rhm

I am drunk. It is hard to construct a hand where slam has no play at all. (Partner could have the ace of hearts and a queen high suit for example) On more normal layouts: If partner has a singleton club at worst the slam will depend on a decent trump break and clubs 3-3 If partner has three clubs the slam will depend on clubs 2-2. If partner has two clubs the slam is always better than even. The slam could be very good. For example if partner has the spade jack or a seventh spade and a singleton club partner can ruff two clubs and the slam is odds on. As opener holding only one key card where my long suit is trumps, I would rarely start cue bidding, expecting partner to continue and playing me for one key card anyway if that is sufficient. But then I am no expert on this serious / non-serious business. Overall the slam should be bid. Rainer Herrmann

One of the worst things you can do is making a negative double with a limited hand, when holding less than 4 cards in the remaining unbid major. This is really asking for a disaster to happen. Just consider your options when next opponent (jump)raises the preempt and then doubles partners spade bid. Not very hard to predict how the play will go. Even if you and partner have the values for game it is the type of hand where you might go for a telephone number. I think pass stands out and is only a problem for those, who believe pass denies values (rather then not promising any). Anyway, this hand is very defensive in nature and no game is likely unless partner is very distributional or has substantially more than an opening bid. Most players are too aggressive with 4333. Point count can be deceptive. Rainer Herrmann

So what does it prove? Some will claim it is a bad idea, since they discarded it. Others will claim if they played it for a long time, it can't be that bad an idea. Rainer Herrmann

I think the East hand is not worth its point count. Weak hearts (in context), few aces, ♦ AK bare, no tens. The hand is better suited for notrumps than a suit contract. I believe 1NT would have been a good opening bid (yes I sometimes downgrade notrump hands) and 3♥ is a better bid than 4♥. But then I do not believe in systemic straitjackets. Good judgement rules this game. But I am not claiming that West is blameless, only that I do not like East judgement. After East overbid, West should expect 7NT to be cold and can see the danger that a bad trump split could pose. At matchpoints I would never consider 7♥ when all key cards are on board after receiving a game raise. Rainer Herrmann

If you open 1NT with balanced hands and 15-17 this is not best. You could use 3NT as 15-17 with a six card major (6M322) with stoppers in the unbid suits. This makes 3NT quite a descriptive bid, where responder is in a good position to choose the right game. 6-2 major suit fits often play well in 3NT. Also this is otherwise a problem hand for slam bidding and slam is often missed. Rainer Herrmann

There is, but it requires judgement, which is in short supply and neither K&R nor DK are the answer. Rainer Herrmann

Opening 1NT (any range) always risks missing a 4-4 major suit fit when responder is not strong enough to invite game. The only time you risk that with a mini notrump in second position is when partner has a minimum opening bid.(If he is any weaker you would not have been in the bidding) Apart from that why are you preempting partner, when you give a good description of your hand at the one level with regard to strength and distribution? Rainer Herrmann

This may look evident to you, not to me. What is the precise definition of a "deterministic" game? How do you determine a (nontrivial) game (say chess or GO) is deterministic? Rainer Herrmann

If my partner makes a non serious slam try I would sign off as well with a flat hand, no reserves for a game forcing sequence, and three little hearts. If opener does not want to ask for key cards with 4NT he should make a serious slam try, but I readily admit I am no expert on this serious / non serious nonsense. If I make a slam try I am always serious. Rainer Herrmann

The point is not that declarer should have ruffed the ♥A with the ♦9 or 7, which is a difficult play (in fact rather double dummy), but that he should have used his heart entries in hand for 2 club ruffs before playing the ♥A. In the actual diagram exchange the ♣Q for a small club between declarer and East and now declarer's play is okay and the "correct defense" allows declarer to make. Rainer Herrmann

I am not convinced. This is unproven. You could be right but you could also be very wrong and the market for strong chess player isn't so big either. In fact we also do not know how much has been invested in Bridge computer algorithm. It could well be there is not such a great difference, people always claim. In my youth I remember having read an article from an eminent chess writer, why computer will never beat grand masters in a serious game. He was obviously wrong. But I still do not subscribe to the notion that computer can beat human mind in almost any field of endeavor if enough is invested. It is not even clear whether everything of substance can be trimmed down to programmable computer algorithms, but mathematical research done by Alan Mathison Turing almost a century ago suggests not. For example computers are nowadays sometimes used when proving mathematical theorems. But I doubt that computer can substitute the ingenuity of researchers in mathematics. In the end you have to find algorithms you can program which are better than the human mind, which works on experience, associations and inspiration. Creativity is hard to program. Bridge could well be a game where this can not be accomplished no matter how much you invest. This does not make Bridge a better or worse game than chess. Rainer Herrmann

The major suit bias is gone after the puppet and the 3♦ response. I believe many experienced players tend to stay passive against a 2NT opener declaring 3NT, unless they have a good five card suit and entries, which is unlikely in the first place or unless they have a good honor sequence to lead from. So I would not overplay the likelihood that clubs are 4-1. From trick one East most likely has either ♣Q, ♣Q4 or ♣Q9, which are a priory almost equally likely. So chances that West has 4 clubs is at least one third and considering that a lead from ♣JT94 is most attractive and the play of the queen increase this chance. Your main argument is that establishing diamonds for 3 tricks is a 74% chance a priory. But if clubs are 4-1 on an unlucky day you could loose 2 diamonds, 2 clubs and a heart. But then there is no alternative anyway. Overall I think your line is clearly superior. Simple looking play problems can be deceptive Rainer Herrmann

So East has singleton club and 5 diamonds, while West has 6 clubs and 2 diamonds. Ruff a club and cash your diamond. West can ruff and play a club which you ruff, in which case you play ace of heart, heart to the king to ruff the fifth club en passant. If West cashes another spade you know Hearts are 5-1 with East having 5. If West does not ruff same procedure. Rainer Herrmann

Pursuing my plan. ♠A,K ♣Q, ♣ ruff. If clubs break: ♥K club ruff. If West overruffs he is endplayed. If not cash the diamond ace. If West ruffs he is endplayed again. If not, you have 10 tricks, 4 trumps , 3 diamonds, 2 hearts and one club. If West has 5 clubs you will probably need the heart finesse. Rainer Herrmann

This assumes declarer botchered the hand. Against a weak declarer I play like that. Otherwise against a competent declarer ♠A, which works when declarer is 5-5 in the minors and partner has the ♣K and little else. Rainer Herrmann

I would certainly win with the ♦K and play a club from dummy. (The alternative is not trumps but taking the diamond finesse before exiting with the ♣K since you are short of entries to the table) The basic plan is to loose 2 spade tricks and avoid the heart guess. For this to work you will try to establish the fifth club for two heart discards. Of course you do not have the entries for 2 club ruffs, but the opponents will have to lead something which will be beneficial to you. I think a diamond ruff will help. It is unlikely that East is long in diamonds and spades. In the end West will have only major suit cards and may get end-played when you exit later with a trump. Rainer Herrmann

Standards are good, provided the regulations itself are good. For example I would not want the ACBL regulations. As things stand I think different regulations and competition between those are better. This is a common problem. For example a common market can increase economic wealth. But it requires common rules and standards, which may require compromise in the first place and once agreed it can then get very difficult to change these rules and standards . Progress may then get very difficult. Often it is better to have competition between smaller entities and live with some initial inefficiencies and see what works better. Rainer Herrmann

I disagree that 5♣ is weaker than DBL followed by a correction. These sequences show different hands, but the risk of getting too high is similar. Rainer Herrmann

Many would bid 3♣ with 5-5 in the majors. Why DBL should show two suits but 3♣ only strength escapes me. Sensible agreements make bids, which consume bidding space (3♣) specific and cheap bids (DBL) less so. Rainer Herrmann

Agreed, but this is a misunderstanding. Bidding games is not done because it is a sure thing but because it is the percentage action, maximizing your expected score over a distribution of possible hands. When a simulation shows that out 1000 random deals 750 make game and 250 not, some of those 250 partner hands may have no chance making game whatsoever and some may go down due to bad splits. The middle one is a dead minimum Drury and it has a lots of wasted values in clubs in addition. Still game is not without chances, in particular single dummy, if the East hand is not revealed in the bidding. Rainer Herrmann

Why? I would bid game with the East hand if West employs Drury and I could not care less, which hand West held, and my simulations seem to indicate that this is the correct action. I believe missing game here is not caused by a partnership agreement question, but by bad evaluation, probably caused by over-reliance on point count. By the way opener explained the 2♣ bid as "drury fit 10+ with support" East did not appreciate the strength of his hand after receiving a Drury raise. Rainer Herrmann

As I said before I agree that the lower limit of a Drury raise is slightly less than a limit raise, but it should be really a maximum single raise. To explain the difference lets do this by example: Take the West hand [hv=pc=n&w=skj43hq5dt62ckj62]133|100[/hv] For me this is a limit raise, but only just. Change a black jack for the ten and I would not consider it a limit raise. I would still employ Drury [hv=pc=n&w=skj4hq5dt632ckj62]133|100[/hv] Not worth a limit raise, but I would still employ Drury [hv=pc=n&w=skj4h53dt632ckj62]133|100[/hv] Now the hand is a raise to 2♠, but too weak for Drury. At least 95% of all balanced hands with 8 HCP with three card support are not strong enough for Drury. Rainer Herrmann

I would simply bid hearts (keeping the diamonds in reserve) when I can not force to game and not stress diamonds when my partner makes a takeout double of a minor. Little point in reaching the three level voluntarily in hearts when I can not force to game. With regard to the last point there was a prior discussion in this thread what a responsive double showed or not showed. That is just my impression what the MSC in the US would do with this hand. They would start with a DBL. Of course my assessment could be wrong. Rainer Herrmann

That the modern trend to light openings is a winner for distributional hands, but dubious for balanced hands irrespective whether you play a strong club system or not? Fantunes is a system, which adheres to this philosophy. Statements like "we open all hands with 11 HCP" violate it. Judgement still rules. Rainer Herrmann

What about dbl-2M-3♦? I believe most experts would treat this sequence as stronger (in HCP) than an immediate 3♦. I am not sure I want to force to an 11 trick game. Certainly not via a direct 3♣ bid. Anyway I would be surprised if the vast majority of an expert panel like MSC of the Bridge World would not start with a responsive DBL nowadays. A modern responsive DBL over a minor guarantees both majors only if the hand is modest. Otherwise it tends to shows a strong hand with no clear direction. Rainer Herrmann