rhm

At total points or IMPs there is a good case for playing a heart to the jack at trick 2 if West follows. The contract is cold unless trumps are 4-0 and playing a heart to the jack has almost a 50% chance for an overtrick anyway. So it might be the right play even at MP. Rainer Herrmann

What I mean is simple. People claim if they are given evidence contrary to their assessment they will reconsider their opinion. But this is not what is happening and people are not as open minded as they claim. Nobody likes to be proven wrong. If the facts do not support their assessment, they will rather question the facts (or claim they are not "relevant") than change their mindset. Rainer Herrmann .

In my first simulation I was interested how good our chance with the South hand was making game in hearts, which is what apparently happened when the deal was played. I was not convinced that this is such a "borderline" hand. So I assumed South would find at least 4 cards in hearts in dummy. Simulation showed that under those conditions your chances are better than even that you could make game. My second simulation was in response to I considered this all wrong. So in response I made a second simulations where each side had the same combined number of trumps in spades and hearts. The result was that it was highly likely that North South would be able to outbid East West, not the other way round. Now you claim: If opponents bid like that South could make a responsive double or could bid 3♣ over 2♠. Whatever the simulations do not show that there are no deals where East West can not outbid us, only that they are much less common than the ones were we can outbid them. Bridge is essentially a game of probabilities. Here the probabilities are stacked in favor of North South and that should induce South to open. I have no problem changing any of the assumptions I made. I do not care. I know from many simulations that small changes in assumptions do not lead to big changes of results. The results are fairly robust. Of course it is entirely possible that opponents have a 9 card fit while we have only an 8 card fit. But the opposite is also possible. I think it is fairly unlikely that either opponent has 6 spades, but of course it is not impossible. Even if we allow it in the sims there will be very few deals, since they are created randomly, and they will not affect much the result. To satisfy your curiosity I tried the following assumptions: To keep things simple, let's assume that both sides have at least an 8 card major suit fit. If we do not have such a fit, chances are we can compete in a minor. So this is not much of an assumption. So let us give North between 3 and 5 hearts and between 2 and 4 spades randomly. Again I simulated 1000 random deals Result: South made on average per deal 8.9 tricks with hearts as trumps West made on average per deal 7.8 tricks with spades as trumps on the same deals. The breakdown of tricks in hearts for South was as follows: >7 - 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 11 12 tricks 15 101 259 315 241 59 10 deals The breakdown of tricks in spades for West was as follows: >7 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 10 11 12 tricks 98 313 349 187 47 6 0 deals So North South still have on average an advantage of 1.1 tricks per deal over East West We have only made the assumption that North South have at least an 8 card fit in hearts and game in hearts makes on 310 deals or in 31% of all deals. East- West also have at least an 8 card fit in spades, but can make game only on 53 deals or in 5.3% of all deals. But they can not make anything beyond the one level on over 40% of all deals. I do not believe you. It is the other way round. The sims contradict your original assessment, so the assumptions of the sims must be wrong. This is very human, but it is not rational. Anyway I can modiy the assumptions to your liking and you will find out it does not matter significantly.. It is not close and you and others are simply underestimating the South hand. Spades are not everything and a singleton ace is still an ace. That was the reason why I did the simulations. My assessment of the South hand was different and I wanted to check whether I was wrong or not. Rainer Herrmann

Sorry the Law does not say anything and your conclusions are all wrong. I do not open this hand because I expect that our side will have "on average 1 and a bit more point than the opponents" I open this hand because I have a 5431 distribution with 2 aces and a well positioned diamond queen. I already said that this hand is worth more. Holding aces is very important in this game. If I held 2♠=5♥=3♦=3♣ throwing in this deal would be much more understandable even though opponents will hold one spade less. The law makes only claims about total tricks and total trumps. Assume your opponents hold a spade fit and we hold a heart fit does this really mean we will be outbid? Yes I do know spades rank higher. The law makes a prediction about total tricks, it does not say how these total tricks will be distributed between both sides. My point is and was we will make on average one trick more than our opponents and this means all your arguments are good for the waste basket and it will be a mistake to pass the deal out. To prove my point I reran my simulations, but with a twist: I kept the following assumptions: No passed hand had more than 11 HCP or 10 HCP, if unbalanced. So each passed hand had between 7-11 HCP, 11 only if balanced. No one had 6 spades (weak two) or a seven card minor. I assumed at least an 8 card heart fit, but the number of hearts in partners hand could vary according to the following rule: If partner held 3 cards in heart he had to have exactly 4 cards in spades (both sides have an 8 card fit in the majors) If partner held 4 cards in heart he had to have exactly 3 cards in spades (both sides have an 9 card fit in the majors) If partner held 5 cards in heart he had to have exactly 2 cards in spades (both sides have an 10 card fit in the majors. This last case is unlikely in practice, not because partner could not have 5 hearts. Both opponents must hold exactly 5 spades and both must have passed with that) I then looked how many tricks there was for South in hearts and for West in spades on the same deals 1000 random deals: Result: South made on average per deal 8.6 tricks with hearts as trumps West made on average per deal 7.6 tricks with spades as trumps The breakdown of tricks in hearts for South was as follows: >7 - 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 11 12 tricks 36 144 257 340 174 39 10 deals The breakdown of tricks in spades for West was as follows: >7 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 - 10 11 12 tricks 169 313 314 161 39 4 0 deals Note, how few times East West could make a high level spade contract. Even though having at least an 8 card spade fit East West could not make anything beyond the one-level in almsot half the deals. Of course there was the odd deal where East West could make even more tricks in spades than South in hearts. But those deals were few and far between. There were of course many more where South made more tricks. For example in only 17% of the 340 deals where South could make 9 tricks in a heart contract, West could make 9 tricks or more in a spade contract. In only 2% of the 174 deals where we could make game East West could also make game. Exactly. Rule of thumbs, like HCP, Pearson Points, Rule of twenty, the Law are useful, but there are many exceptions and they are no substitute for evaluating your hand properly and using your brain. Otherwise you will not get anywhere in this game Rainer Herrmann

I do not make an inflated case. Of course there will be no heart game unless we have a heart fit. If I just need a nine card or better heart fit to have a better than even chance to make game it must be worthwhile opening this hand. Since there are 8 heart cards outstanding I realize that on average partner will have less cards in hearts more often. Rainer Herrmann

It is not clear. My preference is to raise now with the intention of bidding clubs later. Bidding clubs first risks never showing heart support. Rainer Herrmann

XX with 6-6? No! I also think he must hold a strong hand when red. How can it be less than a 2♣ opener if you volunteer 10 tricks in red with a two-suiter opposite a partner, who does not keep the bidding open at the one level? Rainer Herrmann

How likely is a game in hearts? Of course partner will need heart support for that. Assume partner has at least 4 hearts. I ran a simulation with Dealmaster Pro. I assumed no passed hand had more than 11 HCP or 10 HCP, if unbalanced. So each passed hand had between 7-11 HCP, 11 only if balanced. No one had 6 spades (weak two) or a seven card minor. Partner had 4 or more hearts (more than 4 hearts was rare) Sample size 1000 random deals under those specification. 4♥ made double dummy on 521 deals (52%) Average number of tricks per deal was 9.6 It shows the potential of this hand. K&R is clearly wrong here. Rainer Herrmann

While it may backfire, passing an opening bid hand you do so at your own peril. Pearson points are good for borderline hands. This hand is not borderline. I am not surprised that 4♥ was on, given that you hold aces and a 5431 distribution. Any downgrades are misguided. The value of this hand in a suit contract is about 14 points. (K&R is clearly wrong here) Sure I would prefer the ♥A instead of the ♠A, but even singleton aces are no reason for downgrades. (Aces in longer suits are a reason for upgrades) Silly advise here. Rainer Herrmann

Expert answer South forgot, particularly after North did not double 4♠. How many red suit cards did you expect North to hold when he jumped to the four level in a second suit voluntarily in red opposite a partner who was unwilling to keep the bidding open? North gave a very good description of his hand. As usual the weak hand needs to take the key decision. If South has [hv=pc=n&s=sjt62h6d82ck98532]133|100[/hv] Bidding on by North will be a disaster. South might be in a position to double 4♠. Rainer Herrmann

East certainly can not do more. So if anyone is at fault it must be West. Some observations: I think it was Fred, who said that cuebidding, which starts at the five level, is not very effective. Bidding a red suit accomplishes nothing by way of control bidding. But West may have wanted to invite slam, which he did. Should he? Will East accept with nothing in spades? Hardly. So an invitation accomplishes nothing. Essentially West has to decide what to do over 5♣. West knows North South are sacrificing at equal vulnerability with few HCP. They must have a huge fit and chances are most of their meager values will be in clubs. Accordingly most of the values East has are in neither black suit. The value bid is a simple 6♠ over 5♣. West is not strong enough to bid 6♣ (West would need another control in a red suit) and a small slam may well depend on the opening lead. You do not want to discourage a club lead. Bidding side suits here only helps opponents finding the right lead. Rainer Herrmann

I think both statements are wrong. Passing 2♣ at all white at pairs can be suicide too. I would certainly bid with minimum values and a good suit short in the black suits. Doubling does not take precedence over 2♥. It just shows a different hand. If you are long in hearts but short in spades DBL is not for me. Also if the bidding goes 1♥-(2♣)-P-(P)-DBL-(P)-2♦-(P)-2♥ can opener be minimum or does this shows a stronger hand than an immediate 2♥ rebid? My problem is not so much that I expect 3♦ to make, but that it might chase them to spades, which may be better for them. Where are all those spades? LHO seems to have many major suit cards. Rainer Herrmann

I am not, but I am allergic if such jumps are based on some mystery logic made up on the spot. Assume partner thinks 6♠ might be preferable to 6NT if opener has 4 spades. Then he was still prepared to play 6NT in the much more likely case when opener had less than 4 spades. Is that worth risking a disaster, where you might be able to win the postmortem? I concentrate my efforts to win the deal not the postmortem. Rainer Herrmann

You can play what you like. However, I really can not see any benefit why a natural bid of a limited hand should be considered forcing. It makes no sense and the vast majority of players agrees with this principle that it should not be forcing. You are on your own if you claim this to be a "distortion" Rainer Herrmann

I strongly prefer a 1NT response, particularly playing pairs, but I rather bid 2NT than 2♣. Admittedly this is more of an issue, playing weak notrumps. But if you open light opposite a passed partner, it is better if opener does the inviting. Rainer Herrmann

You conveniently ignore that 2♣ is not forcing by a passed hand. Accordingly a 2♣ bid should deny a 4 card major unless you do not mind playing clubs even if opener has four spades. The logic is similar to responding to a takeout DBL. You do not respond in a longer minor with an unbid major. Rainer Herrmann

What is the problem of a 2♣ response to 1♦? Partner has no 4 card major, nor did he raise diamonds, which he should with 4 cards, no 4 card major and an unbalanced hand. He would not bid 2♣ with a balanced hand, knowing that 2♣ is not forcing by a passed hand, so partner should have 6 cards in clubs. Accept that this hand is a misfit and pass. Rainer Herrmann

What a nonsense. Why agree playing 5 card majors if you do not intent to do so? Looks to me as if we have everything covered at the one-level. Sometimes it can be a clever idea to take away the opponents chance to bid at the 1 level, unfortunately on some other hand. With a good opener I do not distort my opening bid for the sole purpose of indicating a lead, whether I am in first, second third or fourth position. Rainer Herrmann.

Partner should pay compliments in the postmortem. I can do without such compliments in the bidding. Rainer Herrmann

Similar to what Zelandakh plays Over a red suit response after Stayman I play 2♠ as a strong game forcing relays requesting further information. Over 2♠ 2♣ is the strong relays. Rainer Herrmann

I do not care. I have not been asked. My partner does not want any further input from me. I understand that many have no forcing continuation with 4 spades and a balanced hand after Stayman. . I do and I would not throw this sequence at partner if I did not. Rainer Herrmann

Sure, but the issue is whether such an agreement is good for your own health. This is worth arguing, but as usual people tend to be dogmatic. A principle of good constructive bidding is that cheap bids can encompass a wide range of hands, while expensive bids should be specific. Guaranteeing that 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand is nice when it crops up, but will often miss a much better spade partial and as here wrong-sides notrumps. My 1NT rebid does not deny four spades, but if I bypass spades I must have a positional stopper in the other unbid suit. If my agreements forced me to bid 1NT bypassing a spade suit with no stopper in the unbid suit I would change my agreements. There is plenty of room after 1♠ for responder to find out, if he needs to, whether opener is unbalanced or not. Rainer Herrmann

Not sure. Why can't opener not jump to 3♥ over 2♣ if he is short in clubs? Accordingly his chosen sequence 2♥ followed by 3♥ shows a balanced hand. Rainer Herrmann

I would. Where are all those "experts", who claim that any rebid except notrumps by opener should guarantee an unbalanced hand? If opener rebids 1♠ there is plenty of room to find out whether opener is balanced or not. Rainer Herrmann

I think the premise is wrong. We should not confuse two issues: 1) Opener having denied a 4 card major, holding the right hand to bid 3M will be infrequent. He will need a non minimum hand with a strong 3 card major and a small doubleton in the other major. But as long as nobody comes up with a better usage for this bid who cares? 2) Given the conditions above how often will we find a good 4M contract? This chance (a conditional probability) is anything but small. After all responder has shown interest in 4M and should hold at least one 4 card major. Chances that he will hold the bid major must be close to or above 50%. Of these roughly 50% he will reject the Moysian fit some of the time but often he will accept and sometimes he will be delighted. For example once responder has four cards in the bid major, there is no particular reason why he could not be himself short in the other major. It does happen Given the conditions, chances that 4M will be a preferable contract is not small and some of the time responder can also pass, particularly at matchpoints, since opener is limited. If I have time I will run some simulations. Rainer Herrmann