rhm

On the actual layout this is true. Let's check on different layouts: 1. Duck the spade 2. Win the spade. 3-4. ♣A-Q Assume West has a low singleton club and East ducks. How do you continue? If you continue clubs, East cashes his two club winners and plays ♥A, small heart from ♥Ax. Nige's layout above: [hv=pc=n&s=sak9hkqt83dcaqj96&w=sj8753hj765d542c2&n=st62h92daqt96c743&e=sq4ha4dkj873ckt85&d=n&v=b&b=21&a=p1d2np3cp3sp3nppp]399|300| [/hv] If you instead switch to a high heart at trick five East wins and returns a low heart. (Assume East has 2♠=3♥=4♦=4♣ with West holding the ♥J) The point is not the spade tenace. The point is that spades are very likely 5-2, in particular if clubs do not break. In many layouts you can not afford to loose a spade trick. The defense might get 1 spade, 2 hearts and 2 club tricks. Rainer Herrmann

Not so hard to see if you count your tricks on defense. Is is far tougher for declarer to plan for this eventuality. I must admit I am a bit surprised that Helgemo butchered the hand so badly, since the right play at trick two is not that tough. Playing East for minor suit lengths and West for majors including the jacks seems indicated from the bidding and opening lead. Rainer Herrmann

Maybe Bridge players like you, who denigrate their partners without having even seen their partners hand, are no great loss as Bridge partners anyway. Rainer Herrmann

It seems to me that this is not much of a guess for declarer. Your partner is marked with nothing in any suit except clubs. Would he make a vulnerable weak two with just the ♣Q, which is not even part of his long suit? I would not call this defensive error "gross" though. Rainer Herrmann

Sorry I do not get this. For me finessing gains only if the ♠8 wins the first trump trick, that is RHO has specifically ♠KQ96 or ♠KQ92 or possibly ♠KQ962. The latter is extremely unlikely given that West would not let you play 2♠ without interfering with a void in spades and ♦AK and favorable vulnerability. It is also unlikely that he would do that with a small singleton spade. Otherwise assuming West can top the ♠8 and a heart ruff threatens the finesse never gains, since West will give East a ruff or West has ♠KQ9x. The finesse can at best break even, but loses to many 3-2 breaks: All layouts, where East has 2 trumps, whether ♠62 or ♠Hx or ♠9x. It also losses when West has a singleton ♠9. Rainer Herrmann

Assuming J2NT shows four card support, wouldn't you show the trump queen if you had extra trump length? I certainly would with 10 combined trumps. In other words denying the queen shows that opener has no more than 5 trumps. Rainer Herrmann

The following comments: Decision point is after 3 rounds of spades and one round of diamonds. At that point the chance of a singleton diamond queen has been tested and failed. Chances that the queen will drop doubleton now is less that 30% Chances that length in spades and diamond will be in the same hand may be less than even but is significantly higher than 30%. So at decision point your chances going down in 6NT by your line of play after some chances for 13 tricks have already been exhausted is higher than making an overtrick. So you should give up a spade, before playing your second diamond. Note that the lead was stupid and has given you a trick. Without that even a 3-3 spade break does only provide 12 certain tricks. Even if all West robots will make this stupid lead some will play either a different contract or from the North hand. All tables without a heart lead from West will go after diamonds without testing spades first. Therefor I think testing the spades is a subtle error. It is better to test the diamonds not to fall behind those declarers who did not receive a heart lead from West in case the queen drops. As the play went up to the decision point it is likely that West has at least 5 cards in hearts, because he discarded a heart on the third spade and that would be strange on the bidding from QT92. Given this inference we know at decision point as many major suit cards from East as from West and it is probably even who holds more cards in diamonds and the actual layout is not unlikely. You could have made your contract after the second diamond by cashing your remaining heart. This triple squeezes East, though the triple squeeze gains only one trick. Rainer Herrmann

This is just a false summary. Truth is: Some experts consider a 3♦ bid forcing and at least as many do not. Rainer Herrmann

As usual you completely miss the point. You have no clue what the discussion is all about. Rainer Herrmann

True as far as it goes. But that only means you are out of the game if you would like to bid 3♦ non forcing. Now you would have to double and if opponents do something inconvenient you get stolen blind, never finding your diamond fit. Not forcing does not mean 3♦ shows a minimum opening nor that we do not have a high level contract. Fit establishment is crucial and responders strength is not well known. It seems to me this scenario that opponents inconvenience me is (much) more likely when I am weaker than stronger. On the above hand I can either double or bid 4♦. Let's assume I double and next hand bids 4♠ passed back to me. Precisely because I am strong I can double again or I can at least consider to bid 4NT, something I could not do if I had an ace less. It is somewhat similar to the argument whether you want to play negative free bids or not. When playing them responder has to (negative) double on some hands to establish a force, which is a disadvantage. But negative free bids win when you can establish a fit (or misfit) with weaker hands immediately and these scenarios are more frequent when opponents bid. Rainer Herrmann

Nice Rainer Herrmann

I do not get this. Are you really claiming 3♠ is not forcing to game and you want to stop on a dime? I consider this unplayable and I can well understand in this context why you prefer different methods. But for the rest of the world playing this method 3♠ does not show game interest but is a game force. It therefore has to show at least slam potential. With regard to the West hand: Many claim to play 15-17 but will often upgrade 14 HCP hands having been burnt, but very rarely 17 HCP hands. What they end up playing is a sort of 14-18 NT. I consider the West hand closer to 19 than to 17. But I am not surprised that somebody who opens the hand with 1NT will rebid 3NT in the above sequence. Hand evaluation is still poorly understood. Look at all those HCP counters, who put blame on East. Rainer Herrmann

This is hard to answer without agreements. I strongly favor a balancing 1NT, which most play weaker than in second position. Sure the distribution is not perfect but nothing else is either. There are 3 major reason why I prefer 1NT: 1) It limits our hand. In my experience when the bidding starts this way ( a one level bid followed by 2 passes) the most likely game for our side by far is 3NT. But knowing whether you have the combined power is often difficult. 2) It is important that North eventually declares and East is on lead. Only a notrump bid tends to accomplish this. Transfers work particularly well after a balancing notrump. 3) Partner can use Stayman by transferring into openers suit by bidding 2♦. (This method can also function at the same time as an inquiry about stoppers in opener's suit- not an issue here.) However, I would not bother to use Stayman here with the South hand, nor am I convinced as the bidding went so far that 4♠ is a preferable contract to 3NT. Rainer Herrmann

Why is this a good example of the disadvantages of Kickback? Can you elaborate? I am not a fan of Kickback (too error prone), but my understanding always was that playing Kickback over heart agreement only interchanges the meaning of 4♠ and 4NT. So in your sequence playing kickback the spade control bid would be 4NT. Rainer Herrmann

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. The question is whether to force to game or not. Sure if you force to game the deal may be an entire misfit and you will get too high if partner is minimum. But the opposite is also true. You could easily be cold for 7♣, e.g. ♠QJxxx ♥AK ♦Ax ♣xxxx or similar. Try to get close after a forcing or semi-forcing 1NT. Oh I know many can produce wonderful sequences on paper when both hands are in view leading to the best contract, but never in practice at the table. That partner has five spades is to be expected and no real indication yet of a misfit. If he has more spades he is not that likely to be minimum since he could have opened a weak two. The danger is of course a spade - diamond twosuiter, which is possible, but then he need not be dead minimum. I consider the risk of getting too high by forcing to game less than the chance of ending at the wrong strain or level by bidding 1NT. I am pretty sure Kit Woolsey would agree. Rainer Herrmann

What does the sentence "The Regulating Authority may disallow" actually mean? I interpret this to mean that the Regulating Authority have the right of disallowing this, but only if they have regulated this aspect in advance, which is unlikely. They should certainly not be allowed to invent a regulation after the incidence occurred and then apply the regulation in retrospect. After all in principal opponents have done an irregularity and you are allowed to use the information provided by this irregularity, aren't you? If opener held an opening with a good 5 card heart suit he would certainly pass now. What is the difference? Raner Herrmann

Not sure I buy this. Given that West has good and long diamonds (no raise by East with a hypothetical void in hearts or clubs) I would be much more inclined to suppress a five card club suit than a five card major, even a poor one. Anyway East would probably have doubled with either void so West is much more likely to be void than East. Rainer Herrmann

1. Spade ruff 2. Club to ace. If West shows out, switch to hearts. If hearts are 3-3 nothing lost. You are home. Just continue hearts. If hearts are are 4-2 you will have to overruff East, but you now know to take the diamond finesse after the second spade ruff. If East fails to ruff the third heart you ruff the fourth heart and establish the fifth for a second diamond discard. Surprised that a world class player misplayed such a simple hand. Rainer Herrmann

I am not sure, but the distinction is crucial. It is my impression that those who like LTC like it, because it improved their game, which means they get better results using LTC. Rainer Herrmann

Nobody disagrees with Zelandakh as a person. We all like him. However, there is a good reason to raise more aggressively with a side suit void rather than holding AKQ in a side suit. An evaluation method which does appreciate this difference does not equalize a void with AKQ. But there might be Bridge wisdom to raise in both cases to the same level. If your chances making your contract are poorer with the void you might still show a profit. High cards are a zero sum game. The aces you hold can not be held by your opponents. Distribution is not a zero sum game. In other words some deals contain a total of 40 HCP and some much more. I like an evaluation method, which appreciates this tactical differences, which Zelandakh mathematics does not. When I show a limit raise over partner's 1♥ opening I might hold ♠x ♥Qxxx ♦Axxx ♣xxxx or ♠Kxx ♥Qxxx ♦Kxx ♣Kxx I could not care less whether Zelandakh believes the singleton spade in the first case is not worth 5 HCP. I believe it is good Bridge to raise with both hands to the same level and invite game. Rainer Herrmann

This is a misunderstanding LTC tries to estimate how many tricks your side can win when you play a trump contract. LOTT tries to answer whether it might be profitable to bid on in a competitive situation or in anticipation of a competitive situation. LOTT does not answer the question how many tricks your side can make. Some have concluded that LOTT is useless unless HCP are somewhat evenly distributed between both sides of a deal. I disagree, though I agree with the latter that there is nothing revolutionary any more about a basic concept (later substantially refined), which was first introduced 80 years ago. HCP usually work best for notrump contracts, LTC was designed for trump fits, where HCP does not work so well since distribution gets very important. LTC tends to be conservative on balanced hands and is aggressive on unbalanced ones, which is sensible given the different ODR ratio of balanced and unbalanced hands. LTC is essentially not a "high card point" evaluation method even though some have tried unconvincingly to equalize it to one. Rainer Herrmann

No. Bridge is a game of incomplete information. Exploiting this is not pure luck, though scientists often have a hard time grasping this point. However, luck or maybe better randomness and variations how cards happen to be dealt, is an important reason why people of very different skill levels can play against each other in bridge. Poor players can sometimes achieve a few good boards against experts even though the odds are not in their favor. In chess there is little point to let a poor or even average tournament player play against a grand master. The outcome is not in doubt. Rainer Herrmann

My copy of the Bridge World has not yet arrived. I ran a double dummy simulation under IMPs condition: I assumed: East has 4 or 5 hearts, 15-17 balanced, a maximum of 3 cards in spades. West has 4 cards in spades, at most 0-3 cards in hearts. 1-6 cards in a minor and is not 4333. East-West have a combined HCP between 24 and 30. Of course you can quibble with these assumptions, but I tell you it is very unlikely to matter significantly. Under those conditions 3NT is beatable in 1564(31,3% deals out of 5000, but on different opening leads and the opening lead seems to be a pure guess: In brackets I have computed the success rate of the opening leads. Low spade does better than ♠T 880 (17,6%) to 767 (15.3%) deals ♥9 or ♥(8) does slightly better than ♥2 (933 (18.7%) to 902 (18%) Low ♦: 895 (17.9%), higher diamonds do worse 865 (17.3%)♦T and 703 (14.1%) ♦K ♣T is 862 (17.2%), low club is 842 (16.8%) and ♣Q is 816 (16.3%). Looks to me all not very significant, unless you get fancy and lead the ♦K. The double dummy simulation hardly confirms the differences in the scores. Of course when no lead has a success rate of even 20%, overtrick IMPs tend to matter, which in general argues for the more passive leads. Rainer Herrmann

I do not know your TWalsh structure, but it struck me that mini notrump is particularly suitable to TWalsh methods, since one of the disadvantages of all weak notrump openings is that transfer methods are so suitable for strong balanced hands. Playing transfer methods anyway this obstacle could be made to disappear to a large extent. Of course mini notrump requires accommodation of any bidding structure. Rainer Herrmann

Rodwell, Grant "2/1 Game Force" is a well made introduction to the subject with lots of example hands, alternative treatments are discussed (e.g 1NT semi forcing) and preferences suggested. Rainer Herrmann