rhm

Some trivial observations: Assume a deal is competitive: In one room North opens the bidding. In the other North passes and East opens the bidding. Which side do you believe is on average better positioned to beat absolute par (my definition of stealing). North in the first room or in the latter? It does not really matter to which side the absolute par contract belongs. I think this can easily be shown in the way Richard Pavlicek has done such statistical analysis and published on his website, though I won't undertake it. This is one reason why requirements for opening the bidding have gone down over the last decades. The true Roth Stone approach to opening the bidding is all but extinct at top level play. Opening the bidding has certainly tactical advantages, passing a 4441 12 count is problematic - not just fine. Rainer Herrmann

I meant disabuse. I am well aware that there is a history. Nevertheless any time this guy remarks something now the reaction is entirely predictable. Some will doubtless like it for its entertaining value, but I confess I get bored. Everything has been exchanged numerous times. We ate beating a dead horse. Rainer Herrmann

Maybe so. But I have also the impression that his reaction is not unprovoked. Many seem to jump on any remark this guy makes only to disabuse him in a precocious manner. Rainer Herrmann

I am not convinced this holds true. If you look at http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/original.html#patterns Under suit contracts (pattern has not much influence in notrump contracts): You get for 4441 distribution: Offense 8.61 tricks and for Defense 4.85 tricks. If we look at the ration we get 1.78 The respective numbers for 5431 would be 8.68 and 4.70 or a ratio of 1.84, a difference of 0.06, hardly earth shattering. Balanced hands have a worse ratio. A general observation I find interesting: The Offense / Defense ratio of distribution tends to increase with suit length. Shortages tend to increase your trick potential in both defense and offense and therefor have not that much impact on the ratio. So you can claim the Offense / Defense ratio is no better for 4441 than for 5332, but all else being equal you will on average make more tricks in offense and defense with 4441. So it makes no sense in my mind to say I will open a 12 point hand holding 5332 but will pass such a hand if holding 4441. You are passing a better hand with more trick potential. Rainer Herrmann

I think there is a lot of prejudice and myth around 4441 distribution. Undoubtedly you may have difficulties finding your fit, if it so happens that you show 2 suits of 4441 and your fit happens to be in the one you did not show. That is true and happens sometimes, but rarely and passing initially does nothing to avoid this problem. It makes it worse. What I think is pure prejudice is the believe that 4441 pattern in general is a "bad" distribution, which tends to disappoint in the play of the hand. Let's look at the statistical facts instead: Numerous double dummy simulations and research have not shown a marked difference between the value of 4441 and 5431 in general, and 5431 in general is considered a "good" distribution to have. Loser count makes no difference between these 2 patterns but should take into account the combined trump length, e.g whether you have an 8 card or 9 card fit. Holding 4441 a priory chances for an 8 card fit is 83% and for 9 card fit still a whopping 34%. I like those odds, even though they are even higher for 5431 distribution. The respective numbers there are 86% and 39%. For example a priory I would prefer holding 4-4-4-1 with 4-4 in the majors rather than 5-4-3-1 with 4-3 in the majors (or 5-1 in the majors) because my chances for making game are better,even though my overall trick potential is slightly lower. Rainer Herrmann

I think the whole concept that you should make opening the bidding dependent on whether you anticipate rebid problems is misguided. A bidding system should never give you rebid problems anyway. Instead you should have agreements how certain distributions are dealt with in the system. For example with the actual hand and a strong notrump system I am comfortable opening this hand with 1♦ and rebidding 1NT over 1♠. If playing weak notrumps I would open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ over 1♠ playing 5 card majors and 1♥ rebidding 2♣ playing 4 card majors. Decide what requirements are necessary for an opening bid and stick to it. Passing the actual hand is plain silly unless you play a strong pass system. Rainer Herrmann.

Certainly better than 3NT. I still like to tell partner unambiguously that I got a six card major. I do not see why we should have a guess over 4♥. After all partner knows we have a red two-suiter and should he have 2 cards in hearts and 3 cards in diamonds I prefer to play 4♥ if permitted. Why complicate things? 4♣ would be more appropriate with six diamonds and only 5 hearts and a hand were we do not want to languish in 4♦. Rainer Herrmann

The question is of course when do alternative contracts to 3NT get attractive enough to explore. I simulated this (1000 deals) opposite a 15-17 notrump hand (4333, 4432, 5332) It turns out 3NT makes on 86.6% of all deals double dummy 6NT makes on 37.3% of all deals double dummy Average number of tricks 10.8 This suggests 3NT is safe enough. Opponents will hardly be able to beat it whatever they do and whatever you will reveal in the bidding. 6♣ makes on 51.4% of the deals 5♣ makes on 90.2% of the deals Average number of tricks 11.5 Diamonds is rarely a better option. Given that most will have difficulty showing a primary club suit and only a secondary diamond suit it might be best to ignore the diamond option all together in most cases unless opener suggests diamonds uninvited. My conclusion from this is: Chances for slam in clubs are too good to ignore, certainly at IMPs. At matchpoints it is as expected closer but making at least a suggestion to a club slam seems appropriate even at matchpoints. If notrump opener accepts you are unlikely to get dissappointed. I play a new suit after minor suit transfer as shortage and consider this mainstream. Not ideal with a singleton king and would probably simply bid 3NT after transfer to clubs. At matchpoints this is enough, at IMPs this could be wrong if partner superaccepts. Rainer Herrmann

I disagree with Stephen. I want to be in game and maybe it gets time to reveal that you have a six card major. After all the 4♠ bid does not come as a complete surprise. My intention is to bid 4♥ followed by 5♦. Fiddling around with artificial notrump bids can be overdone. Believe me, it works much better in the postmortem than at the table. I also like 3NT to be a suggestion to play whenever possible. Here it should show a strong hand with a spade stopper and a very good six card diamond suit and a not so solid heart suit. ♠Kx ♥AQxxx ♦AKQxxx might fit the bill. Rainer Herrmann

Why do you want a slam biddable if you do not want to be in slam escapes me. I wish all my slams, I do not want be in, were unbiddable. It would save me a lot of headaches. Rainer Herrmann

I doubt that there will be many declarers, who will make the contract if West ducks the first heart smoothly. Rainer Herrmann

A matter of hand evaluation. Playing 15-17 NT would you open 1NT with 17 HCP holding a reasonable 6 card minor? I would likely upgrade. And holding 14 HCP and a 6 card minor I htink I am good enough for 15-17 notrumps. I certainly prefer that to 15 HCP holding 4333 or 4432 unless I have a fit in major. Rainer Herrmann

I tried to simulate this and made the following assumptions: RHO 6♣322 with 14-16 HCP LHO no 5 card major, 0-8 HCP Partner 5-4 or better in the majors. 1000 random deals. 3♣ and 3♠ made on exactly 671 deals each. Average number of tricks in spades was 9.05 and in clubs 8.92 It looks like you should bid 3♠. If you are unlucky it will drive them into a making 3NT. I know those who vote for pass will question my assumptions. Rainer Herrmann

You seem to be completely oblivious to the actual colors. It would not occur to me to bid 2♠ with the actual South hand, which is only asking for trouble, a typical bid of a palooka. The only one, who will likely be deceived by South bid, is partner. I can understand your arguments if the colors were different. Of course preempts can work even red versus white, but they should then invariably have a constructive tinge (e.g. good suits in context are mandatory). White versus red you can take liberties. This is simple Bridge logic. I do not understand why even seasoned tournament players have so much difficulties applying that at the table. Rainer Herrmann

The trouble with this type of descriptions is that they do not account for the vulnerabilities. How weak do you expect your partner to be red versus white, when opponents have already told a lot about their hands? Red versus white is not very conducive for preemption. I would expect the bid would have to be at least ♠KTxxx with a side suit singleton. Assuming partner can not have a yarborough at these colors how can West have an opening bid and East a maximum passed hand? Rainer Herrmann

Of course Partner bids 5♥ down one Rainer Herrmann

If that is so I do not understand the rationale. Fourth hand decides to pass out of he has no spades expecting on average a profit, which if I am in third seat means a loss for my side. Should I then not try to avoid this loss and open if I hold spades in third seat if I have a close decision? Rainer Herrmann

Nobody claimed that the above hand is an ideal 1NT opener. But there is no point in looking at only side of the coin. Opening 1♥ is not immediately fatal. But the most likely response you will get is 1NT. Now if you invite you will often get too high. If you pass you will at least sometimes miss game. Even if partner responds with anything else many partnership will have difficulties expressing this (moderately additional) strength thereafter. Rainer Herrmann

If playing strong notrumps an alternative is to open the hand 1NT, which probably most will reject. It can of course backfire, but it resolves the question whether to invite nicely. Rainer Herrmann

This works unless either opponent has a singleton diamond and 4 hearts. LHO or RHO will ruff the second diamond and return a spade, after which you will loose another trump trick. Rainer Herrmann

On reflection it seems slightly better to run a middle heart at trick 2 should LHO follow. Once RHO shows out, play safe. Run another middle heart and then ruff a spade. Cash the trump ace. It only remains to return to hand safely to draw the last trump. Does LHO have a void in diamonds or a singleton club? Neither is likely. Since East might have bid with a 7 card club suit and a void in hearts and West might have led a singleton club a club ruff may be safer. Draw the last trump and discard a second spade later on the fourth diamond. This plan requires only that LHO has 2 cards in clubs. (A similar line, ruffing only one spade, works when LHO shows out on the first heart) Rainer Herrmann

I would not mind passing this hand in any position. I would certainly pass in second position and in first if vulnerable. I like to open light on unbalanced hands and aces are important. Balanced ace less hands are overrated. Make it any stronger and I open. Rainer Herrmann

I have done this but then I have to count manually the deals where East West can make as many or more tricks in spades than North South in any of the other trump strains. The result is about 20% and around 80% where North South can make in at least one trump suit more tricks, often in two trump suits. Rainer Herrmann

I use Dealmaster Pro for simulation, which has strength and weaknesses. The problem with your question is, that the number of tricks South makes, depends where a fit exists. West and East are unlikely to compete successfully unless they have a spade fit. But North South could have a fit in any other suit. If North South have an advantage on average of more than 0.5 tricks they will be able to outbid East-West on the majority of deals. Having an advantage of one trick or more means there are very few deals where East West can outbid North South. If East West got a spade fit and North South will have no heart fit, it is extremely likely they have a fit in a minor. In fact there is just one specific distribution for North 4♠=2♥=4♦=3♣, where East West have an 8 card spade fit and we have no fit. I checked what would happen if North would have at most 4 spades, at most 2 hearts and four or more clubs (at most six). In this case they have a spade fit, and we have a club fit. Of course game is unlikely since we now need 11 tricks. But I expected we can still outbid East West. The results more than confirmed my expectations. The difference in trick taking is now even larger. South spade ruffs will now be in "shorter" trump hand. 1000 random deals Result: South made on average per deal 9.3 tricks with clubs as trumps West made on average per deal 7.5 tricks with spades as trumps The breakdown of tricks in clubs for South was as follows: >7 7 - 8 -- 9 -- 10 - 11 12 13 tricks 7 42 195 315 282 116 40 3 deals The breakdown of tricks in spades for West was as follows: >7 -- 7 -- 8 --- 9 - 10 11 12 tricks 208 324 278 155 32 3 0 deals Note, North South are much more likely to make game in clubs, about one deal in six , than East West in spades, about one in 30. Rainer Herrmann

Quite right. I did not do the simulation and then came to a conclusion, but because my assessment of the South did not coincide with the vast majority of posters, I checked my assessment of the South hand with simulations. I am not a slave to HCP or rules of thumb like Pearson points, though I do take them into account, if I am in doubt. In my experience most players are. What I do not do is passing a hand in fourth position I would open in any other. To answer your question: Learn to evaluate hands properly. Sims can help develop good hand evaluation. For example understand that the combination of a preponderance of aces and good distribution and length in a major is a reason for upgrades not for downgrades. You will need to find a fit, in notrump the hand is worth less. This is what gives us more playing power than East West and better chances of additional defensive tricks. Location of honors can be a detriment but is much less important than people think and should take a backseat. That is the reason why even K&R is plain wrong on this hand. Rainer Herrmann