dburn

I thought that I said that in my post. It is just a curiosity - it has no practical application. And I don't appreciate the insults. It is beneath the usual dignity of the poster. I'm very sorry, Art. I had misread your post, thinking that it was a reference to the original problem (AK10x facing Qxx), not to the more recently discussed situation (AKJx facing Qxx). In that situation, of course, the chances are as you say: when West follows to the third round of the suit, either he began with three cards (an initial 36% chance) or with four cards (an initial 24% chance). As to a practical application of the principle, one might consider: [hv=d=s&v=b&n=s32hk32dq432c5432&s=saj4h654dakjcakqj]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] South, declarer in 3NT, wins the opening lead of ♠K (for fear of a heart shift). East indicates an even number, and declarer assumes correctly that spades are 4-4. On four rounds of clubs, West follows twice and discards a spade and a heart; East follows three times and discards a spade. Both follow to ♦AK, and West follows to ♦J. West, who has fewer black cards than East, is a favourite to have ♥A, so should one retain the lead in South and play a heart towards the king, or should one overtake ♦J? (Note: one should probably do neither of the above; instead, one might play three rounds of diamonds, overtaking in dummy, before playing the fourth round of clubs. If diamonds do not break, there is still the option on a heart to the king. But, especially in the beginners' lounge, the clubs might be played off early...)

As I grow older and less imaginative, I tend to believe in this axiom: if you want to open the bidding and partner will be a very long way off when he, faced with a competitive decision, thinks of typical hands for you - best not to open the bidding.

Is there an award for the most staggering lot of nonsense ever advanced on the BBO forums? Because if there is, the above "reasoning" would win not only this year's prize, but every prize for which it was entered from here to perpetuity.

East contributes ♠9 on the first round of spades, both defenders follow with low cards to the first round of clubs (West with the four and East with the six), and East covers ♦9 with the jack, West contributing the four. Assuming you win this trick, how do you continue?

Oh, I'm not obsessive about it. It's just that I tend to find that minus 400 scores fewer match points on balance than plus 50. It's a bit of a fallacy to say that you should spend your life trying not to give away overtricks at matchpoints - if some of the field might not be in game, you should put some effort into trying to beat the contract even at the risk of blowing a trick. Would lead a major against one notrump for sure, but not three notrump. As to "surely RHO has clubs" - no, he does not. What would you respond to a 1♦ opening at matchpoints (or even at marbles) with such as ♠Kxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxx ♣xxx? No doubt I will end up with a face covered in egg when the full deal is revealed by the original poster. But it's all right. That egg-covered face rests on a broad pair of shoulders.

Why the Heck would you need any? After all, how will you make a grand slam if partner is even half-way normal, and how will you fail in a small slam unless he is all-the-way crazy? There are times on this forum when I remember the words of Jeremy Flint, talking about team preparation for an important event (perhaps the European Championships or the Bermuda Bowl): "The sixth member, whose contributions were unlikely to be valuable in the normal run of events, was allotted the task of devising responses to an opening bid of 5NT."

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=skj83hkj109d9cakq3&s=sa2ha2dak10732c1092]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You, South, open a 15-17 1NT (would you?) and North bids 2♣ asking for four-card majors. You bid 2♦ (would you? - maybe 3♦ ought to be this kind of hand) and North bids 3♣ (forcing to game, in principle 5+ clubs and a major). You bid 3♦, North bids 3♥, you bid 4♣ (would you? what ought 3♠ to mean?) and North bids 6NT. West leads ♠7, top of nothing style. After you have ridiculed the bidding to your heart's content, perhaps you might turn your minds to the play. I will let you know how you get on at various stages in your various lines.

This is not true. Indeed it isn't - my apologies; I should have strengthened the suit to AKJ8 Q109. Even then, if an opponent would play randomly (or in suit-preference or count fashion) instead of bottom-up from small cards, then what I said is still not true for more or less the reasons that awm gives. However, the vast majority of opponents do not play like that - at least, not at the beginner or even the intermediate level. A related question that may assist Echognome in considering what are significant cards is this one: you begin with AK43 Q5 and play off three rounds, all following. Which defender (assuming that both opponents will play insignificant cards at random) is more likely to have the remaining card in the suit?

Would lead a club, and do not consider it weird in the least. If partner did not overcall, at love all to boot, how can it be right to lead a major? Put it this way: how are we going to take five tricks to beat the contract? If we lead a club and, horror of horrors, declarer has ♣AQ, what else should we have done? Led a major, and hoped that partner could get in twice to lead clubs through declarer (even if he worked out that this is what he should be doing)? then hoped for a fifth trick somewhere to go with partner's two entries and our two clubs? Can't I just play partner for a club honour and one trick, and myself to have a diamond entry? One other small point: if your style is to lead top of nothing or second from three small, then if you feel you must guess a major, you should choose the suit in which your card will be least confusing. For example, from ♠932 and ♥875, you should lead ♠9 if playing top of nothing, but ♥7 if playing second highest. Otherwise, the chance that partner will know to switch to clubs if need be falls from 2.7% (the chance that the average partner will ever get anything right) to 0.027%.

My question to you, is how does a "significant card" versus any other card going to affect the split of all the remaining cards? Edit: Let me put it another way. The only reason the jack is "significant" is that it affects the number of tricks we can take. It's not significant when it comes to the split of the cards. In perfectly straightforward fashion. If with AK104 Q32 you play off the ace and king and the jack does not appear (as it will not unless it is singleton or doubleton), then the possible remaining divisions of cards are simply: West has Jx (and had Jxxx originally); East has Jx (and had Jxxx originally); West has the bare jack (and had Jxx originally); East has the bare jack (and had Jxx originally). Now, a priori the chance that West or East was originally dealt Jxx is around 36% (the chance of a 3-3 break). The chance that West or East was originally dealt Jxxx is around 32% (two thirds of the chance of a 4-2 break). Thus, the chance that the suit was originally 3-3 (and is now 1-1) is 36/68, or around 53%. It is true that if you began with AKJ4 Q32 and played off the ace and queen whilst specifically looking for, say, the seven, then if the seven has not appeared, the chance that the suit was originally 3-3 has also risen from around 36% to around 52%. This may come in useful someday, although it is difficult to imagine in precisely what circumstances.

The Law says this: Deciding in which hand to win a trick is a demonstrable bridge reason for playing slowly to that trick. It is possible, however, that having decided to win in hand, playing the ace does not constitute being "particularly careful", since so doing might create the false impression (beneficial to your side) that you do not have the king. A case from a European Championship bears comparison: declarer (South) in a trump contract led a low card from dummy's side suit of QJ and others. East, with AK and others, had to consider his play - declarer might have had the singleton ten, or a low singleton, or a void. Eventually, East went up with the ace; declarer (who had a void) ruffed and later tried to ruff out West's king instead of taking a ruffing finesse against East's. He sought a ruling, and the judgement of an eminent Appeals Committee was that having broken tempo, East ought to have played the king and not the ace. The score was adjusted. I make no comment on these facts, nor those of the original case. I reside at Table Mountain, and my name is Truthful James...

Well, not if your third diamond is the ace, perhaps.

Jeff Rubens, who is a more than competent enough bridge-playing mathematician to understand these things, has referred more than once to a "parabolic utility function" in respect of overtricks. By this I think he means that you should play for overtricks if the match is either "sufficiently short" or "sufficiently long" to make doing so worthwhile. Obviously you should take a 51% line for an overtrick as opposed to a 100% line that will always make exactly if the match is one board long - but I wonder: how long does a match have to be so that you should play for "percentage overtricks" (that is, say, taking a 91% line for an overtrick that will gain 1 IMP or lose 10) at every available opportunity?

If you have a computer and can post to this forum, you also have access to at least one copy of the Laws. You can visit this page to download the UK version, and the NBOs of other countries may provide a similar service.

If partner has ♠Kxx, ♥KJxx, ♦xxxx, ♣xx (and declarer ♠Qx, ♥Qxx, ♦Kxx, ♣QJxxx) we can get 2 spades, 1 heart, 1 club, and up to two ruffs. If partner has a 3♥ bid, he should have bid 3♥. But if, as seems possible, one of the hearts in the hand above is in fact a spade...

I would lead a spade. After all, if I blow a trick in spades I may get it back by scoring the eight of diamonds on a promotion. If you told me I could not lead a spade, I would lead a heart. If you told me I could not lead either major, I would bid 3NT.

I think it varies from country to country. It varies from bridge club to bridge club, even within the same country. Having dealer non-vulnerable for the first three deals tends to generate a more aggressive game, for obvious reasons, but (or perhaps therefore) I believe that dealer vulnerable is more commonly played.

Don't mind 3♦, but might get us an unnecessary minus when no one can make much of anything - imagine partner with 4=1=4=4 shape, for example. 2♦ is normal enough. 1NT is vile.

I would have bid 4♣ rather than double, but I would not have raised to 5♣ on the overcaller's hand. Nor, having doubled, would I have bid more than 4♣ on this hand. I guess some minor-suit games are too tough - for me, at any rate.

If I bid 3♠ and then removed 3NT to 4♦, my regular partner might next bid a slam expecting me to have a spade control. So might any irregular partner I could imagine playing with. But if I bid 3♠ with this hand whatever I was intending to do next, my regular partners would send for the men in white coats, and quite right too. It really is a pretty stu... er, scientific bid.

Best for three heart tricks in isolation looks to be to pass the ten, then cash the ace, finessing if East drops the nine or the remaining honour on the second round. But in the context of the hand as a whole, I would be inclined to cash the ace and lead low towards the ten.

If you would like to be a scientist, here is the very simple rule. In descending order of priority at any stage in any auction, you should if possible: [1] Double [2] Bid the opponents' suit [3] Bid the fourth suit [4] Bid your own suit [5] Bid partner's suit But note that [5] is an absolute last resort, to be employed only when [a] your bid in partner's suit is actually a splinter or your support is considerably better than KJ10x.

Not that I play any of these things myself, but it has often occurred to me to wonder why people do not use 1♣-2♦ as two-way: either a strong jump shift in diamonds or a limit raise in clubs. After all, there is plenty of room.

I'm sure I saw Sontag pass once. Mind you, it was probably intended as forcing.