akhare

Loved the first two parts and am really looking forward to the third one. On a different note, two of my recent favourites: Life of Pi (catch it in 3D-IMAX if you can) Django Unchained

The Meckwell CC contains this curious footnote: Note…18: Standard Count & Attitude are used in the following situations: Vs suits, if the opening lead shows the AK combination at trick 1 only. If after trick 1 the K is led and the Q is in dummy and defenders might have trump, that trick is standard (if the K holds the trick). Vs NT, If the opening lead shows the AK the signal is standard attitude (if logical). If lead is low from own long suit and dummy wins stiff A, K, or Q, signal on that trick is Standard attitude. How do posters handle the situation if the opening lead is the Ace in an unsupported suit (ostensibly from AKXX) and dummy comes down with QXX(x)? For the folks who play UDCA, do you play x from XXXx (assume it's possible that pard may have a doubleton). Does standard count confer any advantage in this situation (when playing UDCA otherwise)?

Do forum posters have any minimum length / suit quality requirements for lead directing Xs of transfer bids over NT? The classic definition is supposed to be a "good 5-card suit", but that strikes me as being very conservative. In fact, I vaguely (and possibly incorrectly) remember reading an article where Meckwell stated that they would go out on a limb to make the X on as little as AT98. So, what's standard for folks on the forum? Do your tendencies vary by form of scoring (IMP/MP) and/or opponents' NT range?

The flaw in the weakness signal are that: 1) We can't play in 3♣ 2) Responder can't show 5♥ and offer a COG over 2♠ 3) It's yet another obscure exception to remember for a very infrequent response In short, the disadvantages might outweigh the proffered advantages and the frequency is way too small to make it worthwhile Contrast this with a simpler approach where prime 18 / all 19 points just bid game. Yes, on a bad day, we may land in a game opposite as little as AXXX XXXX XXXX x, but are the odds frequent enough to really matter?

Please, please :D...

Do folks that play transfer advances of overcalls still use them in this situation? For example, in our methods, (2♦) - 2♠ - (P) - 3♦ would show ♥ and (2♦) - 2♠ - (P) - 3♥ would be a good ♠ raise. Since we haven't agreed on any exceptions, both 3♠ ostensibly showing a good ♣ raise (but probably ambiguous in this situation since we might want to know about a ♠ stopper as well) or 3♦, natural and forcing will work.

X -- at that vul. they are probably just toying around with us, and we might well go for -800 or worse, but passing seems too conservative and likely to cost a lot as well.

Assuming the partnership is playing Lebensohl 2N to show a weak hand (ostensibly with the dreaded ♣ hand), surely passing that bid is an option after the X?

2♥ on all 3 for me. It might go for -800 on a bad day, but there's no need to hold back on a hand with good offensive potential, especially since it's likely to make their auction harder.

X with #2 for me. Assuming we are playing Lebensohl, there's always the option of a pass if pards bids 2N B-) and we would love to hear any 3-level response. Antony's suggestion for #1 seems very playable over the bid that was actually chosen too. However, if the #2 hands is slightly changed, it may land us in an non-optimal spot.

A noteworthy system that doesn't appear in any of the links below is awm's IMPrecision. Perhaps Adam can post a link, but IMO it's one of the finest strong ♣ systems ever invented...

On a related note, can the ♦T be an honest count card against a slam (barring say T98 specifically)? I might randomly play the T/9 holding that doubleton and the T from any other doubleton is possible, but seems unlikely. Based on the play so far, I am more likely to suspect Ax with LHO and T987 with RHO.

The GF relay here is 2♠. Both 2♦ / 2♥ show minimal hands with no better bid, so we aren't at -1.

None of the bids set up an immediate GF (and I don't really see the need for it). You can think of 1♣ - (1♠) - 1N as analogous to the IMP 1♣ - 1N response (which doesn't set up a GF either). P: SP, likely balanced, unsuited for takeout X: DN or GF balanced 1N: SP+, 5+♥ ......2D: H+C ......2H: Single suited hearts ......2S: H+D, LL 2♣: SP+, 4+D, 4H 2♦, SP+, 4+C, 4H 2♥: SP, three suited takeout 2♠: SP+ minors / GF clubs 3♣: SP+ diamonds

The best use for 1N might be hands with 5+♥ since these are hands that are least likely to play in no-trump.. You can then use to construct something along the following lines that combines the flexibility of transfers and preserves relay possibilities: 1N: SP+, 5+♥ 2♣: SP+, 4+D, 4H 2♦, SP+, 4+C, 4H 2♥: SP, three suited takeout 2♠+: TDB

You still have some typo in there -- there are two bids for 5+ hearts, unless one of them is meant for 4H/5C and another one is for the reds. Also, by using transfers (say 2♣ as 4+D/4H) you can free up the bid as SP+ and use a similar trick with 2♥ / 2♠ to show 4+♣ / 4♥.

Off the top of my head, I don't see the need to split the hearts hands into SP / GF immediately. Getting 5+ hearts SP+ across immediately is important and there's need for bids that show (limited) takeout shapes and SP+ minor oriented hands...

At that vul., I wouldn't want to come in with that hand after a standard 1♣ - 1♦, let alone after a strong ♣, but that's me.

Actually, I think I stand corrected. My personal bias towards 5♣ likely caused to misinterpret the data in this table and as see it now, 4♠ > 3N > 5♣. BTW, the formatting doesn't quite come out right, but it's essentially a payoff of one contract vs. another. So, below 3N gains +0.72 over 5C and loses by -0.51 to 4S etc. with an implied +0 against itself. bid3N.....bid5C.....bid4S bid3N.....+0.72.....-0.51 ..........(0.07).....(0.08) bid5C...-0.72........-1.02 ........(0.07).......(0.07) bid4S....+0.51.......+1.02 ........(0.08).......(0.07) Richard brought up an excellent point regarding the statistical significance of the data. A better simulation will assign the shape (4=5=1=3) and RPs / HCPs to the North hand without the specific hand in question. I will try and modify the script to do it, but am not very comfortable with the redeal Python syntax -- perhaps, antonylee can help?

+1 -- the DD data would be nice as a reference point and can be used as supplementary information. On the related note, see this regarding deal 20.

Edit (see data in following threads): The following redeal script indicated that 5C is a winner in a 10000 hand simulation. Antonylee, please correct in case I made a mistake :D: from redeal import * predeal = {"S": H("AK4 Q5 A85 AJT83"), "N": H("JT32 AJ732 3 K65")} def initial(): global TABLE TABLE = Payoff(("bid3N", "bid5C"), imps) def accept(deal): return True def do(deal): bid3N = deal.dd_score("3NS") bid5C = deal.dd_score("5CS") scores = dict(bid3N=bid3N, bid5C=bid5C) TABLE.add_data(scores) def final(n_tries): TABLE.report() print("Tries: {}".format(n_tries))

I think that 5♣ almost certainly has a better chance than 3N. On the marked ♦ lead, 3N likely comes down to the a little better than 50% ♣ hook. OTOH, we are arguably more likely to take 11 tricks in 5♣ (4 ♣, 2 ruffs, 2♠, 2♥ and the 11th trick coming from either ♥ breaking or the ♠ hook working). Besides, they might lead a black suit on the auction...

It seems playable based a cursory look. Perhaps, a good test will be to compare the outcomes with the original and modified scheme using the hands that you have posted on the thread. Did you have time to think about Adam's ruminations about possibly rearranging the relay responses so that hands with only 4♠ rebid say 1N? It will likely push out the balanced hands into 2♣, because there will be 3-other reversed suits to deal with after a 4♠ only rebid.

♣4 for me (playing low from interest leads) -- and when I follow up with Smith / ♣3 (whichever comes sooner), pard will know that we have no interest in the suit. It would have been nice to have a higher spot to make things more clear immediately, but leading the T is probably risky...

I would recommend using a Dealer script for the hand generation and posting it to make everyone agrees that it's representative. It may make sense to build in some bias into the script (like eliminating balanced 16-18 opposite balanced GF). If you aren't comfortable with the syntax, many of us can help...