rhm

My first choice is 2NT and my second choice is still 2NT. I will mention some simple facts to consider for the heart raisers: With regards to game bidding hearts must play 2 tricks better before showing a significant IMPs profit compared to game at notrumps. Simulation has shown that even if partner has a random 5♥332, 3NT is more likely to make than game in hearts opposite a random 4♥333. Apart from the distribution the honor structure of this 4333 hand looks to me much more suitable for notrumps, that is a preponderance of lower honors in all suits. I ran a simulation (1000 deals), giving partner 4-5 hearts, no more than 4 spades and at least 5 HCP with no upper limit. Result: 3NT made double dummy on 866 (87%) deals Average number of tricks in notrumps was 10.2 4♥ made on 737 (74%) deals Average number of tricks in hearts was 10.4 Comparative Analysis: When 4♥ made, 3NT will make in 96% of these deals When 4 ♥ fails, 3NT will still make in 61% of these deals When 3NT makes, 4♥ will only make in 82% of these deals When 3NT fails, 4♥ will make only in 23% of these deals Now remember you will sometimes reach 4♥ on those deals where 3NT fails even after you rebid 2NT, because North will often be unbalanced in those scenarios. I made no assumptions about North distribution except the ones stated above. Of course agreements after a jump rebid into 2NT helps. I personally like transfers. If partner transfers into his bid major he guarantees at least five, but is never 5332 unless he is very weak and intends to pass next. The opposite is not true: It is quite tough to reach 3NT after you bid 4♥ straight away. Even after a jump raise few partnerships can stop in 3NT. On top it is well known that this double dummy analysis understates the advantage of 3NT over 4♥, mainly because single dummy the defense does not always find the best lead against 3NT. Rainer Herrmann

Bidding agreements should be designed to differentiate hands so that the right contract can be reached. This is done by using different bidding sequences. Obviously the number of different hand types you can differentiate depends on the number of different sequences you have available. In 2/1 game forcing the lowest contract after 2/1 is 3NT. A little bidding theory can help here The number of different sequences almost doubles with each additional step available. So after 1M-2♣ there are almost twice as many hand types you can show than when the bidding starts 1M-2♦. So why do we have problems differentiating club hands from balanced hands after 1M-2♣ (Only 2 hand types)? The answer is simple: Standard bidding violates what Rubens has called the "useful space principle (USP) ". For example after 1M - 2♣ bids being cheap should show frequent common hands and bids which use a lot of bidding space should be specific. This maximizes the amount of information which can be exchanged. Relay system do this, but you need not play a relay system to accomplish this. Standard bidding does not do this For example after 1M-2♣ the cheapest bid is 2♦. But in standard this shows 4+ diamonds in openers hand. This requirement is quite specific and makes the bid rare, claiming that at least 50% of openers remaining cards are diamonds. Nice when opener can rebid 2♦, but making the situation bad when he does not have 4+ diamonds. More likely opener has a 5M332 distribution, with which most rebid either 2M or 2NT, which is less specific but uses more bidding space. Simply inverting these 2 bids, say the meaning of 2NT and 2♦, after 1M-2♣ game forcing makes your system more efficient and gives responder room to show what he got. So agreeing that 1M-2♦ showing 5+ diamonds and 1M-2♣ being unspecific with regard to clubs is the way to go, but you have to invest a little bit in your continuations. Standard bidding is not very efficient here. I have dwelt on this in a bit more detail in a recent Bridgeworld article where I have made suggestions how to improve standard bidding in a 2/1 context. It is not so important whether you like my suggestions, what is important is to realize that standard continuations are not optimal. Rainer Herrmann

[hv=pc=n&s=sk43hq987dkqt8cj9&n=sa98652hd7653cak5&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1d1sp2d(fit)p3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] As I hinted this is all about matchpoints. At IMPs this would be a boring contract. You are in a good contract, which is very likely to succeed. Spades are unlikely to be 4-0. East would not pass with a void in spades and at least 5 hearts at favorable vulnerability and if West is void of spades he would have opened 1♦ with an unlikely 0♠=4♥=4♦=5♣ and then passed 2♦ white against red. However, you will have plenty of company in 4♠. The field should have little difficulty to reach game as well in spite of only a combined 22 HCP. West is unlikely to have only 3 cards in diamonds. In this case West would have to be 4♠=4♥=3♦=2♣ with less than 15 points. This would mean East passed at favorable vulnerability your one spade overcall with at least 4 HCP, and 0♠=5♥=2♦=6♣. Hard to believe. So West has 4 diamonds. West can not possibly know that you (North) are void of hearts. So from his perspective,a diamond ruff at trick 2, heart back to West (West almost certainly has the ♥A, because East would not pass 1♠ with 5 hearts including the ace) and another diamond is an attractive defensive option for West. Why did West not give his partner a diamond ruff? Apparently West deemed it unlikely that you (North) will have four diamonds. If the lead was from a doubleton, a diamond return would give away a trick. Can West be short in clubs? Hardly. As other pointed out this would give East 0=5=1=7 or a 1=5=1=6 distribution. So West has at least 3 clubs. neither would his club switch be attractive from the queen. West is either 2♠=4♥=4♦=3♣ or 1♠=4♥=4♦=4♣. It looks like East potential HCP can consist only of black queens to account for his silence in the bidding and accordingly West has both top hearts to account for his opening bid. West knows that North potential heart losers can not run away, so from his perspective there was little point laying down a top heart. Good play by West. So what is your problem? At many tables West will return a diamond for East to ruff. No problem if spades are 2-2. But if East has 3 spades, East is ruffing a diamond loser with a natural trump trick and North will have 11 easy tricks on this defense while you are in danger of losing 2 diamonds and a spade. So what can you do do to get back to 11 tricks in 4♠? This was the layout: [hv=pc=n&s=sk43hq987dkqt8cj9&w=sjhakj4da942c6432&n=sa98652hd7653cak5&e=sqt7ht6532djcqt87&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1d1sp2d(fit)p3sp4sp]399|300[/hv] You have a trump squeeze against West: T1: ♦A T2: ♣A T3: ♠K T4: ♣K T5: ♣ruff T6: ♠A T7: ♠ At trick 8 East will have to return a heart or club, which you ruff to reach the following position with North on lead: [hv=pc=n&s=shq9dkt8c&w=shakd942c&n=s98hd765c&e=shdc]399|300[/hv] North now plays a trump discarding the ♦8 from South and West has no discard. Would you have foreseen the trump squeeze for the vital overtrick and a good matchpoint score? Rainer Herrmann

Some good players strongly prefer IMP play I have no such preferences. Matchpoints has its own intricacies. This hand caught my interest: Playing in a pairs game (mediocre field) you reach the following 4♠ contract: [hv=pc=n&s=sk43hq987dkqt8cj9&n=sa98652hd7653cak5&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1d1sp2d(fit)p3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] East leads the ♦J covered and taken by West. West switches to the ♣6 What is your problem? Plan the play Rainer Herrmann

I do not see your point. Whether you open light or sound has an impact on the minimum requirements partner needs for a 2/1 response. Either way opener can have a minimum for opening, whatever that is according to your agreements and style. And if opener has a balanced minimum opening in your style you will want to pass 1NT. Such hands are frequent. My feeling is that 1NT forcing is in theory unsound. If responder has not enough to go to the two level you want to be able to stop as early as possible if the requirements for game are not present. Of course playing a bid forcing increases the number of possible sequences. But this is true for any forcing bid. But forcing bids also forces opener to find a new bid when he has none. Accordingly a rebid of 2♣ or 2♦ are much more likely to be 3 card suits than when the bid is made over a 1NT response which could have been passed. The concept that a limit raise shows 4 trumps is a consequence of playing 1NT forcing. I see little benefit of doing so. Bid 1NT with a balanced limit raise with 3 trumps. If opener passes 1NT, he should be (semi)balanced and you are most likely in a good contract. In fact opener can use as a criteria, whether he would have rejected a balanced three card limit raise. If yes and if he is (semi)balanced he should pass 1NT. Just agree to limit raise directly if you have an unbalanced invitation with 3 card support. Of course there must be some compensating high card values values for an unbalanced 3 card limit raise compared to an unbalanced 4 card limit raise. I never had problems with this. Rainer Herrmann

Obviously 4♥ should be limited, that is a good opening bid with a respectable 7 card suit, just too strong to open 4♥, but not much in reserve. That leaves DBL and 4♣ for stronger hands. 4♣ should show a strong hand, which can not stand partner passing your takeout DBL, invariably short in clubs, say a void in clubs or freak distribution say 6 hearts, 5 spades and a singleton club. DBL is the normal bid for strong hands even with a singleton club. At least that seems to be the way the Italians are bidding. I would double For example if this is matchpoints and partner bids 3NT I would pass. Rainer Herrmann

One of the advantages of attitude leads are that the card you choose is determined by the whole hand you hold, not only by the quality of the suit you lead. When I hold a two suiter against notrump I may well lead a middle card from my weaker five card suit. When I lead my lowest card I expect the suit to be returned. Most players use attitude leads when they switch to a new suit in the middle of the game. This is not much different. Michael Rosenberg once said on Bridgewinner: When partner switches to the 2 of a new suit, you either return the suit or another card beats the contract. :D I think attitude leads are a much better match for passive leads than anything else invented so far. For example I want to lead my highest card, say from 873 when leading passive against notrump (not second best), as long as the card led will not risk giving away a trick. It is my experience that declarer profits from count leads at notrumps at least as much as partner, who will often have clues form the bidding or who can make inferential assumptions what is required to beat the contract. I have seen more than once declarer's frustration when he was told the opening lead is attitude. Saying you never lead from xxx against notrump contracts is the hallmark of a losing player. I want to be able to lead from any holding of a suit, even under-leading aces against suit contracts, though I will do this about twice per leap year. A simple but good advise for opening leads is to first determine from the bidding whether an aggressive or passive lead is called for. Then you should also try to determine from the bidding which suits the bidding suggests and which not. Only then should you look at your hand again, not the other way round. Sometimes the bidding will be uninformative and sometimes your hand may over-rule, but far more often than not you should stick to the suit suggested by the bidding. It is a pity that too many players remember their hand from the bidding and are incapable or too lazy of doing the above mental effort. Rainer Herrmann

Surprise, surprise I agree. I did double Rainer Herrmann

I wouöd loose this particular competition by a mile. Weak is a relative term. If you hold a yarborough chances are your partner has a strong hand, quite possibly too strong to overcall. Does jumping to 3♥ make sense under those conditions with six small hearts? Good luck thereafter. I still think rebidding 2♥ should show at least either a better suit or at least a more unbalanced hand. I maintain 1NT is not a distortion, it keeps the bidding low and is quite a descriptive bid. It shows values in context and a balanced hand. 2♥ shows neither. As to stoppers, we are bidding 1NT not 3NT. Note 1♣ as a rule does not even promise length in clubs and I can not see why the much weaker hand, which got less than 25% of the combined values, needs to provide the stopper in this context. Rainer Herrmann

1) 1NT (too much to pass, not enough to force to game) 2) 3♥ followed by a diamond bid. I give up on 3NT. 3) DBL playing with an expert partner 4) 5NT just in case partner will bid hearts. Rainer Herrmann

There are a lof of inferences you can draw at this point: Since declarer has shown up with the ace of spades, most points are accounted for. The heart play seems unlikely if declarer has a low doubleton, in which case partner would have played small from KQJx in hearts. If declarer has 3 hearts he must have an honor, most likely the queen. Hence partner seems marked with the rest of the points. Accordingly declarer has only a four card club suit and since I would expect partner would bid his major in last position when holding a five card major, declarers second suit should be spades. Since declarer played the spade ten from dummy at trick one partner should have the spade 9. Accordingly if my analysis is correct the layout is an open book and should be close to something like [hv=pc=n&s=s42ha7653dj754c94&w=sqt3h94dkq63cak65&n=skj95hkj2dat2cqj2&e=sa876hqt8d98ct873]399|300[/hv] Play a spade and after partner cashed his heart king he should play for a trump promotion in spades by you ruffing the fourth one for 2 down. If partner has ♠KJ9x ♥KQJx ♦Axx ♣Qx you need the same trump promotion for one down. There is another less likely layout where declarer has a 5 card spade suit: [hv=pc=n&s=s42ha7653dj754c94&w=sqt3h94dkq63cak65&n=skj9hkj2dat82cqj2&e=sa8765hqt8d9ct873]399|300[/hv] In this layout you have no trump promotion, but partner is in grave danger getting endplayed if you do not continue spades. Say you play a club. declarer wins in dummy and continues heart. partner wins cashes his trump and is stuck. Best continuation would be a heart, declarers queen winning, spade discard from dummy. Now declarer plays a spade to partner. Partner would now need to find the return of a middle diamond (not the 2 and not the ace) to get the contract one down. If partner returns the diamond two delcarer wins in dummy and continues with a low diamond discarding a spade. Anything but trivial even for a strong player. Rainer Herrmann

If you want to have replies I do not understand why you do not bother to use the standard features for hand diagrams on this forum: It is so much easier to see the deal correctly: You should also specify the exact cards played by you, declarer dummy and partner to ALL previous tricks, even if you think it does not matter. Why is it so difficult to follow this standard??? Rainer Herrmann

I mentioned I like equal level conversion only as a side remark, believing its advantages outweigh its disadvantages. But I readily admit there are scenarios, which could be problematic. Responder has to be careful when responding in the lowest unbid suit (a minor) at a high level, since takeout doubler does not necessarily guarantee support. But the current 4♠-5♥-1♦-3♣ hand has little to do with equal level conversion since we do have club support. Nobody can predict how an auction will develop. However, I sincerely are convinced that starting with a double in this case is more likely to give us far less headaches than starting with a 1♥ overcall. If you would ask what to do with this hand over a 3♦ preempt you would find very few experts preferring 3♥ to a takeout double. (If you pass with the actual hand over 3♦ (fair enough) make it a little stronger). So it sounds to me strange claiming that a 1♥ overcall would leave you overall better placed to manage the subsequent auction when LHO might just about raise diamonds to any level. Overcalling 1♥ puts all your eggs in one basket. Fine if your fit is in hearts. Of course double could let us miss a 5-3 fit in hearts. Otherwise this would not be contentious at all, but I see no good reason why a takeout double followed by a 2♥ bid over a 1NT response has to be played as super-strong. Reverse the major suit lengths (5♠-4♥) and I am with the overcallers, but this is of course very different. When I overcall in hearts and subsequently double a dimaond raise I am unlikely to hold 4 cards in spades and partner should take this into account. . M typical distribution would be more likely 3♠-6♥-1♦-3♣ Rainer Herrmann

I would not throw this sequence ((1♦)-X-(P)-1N-(P)-2♥) at partner without discussion, but I beg to differ. Even playing standard I do not understand why so many insist bidding 2♥ here needs to be reserved for hands too strong to overcall immediately. My guess is the reason is lazy thinking. Playing equal level conversion anyway this is a clear flannery type sequence (could be 6♥-4♠). What the matter is wrong with bidding 3♥ over 1N to show a powerhouse, assuming a 1N in response to a takeout dbl shows some values. It is not like takeout doubler has any problem differentiating strong hands with a heart suit. Are 3♥,4♥ or 2♦ followed by hearts not enough to differentiate between very strong heart hands, which occur every other leap year anyway while the flannery hand type is quite common? The risk of missing a spade fit (or a club fit) by overcalling 1♥ (LHO might preempt next) is far more likely than missing a good heart fit by starting with a double. Sometimes we will have a fit in both majors, in which case playing spades will often be preferable, due to ruffing diamonds with the "short" trump side can provide extra tricks. When we overcall 1♥ partner will not look fro a spade fit when he has heart support, say 5♠-3♥s. Rainer Herrmann

Which ton of unambiguously forcing bids at lower levels did partner have? This was not an everyday standard sequence where most partnership have clear agreements what subsequent bids would show. Say partner bids 3♥, because he wants to make a nice forcing, much lower level bid over 3♦. You find your next bid, say 4♦ and partner now bids 6♣, because he can not find another clearly forcing bid. What will the partnership have gained in this case? Rainer Herrmann

I do not understand this . I presume the defender who has both heart honors also needs to hold the queen of clubs. Assume declarer play all nine trumps, which 4 cards does the defender keep? If he blanks the queen of clubs overtake. If not cash the club king and play hearts from the top. The only guess I can see is if it is East, who holds all the marbles and blanks the queen of clubs. Then declarer might have to guess whether to overtake. I can not see how the strip squeeze is going to work without the club king and the club queen in place. Otherwise a defender could come down to ♠x and ♥KQx. The strip squeeze is a different solution, neither better nor worse. Make the ♥T a small heart and the stepping stone solution is better because it works against both West and East. Rainer Herrmann

http://www.rpbridge.net/4k00.htm Look at example 10 to 13 (Finesse Against Dummy) and you or your partner may learn something Rainer Herrmann

While I can agree with the rest, this is nonsense. And it does not get better because this nonsense gets repeated time and again Play, bid and lead what the average player does and you end with an average result. This does not mean I go out of my way doing things differently. I also lead a low spade here. However, the argument is not because I try to mimic what others will do. I simply expect this lead to be more often effective than other leads, particularly at matchpoints. Rainer Herrmann

Mrs. Guggenheim would have employed keycard Blackwood with the South hand. Apparently former world champions consider this to be beneath them in international teams events. Rainer Herrmann

deleted

Defense is often based on assumptions. From North perspective South needs probably any two (except possibly J9) of the top 4 missing heart A, Q, J, 9 for a heart continuation to be best for the defense. North can probably deduce that declarer has the ace and South will probably need QJ or Q9 to beat the contract. This might be slightly against the odds, but from North perspective it might be the only chance to beat the contract. Of course North holding in spades and diamond come into play. So making these assumptions North will often "know" to encourage a heart continuation. It might not beat the contract, but if South does not have a suitable holding in hearts the defense may have no chance. I firmly believe you must make up your mind when you switch to a new suit, what the best strategy for the defense is. Otherwise attitude signals are hard to read. Rainer Herrmann

The defense is very tough after the trump lead, but there is one. Rainer Herrmann

No it does not. What you constantly overlook is something different: The objective of bidding and this should have a profound effect on hand evaluation. From a purely constructive point of view LTC may not be the most precise method. Frankly I do not care. In Bridge we do not bid constructively alone; we switch between modes. Sometimes we are constructive, say when opponents keep quiet and we have strong hands. I am not a good card holder most of the time and I suspect others have a similar problem. :P Being obstructive is often best when the opponents have not yet entered the bidding. The objective of bidding is beating absolute par most of the time and as often as not this means switching from constructive mode into obstructive mode. The question is not, which method will let me find make-able contracts, but which methods will let me reach the correct level of a deal quickly, even if I might be an underdog making my contract. This does not mean you should recklessly overbid, but you need to know when to stay conservative and when to be aggressive in the bidding. Everybody understands trump fit plays a big role, but so does distribution. The value of side suit distribution is of course more vulnerable to duplication. Nevertheless when holding a trump fit but being balanced, it pays to be conservative, when being distributional it pays to be aggressive. Even if you can not make your contract, chances are opponents could make something. Experienced bidders often find out whether they bid constructively or obstructively only when dummy comes down. To give just one example: Say partner opens 1♥ I might give a limit raise holding ♠x ♥Kxxx ♦Axxxx ♣xxx or holding ♠xx ♥Kxxx ♦AQxx ♣Qxx When holding ♠KJx ♥Kxxx ♦QJx ♣KTx I would not use Jacoby and lock myself into hearts, but simply respond 2♣. LTC tells me that 3NT might be more promising than 4♥ when opener is also balanced even though we have a nine or ten card fit in the major. 4♥ might simply not fetch. This is exactly what modern LTC tells you. It applies on a trump fit and gets more aggressive the more distribution you have in addition. I do not care whether I make my contract in the end if it still turns out to be a cheap sacrifice or beats absolute par. This is usually true, when you bid distributional games. You might not make it, but often you still do well. Nevertheless using LTC I am not constantly in contracts where I have to minimize my undertricks. A sensible LTC seems to work quite nicely in practice. If you bid games on balanced hands with a higher combined HCP and you do not make you do not do well, because opponents can rarely make anything of substance. For slam bidding, LTC is only good for potential, but you tell partner in the bidding where you shortages are or your long side side suit is and let him evaluate accordingly. Rainer Herrmann

Something is wrong here. On the layout you give I do not see how declarer can make whether South returns a spade or a a low diamond. How does declarer play on a diamond return please? As far as I can see the only return, which lets declarer make, is a heart continuation. On a side note I agree with you the heart 7 should either be North lowest heart or the highest he can afford. Attitude leads get hard to read if it could be anything in between. If declarer has 5 hearts it could be his lowest, though I deem that still unlikely but certainly possible. If partner had both heart honors, declarer is practically marked with all other honors and would likely have enough tricks without a third club trick. The club play would be almost a concession if declarer has no heart honor. So it is reasonable to assume that partner can not have ace and king in hearts making it even less likely the heart 7 is his lowest. Rainer Herrmann

We have to make some assumptions here. I deem it unlikely that the contract can be beaten if declarer has the diamond queen and declarer might have played differently at trick one. Declarer seems to have 4 clubs. With 2=5=2=4 and a small doubleton in diamonds declarer might have rebid 2♣, so declarer should be 3=4=2=4 The heart 7 is not North lowest heart, so he does not want a heart back and he should not have the heart 8. It seems to me unlikely that declarer has ducked with both top honors in hearts and no certain entry to his hand any more. Without the spade ace he might have played on spades first. If partner has the heart ace we now have 2 heart tricks, a club trick and hopefully a spade trick. This requires partner to have the queen and jack in spades. The danger is that partner might get forced to play a second heart after three rounds of spades, in which case if we got already a heart a spade and a club, declarer will have no choice but to hope that North has the heart ace. I envision something like the following layout: [hv=pc=n&s=st75hqj3dj9873c92&w=sk643h6dakt4cq843&n=sqj2ha7542dq6ckt7&e=sa98hkt98d52caj65]399|300[/hv] The position after 5 tricks: [hv=pc=n&s=st75hq3dj98c&w=sk643hdkt4cq&n=sqj2ha542dqc&e=sa98hkt8d5c3]399|300[/hv] In this layout a low spade is fine as is a low diamond. The sapde ten gives away the contract. However, if dummy puts up the king of spades on a low spade North must unblock to avoid getting end-played. Switching to the diamond 9 might make it easier for him to do so. Declarer could have made by going up in hearts immediately, but this was a diffcult play and not clearly indicated. Rainer Herrmann