rhm

This is the main argument people make for oepning 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors. If you open 1♣ you are forced to bid 2NT, relying on that RHO has not raised and preemptor rarely has a solid suit. This scenario is essentially an advertisement for negative free bids at the two level. A negative free bid is not weak but constructive with a good suit, but it is not forcing. Nine times out of ten people make the same suit bid with the same hand whether they play 2♠ forcing here or not. Only the negative free bidders are in a much more comfortable position, while others get too high. The forcing 2♠ frequently hold a hand where they have to choose between overbidding (forcing their partner) or getting stolen blind, if they pass or negative double. When responder has a truly game forcing hand playing negative double he either jumps to 3♠ which is strong with a good six card suit or doubles and bids spades later, which shows a game forcing hand with a 5 card suit or six mediocre spades. The scenario that you might get preempted (LHO jump raises preemptor to a high level) when responder has a game forcing hand almost never happens in practice. Rainer Herrmann

It has been observed by others that T-Walsh and unbalanced diamond openers all loose out on preemption over 1C openings, which tends to get overloaded. If you believe in interference against strong club system, you should do likewise against those. Rainer Herrmann

I feel responder should give better definition of his heart length when he has less than 8 points after 1♠-1NT-2♣. So 2NT = 4 hearts precisely and at most 1 spade, less than 8 HCP. Accordingly the bid shows 8-9 cards in the minors. 3♣ shows 4 or more clubs, no 4 cards in hearts and 9 or more cards in the minors. 3♦ shows 6 or more diamonds, no 4 cards in hearts. After 3m opener will bid 3♥ only with 5. This provides slightly less definition on the minors, but better definition of the hearts. Over 2NT opener with 4 or more hearts has excellent information to decide whether to play 3♥ or 4♥ or in exceptional cases even 6♥. Minor suit games are a long way off if responder has less than 8 HCP. Rainer Herrmann

I have mainly talked about transfer to hearts, not a minor. Super-accepting a transfer in a minor is less frequent in comparison, particularly if you play weak notrumps. It must be a hand where opener does not mind when responder corrects to 4m. But even there those hands with some values and a good 6 card minor are not that rare. I can see your point of claiming that 2NT (clubs) or 3♣ (diamonds) to be either strong or "weak", though not very weak. But regarding transfer to hearts there is much more merit to play that as at least mildly invitational. Rainer Herrmann

Complexities , complexities for very little gain if at all. If you compete in a new strain at the three level you should have reasonable confidence that the contract will make. Accordingly if you transfer into hearts opener should super-accept freely, since you are only one level below game. Bidding on hands where you are any weaker has little to gain. LHO might double you or should you have a fit they will outbid you anyway and your bid will help them in the play. Rubensol is much superior to Lebensol after 1NT, precisely because you name your suit in case LHO raises and transfers tend to be even more important when RHO interferes. I see no merit weakening this concept. Rainer Herrmann

Did Geoff Hampson and Deas tell you how many IMPs they lost by leading fourth best? I bet they don't know either. Humans have a selective memory and even experts are human. If they choose an unorthodox lead and it backfires it hurts and memory will record the result. If they choose fourth best from longest and strongest and another unorthodox lead would have fared better, the reaction is shrug your shoulder and get to the next board. Not every notrump game centers around the issue, which side can first establish a suit. Often declarer has not enough tricks and needs help from the defense. Do not get me wrong. I do not recommend a lead from shortest and weakest against notrump. The subject is complex and no matter what's your strategy, it will often fail. Instead of recommending simplistic rules, which are not really backed up by statistics, I recommend Bird/Anthias book Winning NT leads You can find a discussion and a review at http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/62749-birdanthias-books-on-opening-leads/ Rainer Herrmann

While I understand your response, it shows a lack of understanding what has been asked. The opener did not use the expert forum either. Though it says "regardless of systems" the question is not raised for a T-Walsh system nor for an unbalanced diamond opening with lots of gadgets. Most will know what the answer is there and we know this is currently popular at top level Bridge. It is also unlikely that systems like Fantunes should be implied. The question was apparently raised in context of a standard natural 5 card major system with few conventional responses. SteveMoes link above is much more to the point. If you read the discussion there carefully, you may come to the conclusion, there are lots of arguments for either side and there is no simple answer. In the end you will have to make your own decision, which arguments you find more convincing,. Rainer Herrmann

Yes I agree with X being the best choice here even if it "promises" four. 2♣ would be normal in a 4-card major system, though. Playing 5-card majors, one could also consider 2♦ or pass. Hopefully not 1NT, though. Would you also recommend DBL holding ♠xxx ♥AKx ♦Kxxx ♣xxx after 1♣-(1♠)-? I think DBL is asking for trouble. It is not the type of distribution where a 4-3 major suit fit will play well Why the rush? What is really wrong with Pass? 4333 is by nature not an offensive distribution. However, I admit I do not subscribe to the standard concept that a 1NT rebid by opener should show 18-19 HCP when both responder and advancer pass the 1M overcall. Responder is almost never broke in this sequence. Rainer Herrmann

I am not sure whether this is poor agreement. It is certainly an easy agreement though not very sexy. But I am sure the rest of your system and your bidding philosophy has an impact. For example How are your minor suit openings structured? Does responders Pass deny values? (Not the way I play. I often refrain from bidding 1NT after RHO overcalled when that might wrong-side notrumps.) Do you play negative free bids? etc. The critical path is if advancer will next raise or jump-raise hearts. I find the difference between 4 and 5 spades in responder's hand crucial for opener to compete in spades effectively and it is in spades where the money is. With negative free bids holding less than 4 spades it is rare you can not move over 1♥. When it happens you are almost always balanced not short in hearts. Rainer Herrmann

deleted

Why? Hindsight? I do like 2NT. Is it? I would call the North hand "suit oriented". Rainer Herrmann

Bridge is a game of probabilities. what are you aiming at? That there are unlikely layouts? I encounter this on almost any tournament I enter. But catering to the unlikely is loosing Bridge. Here West has a semi-balanced hand. The odds against that everybody else at the table has a void is extreme even given the bidding. Even though everybody else does have a void, what matters is which one. For example given the bidding, it would be several times more likely that East has a spade void than a club void. (Why should they have an 11 card fit in clubs?) Nothing what is really interesting about this deal Rainer Herrmann

Well, there are books and documents about these issues in general. For example many recommend that supporting partner is most likely to be what partner wants to hear, and I do not know any source recommending a 1 spade bid above. In fact there are enough examples in literature advising to raise immediately with 3 hearts and 4 and even 5 spades. There were those who argued that we need more ways of raising partner. e.g Hardy wrote a book about this. One (contentious) outcome are Bergen raises and differentiations between 3 card and 4 card raises. Drury is of course ideal when you hold a minimum limit raise like above, because you can stop at the two level. Some have incorporated Drury in all seats, not least for this reason, but for most Drury is only available for passed hands. I feel most of these issues have been discussed in the literature extensively, mostly in books for intermediate players and by examples often in quizzes. So what the opener is aiming at is still not clear to me. It's a myth that this is a new subject or method. Rainer Herrmann

As explained above much of the skill required in bridge is partnership oriented. What you can do on your own is only one ingredient of the overall picture. What really matters is what you can accomplish in a partnership. I would claim that at high levels of Bridge the majority of poor and good results have a lot to do with partnership communication and understanding (or lack of it). Do you seriously believe if you would play with Jack as partner it would make you competitive several levels higher than what you are currently capable of, say qualifying and taking part in the Bermuda Bowl, because Jack is so much better on certain aspects than the majority of bridge players? I seriously doubt your claim. Letting Jack play with Jack is mickey mouse in comparison. The real test is what BBO does with its robots. Show me the partnership of such a robot with a human or an independently developed robot beating anyone else. Rainer Herrmann

In bridge it is clear that majors are more important than minors. But this is mainly so because games are more common than slams. Most partnerships are good in finding any possible 8 card or better major suit fit after a 2NT opening. Finding good minor suit games and slams after 2NT is a different matter. My general feeling is that the major bias after a 2NT opening has gone too far. I personally do not worry much whether my partner, who has opened 2NT, might have a 5 card major and do not care much for a 5-3 major fit, where opener has the 5 card major. Often 3NT is as good and sometimes a better contract and looking for such a fit can help opponents when there is no such fit. 3NT often depends on the opening lead. I like uninformative sequences like 2NT-3NT. Amazing how often you get away with it, in particular after 2NT-3NT. In other words Puppet as a convention is overrated. Playing that over 2NT a 3M response shows length in the other major and playing normal Stayman followed by Smolen to show major two-suiters might suffice for me. This would open up 3♦ to show interest in one or both minors. However, if you love if opener can show a 5 card major you could still play that 3♥ to 3♣ shows 4 or 5 cards, with 3♠ asking, while 3♠ shows 4 spades and 3NT 5 spades in response to 3♣. The point is that if a 3♦ response denies a 4 card major you can play Smolen. I could be convinced that this is an improvement. Rainer Herrmann

I doubt that any of these claims or reasons are valid. It is also a myth that there has been no serious academic effort. The question, how challenging or complex a game is for the human mind, is not the decisive criteria whether we will see software beating a human or not. Many seem to believe if only IBM, Google Apple or the like would provide some serious resources we would see such a Bridge computer tomorrow. I doubt that. No serious amount of resources would have put a man on the moon in the 19th century. You need good ideas and a strategy before resources (money) can be put into a productive investment. And even if these conditions are present there is no guarantee of success. For example despite the efforts and money so far spent, we always seem to be 50 years away from the first commercial fusion reactor. I believe compared to Chess or Go, the challenges are very different for putting Bridge logic into software. To mention just two: Bridge is a game of incomplete information, Chess and Go are not. Bridge is a partnership game played against another partnership, neither Chess nor Go are. This already provides a challenge in definition what a good Bridge program would be. One, who plays with a clone of itself as partner? That is like identical twins playing Bridge together. It is entirely possible that identical twins could be world class when playing together, but be only mediocre when playing with others. They certainly would have a big advantage when playing in a partnership. Not my definition of a great Bridge player. But this is the way Computer Bridge championships are played today. A more suitable comparison would be two independently developed Bridge software programs playing against an expert partnership. Two neuronal networks might be acceptable as partners, provided they were primed by independent deals and experience. I am not saying we will not see eventually bridge computers being capable of beating experts, but there are good reasons why so far nobody came close. Rainer Herrmann

When opponents take away our bidding room I like to play that in this sequence 5♥ is at least a strong invite and 5♠ is a weaker invite. Neither asks for heart control. With ♠ KJ543 ♥ A43 ♦ Q87 ♣ Q2. I would pass or bid 5 ♠ with ♠ KQ543 ♥ A4 ♦ K872 ♣ A2 I would bid 6♥. Over an overcall of 2♥ or a jump overcall of 3♥ 5♠ asks specifically for heart control. For the convention to apply the bid must jump 2 levels or more or jump one level if we showed controls before. But I am sure this is not consensus. Rainer Herrmann

It would never occur to me to do anything but force to game and starting to show the main feature of my hand immediately. Is an eight card suit accompanied by two top honors and three first round controls not enough opposite an opening bid to force to game???? I readily admit I sometimes reach games, which happen to go down. We may not have game and we may easily have 13 tricks, I do not know. Passing 3NT exhibits poor judgement. I bid 4♦, unless 5♣ would be interpreted as an autosplinter. I see no need to jump to conclusions here. I like my chances should partner get interested. Rainer Herrmann

With all respect this has been addressed and dealt with already above. Just read the thread before you reply. I do not think the basic rules and etiquette of the game need any complex additions to further that. Your beginner seems to be particularly unsuited for this game if a single deal can put him off. The game is full of such frustrations and that is true for about any game, which is intellectually challenging. Maybe canasta or cooncan is what your beginner should try instead. Rainer Herrmann

What I dislike is that most posters give implicitly the impression that psyching in the bidding is something legal but tainted, in particular against weaker players. What is objectionable is having implicit agreements which you keep hidden from opponents. But this is not something confined to psyches. Like in real life, in poker or in the play of the cards, deception is part of the game and we need no thought police to regulate this matter any further. End of story. Rainer Herrmann

Squeeze play in itself is not terrible important. The reality is that often people rather stumble into a squeeze by accident. To plan a squeeze usually requires foresight and an analysis of the layout, which is the backbone of almost any good card play. You learn to play with four hands at the table, rather than with two. A good though rare example is the stepping stone squeeze. Exactly the same technique (playing four hands) is required for deceptive play. People who only play their cards have not mastered this skill. Understanding what makes squeeze work and what does not gives a deeper understanding about how play of the cards in bridge works in general and the importance of communication between opposite hands. For example it is amazing how many tricks you can win when playing the cards in the right order and defenders will often discard wrongly even though no squeeze would have operated double dummy. Rainer Herrmann

Would you say the same for poker? Like Bridge it seems to attract many more bad players (losers) than good players (winners) and the bad players have to pay in real money, while Bridge played for money is nowadays rather rare. Would you say the same for deceptive play at bridge, say winning in defense with an unnecessary high card like the ace when you hold the ace and queen over king jack ten in dummy? Should we restrict such plots against bad players, so that they have more "enjoyment"? What's the difference? Bad players are pissed off by many things, for example when they feel they do not get their fair share of high cards and have to defend for too many boards in a row. For them usually not much joy because they can not cope well with defense. Should we skew our dealing machines so that bad players get more "enjoyment" out of the game? Like in real life it takes time to understand what enjoyment this game provides and frustrations are also an important part of it. Challenges and frustrations in Bridge are like different sides of the same coin. Without them the game would quickly get boring. Your comment lacks logic and shows a lack of understanding what the substance and the attractions of this game really are. Rainer Herrmann

It depends on the circumstances: For example yesterday playing with a weak partner in a weak field I held as South (IMPS pairs): [hv=pc=n&s=s987532h92d96cjt3&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1d]133|200[/hv] I decided to bid 1♠ whereupon next hand bid 4♥ and 12 tricks were (almost) cold. I would not have passed against any pair, but my action might differ depending on the skill level of the opponents. Overall few pairs bid as well when faced with intervention. Rainer Herrmann.

No I was dead serious of course. B-) :P A super bidddng sequence to a great contract! Rainer Herrmann

This is the heart of the matter. If it is part of the game, there is no reason for all this frowning and moralizing. In fact it is perfectly okay for you to judge whether a certain psyche is likely to succeed against the opponents you are playing against before deciding what to do. When I execute say a double guard squeeze I also do not make sure that my opponents will understand what is going on. I could not care less Rainer Herrmann