contracts Consequently I expect a partner, who puts me in 6NT without an ace in his hand to have full values for his bid. 17 HCP are not sufficient in this case opposite a one notrump opening. There are 15 point balanced hands which should be downgraded and others which should be upgraded. Upgrading this hand will get you to many more good game contracts, which will not be reached otherwise, than it will get you too high, for the simple reason that the hand is worth more. The value of this hand is worth about 18 HCP for game in notrump and about 19 HCP in a suit contract. That this hand will be worth even more at the slam level is an additional argument to upgrade the hand. Bidding now 7NT may be the percentage action but is an obvious shot in the dark. Much better to evaluate a hand first properly and then tell partner what your hand is worth. Rainer Herrmann

Why? Dummy should not be short in ♣ since he passed 2♣, your partner must be. Tricks will not come from ruffs in dummy. For the bidding to make sense LHO should be 2♠=5♥=3♦=3♣ Partner 2♠=5♥=5♦=1♣ RHO 5♠=3♥=1♦=4♣ I would bid 3♦. 2♠ probably goes down on a ♦ lead, but it could be close. Rainer Herrmann

You are not asked but this does not mean you should not look at your hand. It is clear from the fact that partner has no aces he must have at least 18 HCP to bid like that. Otherwise among others 2 aces could be missing. If partner is not balanced and has a long suit it is almost certain that you have 13 tricks I did a simulation (1000 deals) specifying for South 18-20 HCP, balanced with at least one 4 card major, but no 5 card major. Random simulation means that South was a heavy favorite to be minimum. Result was that 13 tricks were available in nearly 80% of all deals. I was amazed how often there were 13 tricks even when the ♦ suit could not be established. Now it is true that double dummy analysis heavily favors declarer in a grand slam. So the single dummy chance making 7NT will be somewhat closer to 70% So the answer is you need a lot of courage to bid 7NT, but you are a heavy favorite to win IMPs. Most Bridge players would open this hand 1NT without second thought. I believe the true mistake is in opening this hand 1NT and the fact that you consider raising to 7NT more or less proves this. The hand should be upgraded to a balanced 18-19 and opened 1♦ with the intention to jump rebid in notrump. This is at worst a slight overbid for notrump game evaluation but is certainly correct for suit evaluation and for slam purposes. Rainer Herrmann

Win and play a ♣ to the queen. If East wins and plays a heart, ruff and play a second club Assume East has 4 ♣. Otherwise there is not much of a problem. You require East to have at least 3 cards in ♦. You try to prepare for a trump coup and may give up on the ♠ finesse. Play 3 rounds of diamonds immediately If East has more than 3 diamonds give up on the trump coup and take the spade finesse. If diamonds are 3-3 play a fourth ♦ and if East does not ruff, discard a ♠. Ruff a ♥ and play ace and queen of ♠. If East returns a ♠ play the queen. Win any return in hand and play second trump. If East returns a diamond win with the queen, play a club honor and if trumps do not break play the queen of ♠ next yourself. (The only correct card if West is 3=7=2=1) If this is taken with the king of ♠ you have another late entry to the table with the jack of ♠. Whatever is returned does not matter You now have full control to ruff one ♥ and one diamond if East has 4 ♦ or 2 ♥ if diamonds are 3-3 You finally return to the jack of ♠ for the trump coup. If the queen of ♠ is refused, play a ♦ next to the table for a first ♥ ruff cash the ace of ♠ and play 2 further rounds of ♦ and ruff a red card. Finally exit with your last ♠ at trick 11 If East ducks with ace of ♣ play a second ♣ to the king and play the queen of ♠. The play is essentially the same as when East wins and returns a spade Rainer Herrmann

4♠ The hand is worth an invitational raise (not a preemptive raise to 3♠). But since I am not going to defend 4♥ I will accept my own invitation. Your spade honors are useless in defense. Most of the time LHO will not have an easy decision if you bid 4 ♠ immediately. He is unlikely to have ♠ tricks Bidding anything less and then 4♠ over 4♥ will make double easy when this is best for the opponents. Raising ♠ and then passing 4♥ is even worse in the long run. Rainer Herrmann

Well then, go ask your very strong opponents what you should play instead of making useless posts like this one. After 5 rounds of ♣ RHO will have to let go some guards, and you can still lose 1 trick. LHO has to play into one of your tenaces. I'm pretty sure that I'm not down yet. LHO will switch to ♥ after the fifth ♣ and the last 8 cards of RHO are ♠Kx, ♥KTxx, ♦Kx, ♣-- . I do not see how you want to avoid to loose 2 more tricks Rainer Herrmann

It is likely that RHO has the remaining honors and I do not think I can make the contract if one of the kings is with LHO. The danger is if declarer plays ace and another in ♠ and then in ♦ RHO might duck both if he was 4=4=3=2. Suddenly all his kings would make. It seems best to cash the last ♣ and see RHO next discard. You discard a second diamond from dummy. RHO can not discard a ♥ even from 5 cards or you start playing a ♥ to the jack and establish 4 ♥ tricks and you will get another from an end-play at the end whatever he does. So RHO must discard another ♠ or ♦ whereupon you cash the ♠ ace and ♦ ace and lead the ♠ ten. RHO is helpless. If he still can duck the ♠ ten he will have to take the ♦ jack. If RHO takes the ♠ king and returns a low ♦ you overtake the jack with the queen. Whatever RHO does you get 4 tricks in the red suits, 3 tricks in ♠ and 2 in ♣ Rainer Herrmann

Modern preemptive tactics have their place at matchpoints and to some extent at IMPs. They were not invented for total points, particularly when vulnerable. "Perfect" is a description in the eyes of the beholder After you payed for a few telephone numbers I doubt that you would still use this attribute and you might start to pay a little bit more respect for the vulnerability and you may start to accommodate your agreements to fit the scoring and the vulnerability. Rainer Herrmann

This seems to be the majority view here and while most seem to have no problem using at least half a dozen different sophisticated meanings for double (penalty, take-out, negative, support, action, Lightner to name just a few) depending on circumstances, few seem to have grasped the need for choice of game bids. Choice of game bids apply when no trump suit has been agreed yet, but more than one strain is on offer: Just ask yourself what strategy is more likely to be required and more likely to come up when no trump suit has been agreed yet: Play the cheapest available bid, which can not be interpreted as a trump suit, as choice of games and only higher bids in this category as slam tries or Play everything including the cheapest available bid, which does not suggest a trump suit, as a slam try. Rainer Herrmann

2♠ is plenty. Those who suggest otherwise have probably never played rubber for high stakes. Rainer Herrmann

That sort of hand is why I wanted to know what 3♦ meant. If it was fourth-suit forcing, 3NT seems odd with ♠Ax and ♦Qx. Partner's lead of ♦J from Jxx is even odder, but especially so if declarer is supposed to have values there. There's no particular reason for declarer to play for that. Finding ♥K in the same hand as ♦10 is less likely than finding ♥K onside, and the finesse doesn't require him to read the ending. Anyway, I don't think his hand can be exactly that. Wouldn't he just take a diamond finesse, playing for the hand that led the jack to hold the ten as well? If he's 2425, AJ QJxx Qx AQxxx seems more likely, but we should still take our king. The fact that declarer paused after winning the ♦ queen argues strongly against that he holds 3 cards in ♦. The fact that a competent player cashes the ♠ ace before taking the ♥ finesse suggests that he either holds the ♠ jack or he has entry troubles to the table, in which case I presume declarer got 1=4=2=6. Of course I do not know whether declarer overlooked the criss cross squeeze possibility or rejected it. Even for competent players a criss cross squeeze is difficult to spot and execute at the table. According to the account declarer started to think a f t e r he won the first trick. He must be a pretty fast thinker if he saw the criss cross squeeze and rejected it immediately in favor of other lines. (Maybe the ♥ finesse is slightly more likely to work, but I would think twice before I would reject the chance of executing a criss cross squeeze at the table. If the ♥ finesse wins you are too low anyway) For declarer to assume that a competent defender would lead the ♦ jack from Jack, ten empty against this bidding is a bit naive in my opinion. Many would lead a low card. Rainer Herrmann

Well, if declarer has 2 cards in spades 6♠ must be easy and if you duck he has probably 13 tricks. If declarer has a singleton ♠ ace, 6♠ is not so easy and there might be a red suit trick in addition to a trump in 4♠. Here ducking might win. You need 3 defensive tricks So count in ♠ looks important to me. However, would declarer kill the entries to his hand so fast when he had a doubleton ace of ♠ before taking the ♥ finesse? My guess is declarer has something like ♠AJ,♥QJxx,♦Qx,♣AKxxx and the ♦jack killed the straight forward red suit squeeze after cashing the ace of ♥ (Vienna coup) and running black suit winners Declarer overlooked that he could still have made 13 tricks on a criss cross squeeze by winning the first diamond on the table and discarding dummy's low ♥ on the clubs before running ♠. So take your ♥ king. Rainer Herrmann

Terrible slam Play a ♣ to the queen. If no ♣ jack drops Play ♥ ace and ruff a ♥ low If the ♥ King drops draw trumps Otherwise play a ♣ to the ♣ ten and ruff a heart with the ♣ ace ruff a ♠ and draw trumps and run ♥ If ♣ jack drops run the ♥ jack if not covered because you can not afford more than one ruff in dummy. If the slam comes home do not complain about hard luck for the next 3 months. Rainer Herrmann

Better to congratulate yourself for your braveness when partner instead turns up with ♠KQJx, ♥-,♦Axxx,♣AJxxx I prefer to fight it out at 5♠, if necessary. Rainer Herrmann Partner has minimums way more than he has maximums! The question is what a minimum double should look like at unfavorable vulnerability at the 4 level. To me your hand looks like a normal minimum takeout double at the one level. And if you consider your hand a minimum double at the 4 level, mine is certainly not a maximum and the range becomes extremely wide. Catering for the absolute minimum in such a scenario will lead to far more missed slams than taking the middle ground with a slightly more optimistic view will lead to minus scores. Rainer Herrmann