rhm

This strategy looks right to me. I do not want to emphasize hearts too much, but of course we have to mention hearts. There is close to zero chance that the bidding will stop in 3♥ and if it does we may be high enough. I am also reluctant to defend without having mentioned my best suit. So if over 3♥ and 3♠ I can follow up with 4♣ I will leave the remainder to partner, having given a fair description of what I got. If not I will be forced to bid 5♣ over 4♠, but then they either they have bid 4♠ voluntarily or partner has raised hearts, in which case my club bid must also have lead implications. (I would not bother introducing a bad suit then) Rainer Herrmann

Obviously the hand should make when hearts are 4-2. What about the lead being singleton? This was the actual layout: [hv=pc=n&s=sjt2hq8dqt64cqj52&w=s98hjt652d753ca76&n=sak643hak743dac43&e=sq75h9dkj982ckt98&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] If the heart is a singleton you need trumps to break and chances are East will have 3 trumps. You can make provided you do not play on trumps immediately. Otherwise the defense will then get a trump trick and 2 club tricks and either a heart or a heart ruff. Continuing hearts is also fatal because East can ruff and after 2 clubs get a trump promotion with another heart. However, as long as you have not lost a trump trick already, East can not ruff a heart without losing his natural trump trick. Instead try what happens if you try to establish a club winner and at the same time knock out West club entry. So win the lead in dummy and at trick 2 play a diamond to your ace and play a club presumably to West club honor. What can West do? A diamond return lets you discard your club loser and establishes a diamond trick instead. A club return establishes your club trick. A heart return gives East his heart ruff, but then you can draw trumps and establish your club trick. The only return, which might give you a headache is a trump return, which you need to win in the above layout. Your best continuation is now a high heart playing for club honors to be split. No matter whether Eats ruffs or not you can establish a club trick and ruff a heart in dummy. Why is a trump return best from West? Because you might play East for 2 hearts and 4 spades, in which case it would be better to duck the spade return in North. Nevertheless not all is lost in this case if you go up in spades. You are now in danger of losing 2 trump tricks and 2 club tricks. But if East has both minor suit kings you get a chance for a rare squeeze. Say the layout is something like [hv=pc=n&s=sjt2hq8dqt64cqj52&w=s8hjt65dj753cat76&n=sak643hak743dac43&e=sq975h92dk982ck98&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] So the play starts ♥9 to the ♥Q Diamond to the ace Club to the queen and Ace Spade 8 to the ace. heart ace all follow. If hearts are 4-2 we do not need a club trick, but we are worried about trumps being 4-1. We continue with the heart king and East can not ruff without losing his second trump trick. So he will discard as will dummy. We now ruff a heart and ruff a diamond back. When we play the fifth heart the position is: [hv=pc=n&s=sjhdqcj52&w=shdj7ct74&n=sk64h4dc3&e=sq97hdkck]399|300[/hv] East is caught in a rare squeeze. I think it is called a backwash squeeze Note that East could not have discarded any better. If he discards one of his kings than we do not have a club loser any more Rainer Herrmanno

I do not disagree with this. Maybe your plan is not ambitious enough Rainer Herrmann

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt2hq8dqt54cqj52&n=sak643hak743dac43&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] ♥9 led Plan the play (Should West gain the lead expect a trump return, should he have any left) Rainer Herrmann

My deep finesse Version 2.0 does not produce an error. At least I do not see it Where do you see an error? Rainer Herrmann

deleted

Not so difficult... East should have the heart ace and the spade king for his vulnerable 2 level overcall. If East has 6 clubs he likely should have no more than 3 spades [hv=pc=n&s=sahk9852d842cak32&w=sjt76hq64djt965c7&n=sq9852hjt7dak7cj6&e=sk43ha3dq3cqt9854&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1s2c2hp3hp4h]399|300[/hv] T1:♣K T2:♠A T3:♣A ruffed by West T4:♦A T5:spade ruff T6:heart If East wins and returns a diamond, win, ruff spade, cash heart king and ruff a club and discard your remaining losers on the spades. If West wins and plays a second diamond, you can cross ruff the black suits. Rainer Herrmann

I think 4NT stands out in any system. It would never occur to me to pass 5♣, which is far too defeatist. Sure partner could be broke and we can not make even 5♣. It happens but my guess is once in a blue moon. Opponents have announced a big fit and not a particularly strong combined values. Over 5♣ the decision is really between 6♣ and 5♠. I bid 6♣, which I do not consider very brave, but I do not want to direct a diamond lead against our slam. Rainer Herrmann

With no defensive trick I let it go. Too frustrating if next hand will jump to 4 Spades or they reach game in hearts thereafter. We could have 3NT but then partner might also bid 3NT without the diamond ace Rainer Herrmann

Declarer can not have five hearts and six clubs, because this would give partner too many HCP in spades and diamonds and anyway partner does not hold seven good diamonds for this bidding. So declarer is likely balanced with around 19 HCP with 3 diamonds and four hearts. Declarer is either 3♠=4♥=3♦=3♣ or 2♠=4♥=3♦=4♣. This means declarer has one diamond ruff, 4 club tricks, 4 trump tricks and a spade trick. We probably have 2 diamond and a spade trick. One possibility is to play us for 2 spade tricks. This would require declarer to have ♠Kx ♥AKTx ♦QJx ♣AQxx or ♠Kxx ♥AKTx ♦QJx ♣AQx However, this defense would hardly be tough. More likely we do not have a second spade trick, in which case the fourth trick can only come from trumps. This will require partner to have the heart ten and the diamond queen and declarers spade trick must be slow. That requires partner to have the spade ace. Give declarer ♠KQ ♥AKxx ♦Jxx ♣AQxx or ♠KQx ♥AKxx ♦Jxx ♣AQx and we can force him Dump your diamond king and partner can play 3 rounds of diamonds forcing dummy to ruff. Partner will play another diamond when he comes in with the ace of spades. If partner has the ten of hearts we have a trump trick or declarer draws trumps immediately and never gets a spade trick. Rainer Herrmann

To be honest I would be proud to see this at the table. Unfortunately I misplay far easier hands. Rainer Herrmann

I have bid 1NT (8-12 HCP) all my life and rarely regret it. Rainer Herrmann

If the hand is make-able the deal is an open book. Obviously we have a loser in every side suit. Therefor trumps must break and judging from the play in the minors West distribution should be be 5♠=2♥=3♦=3♣. If we do not draw trumps we will run in a spade ruff and if we do we can ruff only one of our 2 black losers. But you know West distribution. Play a club to the ace and play 3 rounds of trumps ending in hand. Now cash your club queen discarding a spade from dummy and play your last club. Something interesting is going to happen: [hv=pc=n&s=sqj7h5dc8&w=sk98hdk2c&n=s6h6dqj9c&e=shdt876ct]399|300[/hv] When you play the ♣8 what is West going to discard? Not a spade or you ruff in dummy and play a spade from there. So West will discard his small diamond. Now discard your spade from the table and let East win You ruff the forced diamond return, which drops the king and dummy is high. Rainer Herrmann

Strong club systems are certainly better on game forcing and nearly game forcing hands. This does not necessarily mean they will always find the best contract when one hand is very strong, but chances are much better. I personally have devised a strong club system many years ago, which I still play with my wife, where after 1♣-1♦ a rebid of 1♥ by opener is artificial and strong while all other rebids by opener are limited to 16-18 or 17-19 if balanced. The system does well when one hand is very strong and the other is weak. Natural systems handle this not uncommon scenario poorly. For example one hand has QJTxxx in a minor and nothing on the side and the bidding starts 2♣-2♦-2NT for example. Rainer Herrmann

Oh I agree that it is always best when you agree with your partner and use the same methods :) :) Unfortunately I have seen cases where this does not happen. Rainer Herrmann

As far as I understand it, Acbl recently allowed to have an agreement to open notrump with a singleton honor. This happens because more and more want to do this even games governed by GCC and it is done by many experts. This does not mean the ACBL recommends or suggests doing so. Rainer Hermann

No such claim. LTC is a valuation method of your hand just like HCP and does not require that your partner uses the same evaluation method. For example whether I make a mixed raise or a limit raise I may look at my losers to assess my strength. I often play with partners who do not use it, either because they do not need it or because they have no clue about it. That's it. There is nothing more than that Rainer Herrmann

Playing tricks is a fuzzy concept. If you hold AKQJTxx in a suit, it is not too difficult to conclude that you have 7 playing tricks there. Unfortunately I rarely hold such strong suits. Nobody has been able to tell me what the number of playing tricks are when I hold KJ9xxx in a suit or similar, and that is what I get dealt far more often. So most of the time playing tricks is not a useful measure for most hands. LTC is different. The original one is not very useful, because it treated queens (almost) like aces and that is obviously nonsense. More sophisticated versions are quite useful. While it is true that LTC comes into play once a fit has been established, I still disagree with those, who claim you should not use it before that fit is known. So you could say with LTC it is acknowledged that the value of a hand depends what you find opposite while playing tricks simply ducks this issue. In bidding it is important to understand the potential of a distributional hand, even when you do not yet know you have a fit and even then you may not be able to tell wether your distributional assets face duplication or not. Of course you do not open a 5 HCP hand with a one-level bid, because it contains only 7 losers, since you can not know at this time the degree of your fit. But LTC can be used as a discriminator, when you are in doubt. It simply can not be bad to note, when you hold a hand, whether weak or strong, its potential and get a rough idea how much this potential is. As a side remark I note, that the rule of 20, which also takes distribution into account, treats 5422, 5431 and 54440 distribution the same, but these distributions have quite different potential. Any initial action, whether opening the bidding or overcalling is to a large extent a bet, that you will buy something useful in dummy. When your values are distributional and less in HCP your risk increases, because distributional assets are more dependent on a fit and degree of duplication. But the rewards are also higher. HCP are a zero sum measure, because the HCP assets you hold, can not be held by any other player. The total is 40 by standard measure. The same does not hold true for distributional values. When both sides can make many tricks, this almost always happens based on distribution. You will be hard pressed to construct a deal where both sides can make game when everybody holds a 4333 distribution. Rainer Herrmann

The hand is unsuitable for an Acol 2♥, sinply because this bid shows either a one-suited hand or a two-suiter. But 2♣ is simply the strongest bid in the system. So you can not argue the hand is good enough for 2♣ but not strong enough for an Acol 2♥. Just as there are strong hands you might not open 2♣, because you can not describe your main distributional features thereafter well, there are slightly weaker hands which can not be described well after an Acol two bid. Opening this hand 2♣ is okay, though it is an overbid. You just assume you have game. I still prefer 2NT, but I can see the merit of opening 2♣. We might find a good club fit that way, assuming of course we do not play lower minor as a second negative after 2♣-2♦-2♥, which many do. Rainer Herrmann

A very lopsided perspective. First of all it is quite easy to construct hands where you do not need 5 HCP and partner will respond to 2NT. A transfer to spades might easily make game opposite a near yarborough. It might also be crucial to play the hand in 3NT and disguise this hand from opponents. Bridge is not played double dummy. Say you open 1♥ Even if this is not immediately fatal, I can see problems describing strength and distribution of this hand when partner responds 1♠, 1NT or even 2♦. No thanks for me, the singleton minor suit king and the 5 card heart suit leaves me cold I open 2NT, which almost anyone would have done if the heart jack or the club queen would have been a small diamond. At least partner has a fair description of my strength and a rough assessment of my distribution. Rainer Herrmann

I do not see the issue. partner needs a yarborough with a singleton heart to make game. Unless we open 2♣ how do we want to convince our partner that we will only need goods hearts for the sky to be the limit? What terrible can happen if you open 2♣? Outside of hearts partner can have only a couple quacks. Of course partner may be short in hearts and have a good long suit somewhere else. But even this might be easier to find out by opening 2♣. Rainer Herrmann

I did this according to the above specification plus 2 in addition. But before reporting results I would like to mention what made your takeout from 3NT to 4M successful. I do not criticize the bidding, which is due to system constraints. However fact is: openers hand is not notrump suitable: He got 5422 distribution which is more suited for a trump contract It has no less than 10 controls and no queens. In fact the only non control honor card is a single jack. What made the 5-2 fit good was that repsonders 5 card suit had "body". QJ98x is an extremely lucky buy for such a risk. Result with the above suggested parameters (1000 deals on each simulation): 4M made on 551 deals 3NT made on 665 deals Average number of tricks in 4M 9.57 Average number of tricks in 3NT 9.06 In practice 3NT would have an even bigger advantage single dummy. (wrong opening lead etc.) So the basic answer is no, but your specifications may not have been good enough. For example with xx in the major opener will not disturb 3NT. Another sim, this time point range between 24-31 and opener has at least one of the top 3 honors in the major, rest of the specifications as above: Result: 4M made on 684 deals 3NT made on 751 deals Average number of tricks in 4M 10.10 Average number of tricks in 3NT 9.71 Still no good One reason surely is that bad trump breaks are of course more likely once the combined trumps you have yourself is reduced. Few 5-2 fits will play well once opponents trumps break 5-1 Last try: What happens if we leave all as on the last sim, but insist opener to have AK tight. This is the worst for 3NT since you are totally blocked in responders major, because you can not even overtake this holding in 3NT and openers resources in the major mean he has less outside in HCP: Result: 4M made on 662 deals 3NT made on 696 deals Average number of tricks in 4M 9.99 Average number of tricks in 3NT 9.44 So even the last simulation is negative for the 5-2 fit. It is my believe you need at least an 0.7 trick advantage on average, before you should prefer 4M to 3NT at the table. The only way you could cater sensibly for good 5-2 fits would be to be more discriminating with your 5 card suits, whether to transfer or use Stayman. Say you have enough values for 3NT, you could in principle agree only to transfer if you would not mind if opener takes you back on a very strong doubleton. Of course you would end in 3NT with some 5-3 major suit fits, not the end of the world when repsonder is balanced too and his 5 card suit is weak. Trouble is what to do with responder hands which are distributional, but have a mediocre 5 card major. Now you probably prefer 5-3 major fit at almost any cost. Stayman will not do. Rainer Herrmann

You are wrong for simple reasons. When you have a hand with few honors, reducing them tends to have a big impact on the statistical outcome. It increases the risks (partner playing you for a stronger hand) and your chances succeeding in your contract will reduce substantially. The vote already indicates that for most people the decision is clear the other way. I am a strong believer that action has mote to gain than to loose, but it does not mean I can go much lower. I explained that the hand has 3 controls and I would be unlikely to do it with only 2, because for high level contracts you require controls. Would I bid on say ♠AT9xxx ♥QJTx ♦x ♣xx or on ♠AQxxxx, ♥QTxx, ♦x ♣xx or ♠KQxxxx ♥KJxx ♦x ♣xx? Maybe, but then some people would argue this to be stronger hands (I disagree). Rainer Herrmann

For high level trump contracts HCP are not a good yardstick, but controls matter. I have shown how little I need for game or slam. Some have interpreted my call as preemptive, which it is not. It is constructive and it is a matter of hand evaluation. Though I can not go any lower (I would not wait for the major suit 9s), I say again bidding has much more to gain. I can provide some statistical evidence: A priory your game chances with 64 in the majors and 21 in the minors is already 43% Since you hold about as much in HCP than RHO, who opened a vulnerable weak two, there is no evidence that these a priory odds have changed much. If at all it has improved, because most of the values in our shortage seem to be held by opponents. A priory our chances for an 8 card fit with this distribution is a whopping 92% and the chance for a 9 card fit is still higher than 50%, not likely to be in clubs. The fact that RHO has opened a weak two in our shortage has improved those odds. There is no guarantee that I will buy lucky, but this game rarely comes with guarantees. What am I worried about white on red? Let's assume you pass and next hand bids 3NT would you feel comfortable? I would not, because they might make 3NT and we might make 4♠ or 4♠ could be cheap. Rainer Herrmann

And I guess you would need all aces before you would consider a bid red versus white, but would reject it. You would of course understand why some others less gifted people might bid. :P Some players never learn how much colors should influence their decision what to do. Rainer Herrmann