rhm

It depends what you consider interesting. For a beginner different deals are interesting than for seasoned tournament players (this forum) and real experts may consider yet other boards interesting. Restricted choice may baffle a novice but a seasoned tournament player encounters it in any tournament session. The subject has been beaten to death. If you find this deal interesting I may have over-judged your capabilities. Rainer Herrmann

The argument maybe obvious but is weak. I can see how lack of information increases guesswork, but lack of information does not make a decision more difficult. Rainer Herrmann

This is often claimed and rarely underpinned by arguments. What is true is that opening leads have frequently a high impact on the result. Nobody can expect to get them right all the time, because it often involves some guesswork. Even experts sometimes lead the only card which allows a contract to be made. But guessing is not a synonym for difficult and the few general principles - not superstitions - underlying opening leads are not that difficult to grasp. Rainer Herrmann

Wrong forum. There are at least two forums more suitable for such "amusing" hands: They are called "Intermediate and Advanced" and "Novice and Beginner" There such hands might entice some interest. Rainer Herrmann

I am inclined to give East the ♥A, since he might have made a weak jump without it holding good diamonds and a singleton spade at these colors. Obviously another diamond promotes a trick if West is not out of trumps but drawing trumps you will either loose your diamond trick or control. Play your remaining trump honor from dummy and another one. It seems also unlikely that a competent East would discard a club from 4 cards on the second round of trumps. When East discards a club play 2 rounds of clubs. Unless East is 6-6 in the minors West will follow to these. Then 2 further round of trumps. When you cash your last trump the scenario is something like this: [hv=pc=n&s=shkq4dcq7&w=s9hxxdcj2&n=sth987dqc&e=shxxxdjtc]399|300[/hv] where the heart ace could be on either side. East can not afford a diamond discard since you then can cash the diamond queen, so will have to come down to 2 hearts. You discard your club loser and now play a heart from hand and the defense is helpless. If they duck you simply continue with a low heart. This line looses only if East controls club and West has the ace of hearts. But then East is 1-1-6-5 and could have beaten the contract with a heart ruff a long time ago. Rainer Herrmann

I do not completely rule out game either. But I am not convinced it would be illogical to do so. First you are not vulnerable and game requires a solid 50% chance. Giving any sort of encouragement might well land you in game with less than 50% chance on average. As MrAce pointed out there are many maximum mixed raises, which do not offer any reasonable chance for game at all. IMPs is not a form of scoring where you should always be in game. Rainer Herrmann

No, but it shows a hand not worth a limit raise. Therefor I need an exceptional mixed raise for game. I would choose between Pass and 3♠ on my second turn, whatever I agreed to be stronger. I definitely do not want to give more encouragement. I would certainly pass 3♠. Rainer Herrmann

I agree What is weird is getting into this position. If you insist that an immediate raise to 2♥ shows 4 card support, support double are mandatory. If you have not agreed to play support doubles raise on 3, not ideal but playable. But passing first and then catching up with a jump preference is trap bidding of the worst kind. Rainer Herrmann

All your questions have nothing to do with 2/1 because 2/1 does not treat them and different to standard natural systems. Question 1: I agree with your partner, but only just and many would disagree. In my opinion there has to be a lower limit for a single raise. Where you put this limit is a matter of hand evaluation, but it is not only a matter of points. 3334 is poor support and the poorer your support is the less urgency is there to stretch. If I held Qxx support in a 4315 hand and no other honor I would raise. Question 2: 4♥. No second choice. That's how real support looks like. Question 3A: 2/1 does not apply after intervention. I would raise to 3♥ and would not consider it forcing. 3♦ would not occur to me. Question 3B: In standard partner shows a hand not strong enough to bid 2♥ immediately. He had enough to bid 2♥, which is forcing in standard but not game forcing and it does not promise a second bid. Rainer Herrmann

Normalizing can be done in different ways, but I think the right way to normalize for comparison with standard HCP is to normalize so that the sum of the top 5 honors are equal to ten, so that the whole deal remains at 40 points. This gives you the following results: A=4.3 K=2.8 Q=1.6 J=0.9 T=0.4 Again you see aces are worth more and and quacks are worth less. In suit contracts the spread is higher. I do not know whether somebody has created a point count on this but it could be done fairly easily. A=11 K=7 Q=4 J=2 T=1 This gives you 100 HCP per deck. A king plus a queen equals an ace, and a queen plus a jack and a ten equals a King. Ballpark figures for 3NT would be 62+ HCP combined and 6NT would require 83+ HCP and 7NT 94+ HCP A 15 to 17 notrump would be 37-42 HCP. A 12-14 notrump would be 30-35 HCP I am sure this is an improvement over current point count, but I am not sure by how much. Rainer Herrmann

I see some contradiction to Thomas Andrews research. He claimed that the best coefficients for notrump were from Ace to Ten: A=115 K=74 Q=43 J=23 T=10 He attaches also a double dummy value to the 9 (=4) and 8 (=2). So according to Andrews Double Dummy analysis An ace is equivalent to Ace = 1.5 Kings = 2.7 queens = 5 jacks Compare this to standard point count Ace = 1.33 kings = 2 queens = 4 jacks Of course the above coefficients are not practical, but they show that the ace is undervalued even at notrump and at least my double dummy studies tend to confirm this. The fifth evaluator A=4 K=2.8 Q=1.8 J=1 T=0.4 is somewhere in between, more practical and considered more accurate than standard HCP. It also values the ace indirectly higher by reducing the value of king and queen and making room for the Ten within a total of 40 HCP per deal. Rainer Herrmann

Without playing fancy methods I simply raise hearts with such hands and in my experience had rarely cause for regret. Yes it is possible that we belong in 3NT or diamonds and partner will not move. But it is also possible that a part-score in hearts is our best contract or that we will miss game in hearts over 3♦. It does not pay to be too aggressive at love all. Rainer Herrmann

How any serious player can believe that 2 jacks and a ten are equivalent to an ace escapes me even for notrump contracts. In the book the example deals, mostly from actual play, the hands either mash perfectly or not at all. I have done double dummy simulations with many of the example hands, randomly dealing out the remaining 39 cards. The result was no surprise to me but would be sobering to Banzai fans. I agree though that notrump evaluation is not the same as suit evaluation, and changes with the level of contract. But irrespective whether you open in notrumps or in a suit you do not know where you end up as a final contract. Using Banzai, certain hands, which are weak notrumps in standard (mostly quacks hands), will be strong notrump in Banzai and strong notrumps hands consisting of a preponderance of aces will be a weak notrump according to Banzai. Using an extreme method to evaluate your hand for notrumps showing a certain range strength for notrumps, but will certainly be misleading if you end up in a trump contract, is very dubious. How partners bidding is supposed to cater for that escapes me completely. This certainly gets worse if opponents interfere, say after a 1NT opening. Rainer Herrmann

No it does not. After 1♥ South should not be willing to stop below game in hearts. He should simply bid 2♣ (game forcing) and then support hearts. The bidding is poor hand evaluation and shows an over reliance on point count. The South hand is clearly worth more after partner opens 1♥. If South red suits were reversed 1NT would be fine. Rainer Herrmann

It is mystery to me what (known) system GIB is using. I have my doubts it has one. I give you a recent GIB hand ♠973 ♥AQT6 ♦QJ96 ♣84 Bidding 1♦-(1♥)-? GIB bids 2♦, a poor chocie The bidding continues: 1♦-(1♥)-2♦-(2♥) 3♣-(Pass)-? and what does GIB bid? It bids 3♥ As long as GIB bids like this I think system considerations are completely besides the point anyway. Rainer Herrmann

North should be either 1) 18-19 balanced 2) semi-balanced, in which case he might be slightly weaker. 3) singleton in diamonds, but with a source of tricks in clubs In all cases 3NT is obvious Rainer Herrmann

The North hand is clearly out of range for a 15-17 notrump. K&R values the hand at 18.5, which in this case looks to me about right. Whatever your agreements are, at some point you have to make a distinction between 12-14 and 18-19 balanced hands before the bidding is likely to end. For this reason 3NT can not be an option for North second bid. Given the actual agreements North rebid choices are 3♥ and 4♦ Rainer Herrmann

Because it is almost impossible to check on keycards and stop at a minor suit game if the response shows an insufficient number of keycards for slam. No point in asking for keycards if an unfortunate reply takes you beyond your safety level. That's why lower key card asks have been invented in the first place. Playing matchpoints the scenario is even worse. There is often no point in playing in a minor suit game when notrump makes overtricks. Got it? Rainer Herrmann

You make a good case why minorwood (4♦) is an underrated convention This allows to play 4NT quantitative and allows you to suggest 4NT as a resting place after a disappointing minorwood repsonse as well. My impression is that such scenarios where I simply want to find out particularly in a crowded auction whether the necessary key-cards are on board are much more common than wanting to agree a minor suit and suggest to start cue-bidding. What else can it be if you bypass 3NT in an already game forcing situation? However, partner will assume a club control as well if you bid 4♣. There are not too many ways to find out thereafter whether he does. Rainer Herrmann

The ♥T wins. How do you continue? Rainer Herrmann

On reflection I see 2 lines, which are close: Playing on hearts: Win diamond King. Cash ♥A and play a second heart to the ten unless West dropped an honor on the first heart, in which case you finesse the ♥8. Now you can take full advantage of Paying on clubs: Win diamond in hand and start with club finesse either to the jack or 9. Which line is better? They seem to be close. Maybe the heart line has a slight edge, because East has more vacant spaces than West. Rainer Herrmann

Comes to the same difference. Rainer Herrmann

If the ♥A drops the king you play the queen of spades next, which assuming West has the ♠A is very likely to make the contract. West would have to be 5-5 in spades diamonds for you to go down now, in which case clubs will not be 3-3 anyway. Queen third in clubs is just 18%. I am pretty sure that this is not more probable than the ace dropping the king and anyway it does not make starting with hearts a better line than starting with clubs first. Rainer Herrmann

My understanding is: The word "mixed" is derived from the fact that this is a supportive hand with some values and is sandwiched between a preemptive and an invitational raise. raises below game (most insist on a minimum of 4 card support, because you often commit to the three level) are categorized according to: raises, which force to game (Jacoby etc) raises, that invite game, called a limit raise, just not enough to force to game, often described as 10-11 "support points" mixed raises, about a trick weaker (on average) than a limit raise, often described as 6-9 "support points" preemptive raise, where you do not want to preempt to game, about two tricks weaker (on average) than a limit raise, often described as 0-6 "support points". Once a fit is found I prefer evaluating hands according to loser count, provided you use the one I like, which is close to NLTC (new loser count) Then a limit raise has 7.5-8 loser A mixed raise 8,5-9 loser A preemptive raise more than 9 loser If partner opens 1♠ the following hands would qualify for me as a mixed raise: 1) ♠QJxx ♥xx ♦Kxx ♣Qxx 2) ♠Qxxx ♥x ♦Kxxx ♣xxxx Rainer Herrmann

[hv=pc=n&s=skj92hqt842dqj4c3&n=sq3ha53dk3cakj942]133|200[/hv] Whether you are going to establish cubs or hearts, you can not afford to loose the lead twice in the suit you are going to establish. By the time you loose the lead again the defense has 5 tricks first, by establishing diamonds in addition to the aces in diamonds and spades. So the question boils down are you more likely to loose 2 tricks by going after hearts or after clubs? It is obvious that your chances are much better in clubs. Win the diamond in hand and simply pay a club to the jack. I do not see this. If the club finesse wins I will establish the suit but not yet run it. Surely I can afford some heart discards and a spade. Likewise if the finesse loses I have to assume clubs run thereafter, but I am in no hurry cashing them as long as the heart ace is not played yet(except if possible removing club exit cards from the defense). If the defense tries to remove the ace of hearts prematurely (quite a difficult defense to find) I might be bale to duck and I am in a better position to get additional heart tricks if the defense attacks hearts. This is a fallacy. Say you pay a heart to the ten which looses to the jack. The defense will now establish diamonds. If you take the club finesse and it looses you have lost your chance trying for the heart king being doubeton. Rainer Herrmann