rhm

The major advantage of transfers are that you create extra bidding sequences for responder. After all responder can decide whether to pass the transfer or bid on. This advantage applies over any strength no-trump and conserves bidding space when responder is strong (or invitational). But responder needs less and is therefor more likely to be "strong" opposite a strong no-trump. Try to show a strong major-minor two-suiter below 3NT without transfers or try to show an invitational hand with 5 ♥ without transfers (opener has 4 ♠). Right-siding the contract is an important, though secondary issue, but of course this gets also more important the stronger your no-trump range is. It is also a good idea for responder to describe his hand if he will be dummy instead of opener, who will likely declare. One disadvantage of transfers is of course that opponents have slightly more capabilities to interfere. Again this gets more serious the lower your no-trump range is. So there is a diminishing return for transfers the lower your no trump range gets, but is probably worthwhile even with weak no-trumps. I do not play transfers when I play mini-notrump. Rainer Herrmann

Only if opener has 5 ♠ are chances for game worth pursuing at matchpoints. This is against the odds and even if opener has 5 ♠, where opener is likely to accept any invitation, 4♠ might fail. Hope that no game makes and Pass. This is somewhat inconsistent because you wanted to invite, but no continuation is safe and you are now probably in a superior part score, which may be hard to reach at other tables. If 4♠ is the only game in a 4-3 fit, 170 or 200 should be an excellent score. If you continue, I think 2NT is better than 3♠ since opener is likely to rebid a 5 card major and 4♠ on a 4-3 fit, if you raise to 3 ♠ looks against the odds. A simulation (1000 deals) supports this assessment: Opener balanced, 14-16 with 4 or 5 spades and spades longer than hearts: 3NT made double dummy only in 303 out of 1000 deals 4♠ made in 450 out of 1000 deals Average number of tricks in notrump was 7.8 and 2NT made only in 606 deals. Average number of tricks in ♠ was 9.35 and 2♠ made on 964 deals and 3♠ on 780 deals 2♠ was safer than 1NT, which made only in 832 deals It is the same old story: At matchpoints protect your plus score. This would be tougher vulnerable at IMPs Rainer Herrmann

I can't imagine that will work, the auction has blueprinted the defense: ♥ over to righty, ♣ back through. This seems a bit pessimistic. Of course a ♥ to RHO and a ♣ back might lead to a quick defeat. However, this is not certain. After all RHO has opened the bidding and LHO has responded 1NT. It is anything but clear who has the ♣ace. Any ♣ honor in partner's hand will help and partner is marked with something outside of the red suits. Rainer Herrmann

I find an auction difficult to evaluate if I do not understand it What agreements were in place where responder has a near game force and bids 1nt over 1♥ and then gives a simple preference over a 2♦ rebid? This is certainly not standard, where this sequence tends to show a much weaker responding hand Maybe 1NT was already game forcing. My knowledge is that this pair uses a variant of Polish Club. However the standard opening bid with the East hand is 1♣ not 1♥ in Polsih Club. Rainer Herrmann

Partner's bidding is strange. He has no opening bid and a weak two in ♦ was probably unavailable (2♦ was something else) Coming in against this auction with a 5 card minor suit is harakiri. There is no need to bid with a strong suit either because partner would be on lead against a no-trump contract, so you usually keep quiet. It follows partner must have bid on a broken long ♦ suit, not suitable for a preempt, at least six or maybe seven cards in length. RHO 3♥ must be based on a good heart suit and by inference club support. Otherwise he would certainly not bid 3♥, when he refused to rebid his ♥ over 2♦ If partner had a weak 2♦ bid available the bidding is even stranger. Which hand justifies passing first but then coming in over 1NT? Probably a reasonable 4 card major. If he has 4 cards in hearts they can not be good, If it is ♠ I would have preferred a double over 1NT, but without ♣ this might not be universal. I bid 3NT Something like Ax xxx KJxxxx Qx would make the contract almost cold. Rainer Herrmann

4♠ was a good bid at match points. At IMPs it is much closer. Once your partner opens 1NT you are the captain, not your partner, and I can not see any breach of partnership discipline nor why you need to consult him here. It is possible but quite unlikely that you can beat 3NT. 3♠ immediately might or might not have been a better bid. If you jump in such a situation you are telling opponents that you do have a long suit and do not mind getting doubled. 2♠ is in fact more likely to attract a penalty double, should opponents have no clear action. The main attraction of 3♠ is that this makes it more difficult to find a ♥ fit. Over 3♠ LHO opponent would probably double (action, showing values) and RHO is still likely to bid 3NT. Now what? Rainer Herrmann

2NT, a stronger invitation than a ♣ raise. A good bridge player will rarely pass 2NT. He will either accept the invitation by bidding above 3♣ or sign off in 3♣, in particular with shortage in ♥ If notrump is right it is more likely that it needs to played form this side than from partners. I do not like ubiquitous cue bids when there is a sound alternative. Pass is out opposite a 2 level overcall. Rainer Herrmann

Give LHO something like ♠K653 ♥T43 ♦K9 ♣Q972 If you play a ♦ at trick 2 the defense plays 3 rounds of ♦ and LHO discards a ♥, threatening to ruff a ♥ unless declarer draws trumps. Either way declarer will loose 3 ♥ tricks and 2♦ tricks One down -200 Rainer Herrmann

You must loose 4 top tricks in the red suit. To avoid loosing 3 tricks in ♥ we must assume East to have both ♥ top honors Giving West double we need to assume that West has one top honor in ♦ plus the ♠ king and the ♣ queen. If West has 4 clubs he must have a doubleton in a red suit. If it is in ♥ and you do not draw trumps you will incur a ruff, but if you draw trumps they will have time to establish spade tricks. It follows that you can make the contract only if ♥ are 3-3. Play a ♣ to the 8. (you can make against a singleton ♣ 2 , 5 or 7 with East) Then you should play a heart (not a ♦) from dummy. You aim for 5 trump trick (a spade ruff in hand), 2 spade tricks and either 2 tricks in ♥ or both red queens. Against 4 clubs with West you can make the contract only against best defense if West is 4=3=2=4 with K8 or K9 in ♦. Otherwise the defense can force the dummy. The defense plays 3 rounds of ♦ and should you put up the ♦ queen, West discards his third ♥ If you make the contract do not complain for some time about hard luck :P Rainer Herrmann

Strange where are ♣3 and ♣2 ? It seems to me that partner must have them and tried to fool declarer with returning ♣10, knowing that declarer would duck. When the ♣8 and ♣7 appeared partner rightly concluded that you could stand a switch to ♥. You now need to switch back to ♣ before the ♥ are established. Declarers hand: ♠Kxx ♥A9654 ♦Ax ♣Q84 Nice defense. Rainer Herrmann

Here are some alternative conclusions that partner might draw: 1. You are too weak for LM (forcing to 4S on your own requires more than competing to 4S over their 4H). 2. Your suits are too weak for LM. 3. You really have 7 clubs with a side 4-card spade suit, bidding it just in case on the way to 5♣. Ok your partner will know your clubs are longer than your spades, but I don't think he is likely to play you for a 3-loser hand with great clubs and good spades. (I would guess explantion no. 1 if I were your partner.) Your strength must match the level to which you compete. Bidding 3♣ can not be weak, when opponents preempt, and if you reverse later into another suit, possibly at the 4 level, you have to be at least as strong as for Leaping Michaels. Should partner assume I have a 4 card side suit that is not necessarily bad. After all I do have a disparity between my two suits. It is not clear whether you should prefer ♠ opposite 3 card support, but it is certainly scary. This could easily turn out to be a disaster. Even breaks seem not be the norm on this deal. :) Anyway bidding ♣ then ♠ gives you at least a chance to stop in 4♠ when it is right Many have expressed they would continue over 4 ♠ with 5 ♣ when using Leaping Michaels. Essentially they are using a convention to tell and then overrule partner. Maybe Leaping Michaels is not such a clever idea then. Rainer Herrmann

You and your partner play Leaping Michaels. Do you use it for this hand? If you do use it, partner bids 4 spades. Do you think you are worth another call? There is a lot to be said for n o t using Leaping Michaels here. Chances that a quiet 3♣ bid will get passed out is remote with 12HCP and a void in ♥. If you later bid ♠ (say over 4♥ from LHO or 3NT from partner) an expert partner will wonder why you did not use Leaping Michaels and should come up with the right explanation. If the bidding gets competitive and partner bids 5 ♣ over 4♥ I will be happy not having given a blueprint of my distribution. Rainer Herrmann

Any takers? What about ducking the ♣? What this all ends up with is backwash squeeze against East. Let us look at the main line a ♣ continuation at trick 2 and this time East discards a ♠. Cash the ♥ queen Play a trump to the ace. Play 2 ropunds of ♠ Play 2 rounds of ♥, discarding ♣ ruff the last ♣ Now endplay West with a trump. West wins perforce and returns a ♣ Dummy discards a ♠ and East is backwash squeezed. Rainer Herrmann

Okay, let's take an example. Say the auction goes: 1♣ - (3♥) to me. I hold: ♠xxx ♥Kxx ♦AQxxx ♣xx What do I do? In a strong notrump system, I have an easy pass. Partner will almost always have a weak notrump, or a roughly equivalent hand with long clubs. We have no particular need to compete opposite that. In a weak notrump system, if partner has a strong notrump we are almost sure to have game. If partner has a 4(31)5 12-count we are probably going for a number if I do anything but pass. What's my call? The point is that in a strong notrump system, if I have a game force opposite partner's (very common) balanced range than I have a game force opposite anything partner might have. If I have less than this, I am quite safe to pass because partner is in the 11-14 range with super high frequency. In a weak notrump system, if I have a game force opposite partner's (very common) balanced range then we might be in huge trouble if/when partner has an unbalanced minimum. So do I bid or pass? Keep in mind that I can't rely on partner to always balance on a flat 15-17. 1♣ - (3♥) ♠KQTxx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣xxx If partner had opened a strong notrump, it would be obvious to bid 3♠ here. If partner had opened a weak notrump, it would be obvious to pass. What if partner opens 1♣? In a strong notrump system, it's obvious to pass. In a weak notrump system I guess I'm supposed to bid (in case partner has a strong notrump), but what if opener holds: ♠x ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx AQxxx? Guess I go for 500 opposite air? Even if you think there are comparable problems for a strong notrump system on different hands (I disagree) the original post was about variable notrump. The fact that the problem hands are different and that you need to take different actions on the same auction with these hands implies that there's more to playing different ranges based on seat/vulnerability than appears at first glance. It is a fair point you are making against a weak notrump and the same Fred made in a previous thread. Nevertheless even though I tend to play strong notrump myself I am not sure it prooves much. It is well known that weak notrump has advantages and disadvantages. This particular problem is of quite low frequency at least if you compare it to the problems a weak notrumper passes to opponents regularly. Your partner must open with a minor next opponent must have the right hand to come in with a preempt, always much more dangerous when one opponent has already bid, and you must sit there with a borderline hand to come in, with no clear bid. Your first hand qualifies but your second one does not After 1♣ - (3♥) ♠KQTxx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣xxx I would always double and expect early Christmas opposite ♠x ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx AQxxx and it is not so clear whether a negative double or 3♠ is the superior bid opposite a strong notrump. Which only proves your example hands have to be constructed carefully and are rare in practice. Where I agree completely is that you have to play different systems if you vary your notrump. In the short term this may be a disadvantage, memory burden and all that. In the long term it may give you many advantages having experienced all the different aspects of the game. Players, who have played different systems are usually more competent like people who have lived in different cultures. Rainer Herrmann

Pavlicek's notes say a minor opening is 3+. PAVCO notes. There's no reference to "better minor with 3-3". Several expert references on SAYC on the net, including Cascade's, make no mention to better minor with 3-3. Edited: nor does the ACBL SAYC booklet: ACBL SAYC Where are you getting this stuff? Really? Do you read what you quote yourself? The ACBL SAYC you reference clearly says on the first page under General Approach: "Normally open 1♣ with 3–3 in the minors." Pavlicek has a bidding guide already mentioned and wrote in his analysis *This may seem remote after the 1 D opening, but it’s actually a reasonable chance. In Standard American, the general practice with 3-3 in the minors is to bid the better minor, though in close cases (e.g., D K-x-x C Q-x-x) it is normal to bid 1 C. On this deal there can be no “close” cases, so if West has 3=4=3=3 shape, 1 D would be expected. You did not even mention what the bidding system was and my impression is that the majority of tournament players do not open 1♦ when 3-3 in the minors just what the ACBL SAYC says. Admittedly I was not happy when Pavlicek set out his solution, because I felt he also could have made it more clear that "original" Standard American opens better minor when 3-3 in the minors, because for people outside of the US it is not so clear what is "normal". rainer Herrmann

LOL I also recognize this name as answering some of these problems before. Here's a link. Pavlicek can discuss this better than I'll ever be able to: It's problem 5. Pavco I did in deed not remember the problem. Nevertheless Pavlicek clearly stated the conditions of his contest, namely Standard American and gave system notes for it, while you did not. In this case this had a clear bearing on the solution, which I overlooked when I participated in the original contest. Pavlicek's solution, while artistic, is dependent on that you open 1♦ with 3-3 in the minors (Better minor based on Standard American). If West opens 1♣ with 3-3 in the minors, as many do (for example ACBL SAYC system notes), then Pavliceks solution, while artistic is not best, because a 3-3 break in ♦ is not possible. (What Pavlicek calls the base line). In this case my solution is clearly better. If you copy a problem from somewhere else at least you should do it properly Rainer Herrmann

I forgot to mention if West is 2=3=6=2 and gives East a ♦ ruff, when in with the ♥ ace, you simply ruff your diamonds on the table and discard thelast one on the ♠ ace. Rainer Herrmann

Obviously West must hold the ♥ ace for success From the bidding it is possible that clubs are 2-2 and that West has no more than 6 cards in the majors. In the play you may have a guess whether to play West for 3-3 in the majors or for 4 ♥ and 2 ♠. Win in hand and play a heart. Assume West goes in with ♥ ace to return a second club. Win in dummy Now the play continues: ♠Ace , ♠ ruff ♥ King, ♥ruff ♦ Ace, ♥ ruff or ♠ ruff, if West is 3-3 in the majors small♦ to West and West in end played If West ducks at trick two the play continues in similar fashion: Win ♥ King, play ♠ ace and discard a ♥ from hand Now ♠ ruff, ♣ to dummy, ♥ ruff ♦ to dummy's ace, ♥ ruff small ♦ to West and West is end played He can cash his ♥ ace, on which you discard a ♦, but ten has to open the ♦. Rainer Herrmann

Partner is showing a maximum not a diamond stack. But with a maximum and a reasonable diamond holding he might have ventured 3NT. I would pass and take the money. I doubt that there is game for our side even though the values are present and you probably have a reasonable club fit. I would expect partner not to double with 5 hearts or 3 spades or 6 clubs, so his double should show at least 2 diamonds. There is a slight risk that they will make 3Dx but it is only slight.

Did you consider getting too high if partner has 9 or 8? Most of us believe very strongly in being quite aggressive opposite a 1NT opener regarding inviting and bidding game. Also it's quite wrong for your simulation to include 5 cards in the minor we open, partner would certainly invite opposite a minor suit opening with 5 card support and a 10 count. Of course I considered that. But your argument is like staying in bed, then your chance of being overrun by a bus is minimized. If you underbid of course your chance of going down is less likely. My point was that this hand is worth 1NT, but should partner invite I will decline and may go down if it turns out that 7 tricks are the limit. This can happen to any minimum notrump opening bid and the under bidders will have a field day. I just ran a simulation and changed partner's hand to 8 or 9 HCP and 2NT made in 704 out of 1000 cases. (Average number of tricks per deal were 8; 311 times 3NT would still have come home) With regard to 5 card suits: Large double dummy results do not support the notion that you should add a point for a five card suit If you have a fit in a suit, then opponents frequently will have a good fit too and opponents have the opening lead. They are ahead in the race of developing a suit in a notrump contract. I would certainly not add anything to a hand with few aces and few intermediates where my 5 card suit is only so so.

Being in agreement only with NickRW and me is, I suppose, much the same as being alone. I'm surprised that you got such a high success rate. Did your balanced 10-counts include 5332 shapes? If so, presumably some of them would be upgraded to 11-counts. Is this clear? Obviously, the defence don't always make the right lead or find the best defence thereafter, but there will also be occasions where declarer has a two-way finesse, or has to guess which suit to play first, or can make only by playing against the odds. My simulation allowed for a 5 card minor (but not a 5 card major). Double dummy analysis at least does not support the idea of adding a point for a 5 card suit and it also does not see 4333 much of a disadvantage at a notrump contract compared to other distributions. Anyway partner's hand opposite this hand consisted most of the time of kings and queens, which are slightly overrated at notrump and it would not occur to me to upgrade such hands from 10 to 11 points. Of course double dummy analysis works both way. With regard to double dummy analysis favoring the defense this depends a bit on the contract and level. For an analysis you can look at http://crystalwebsite.tripod.com/double_dummy_accurate.htm The general conclusion from this website is that double dummy analysis is quite close to average results at table, but in 3NT declarer tends to make about 0.19 tricks more at the table than according to double dummy analysis.

Since I seem to be alone in believing that 1NT is the right opening bid and opening 1D and rebidding notrump a clear underbid, I did a simulation (1000 deals). I specified for partner a balanced hand with exactly 10 HCP. This should be a fair test. If you open 1NT you will play 3NT while if you open 1D and rebid 1NT you are likely to miss game. I also specified that partner will have at most 4 cards in a major. Result: Double dummy 3NT would make in 592 cases and fail in 408 cases. The average number of tricks available for declarer in a notrump contract was 8.7 tricks Since double dummy analysis clearly favors the defense the result at the table would be even more in favor of 3NT making.

1NT totally obvious.