suokko

There is even a test case in the dealer package that shows how close statistically hands are to real random hands. Only problem is that humans don't understand random. True randomness generates sequence of events quite often that human matches as non-existing patterns. Good reading about this is spotify random play list article at bbc. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31302312

Problem with T-walsh is that there isn't any single standard rebid structure. Every pair seem to invent their own continues. That kind of missing standard rebid structure makes a huge barrier that most bridge players can't cross.

About 71% for 8+ cards fit in clubs. But I would only raise with 4 card support after overcall or t/o double. But the raise with 4 feels a routine action in a competitive auction.

That is double dummy. At slam level DD makes about 0.2 tricks more than top level players. Also those are averages where hands with fit produce on average more tricks than once without fit. That why knowing about fit is the key when you can start bidding 31 hcp slams with balanced hands. Statistics are way too hard to read as simple guide for profitable bidding level. But I would have probably made quantitative slam try like Jay did against us.

JEC followed rule that 6-4 is single suited. He keeps bidding simple but effective. That makes it easy for partner if knowing about a few unusual bidding habits. But there is one option also. No lebensohl to weak 2 diamond even if playing it to weak 2M. That is very much playable concept.

Lead was good and I actually tough for moment about the winning play that required early club. But I decided better to try for spade king or lucky diamond position with singleton trump. Not an easy hand to play. If I just plast a small slam I might actually get a different lead. So maybe that would have been a better bid from me.

♣7 in dummy beats ♣6. we would need a better spot to provide a diamond discard for our partner. I forgot to take into account that possibility but it is also possible that partner has 4 small diamonds making wrong to play small to next trick. This biding imo doesn't give any indication what declarer has. Unless there is some previous experience from favorable preempts from the declarer.

Surprising. I agree with Cherdanno even so much that 2♣-2♦;2NT can be agreed to be FG. But I do open very heavy at one level. But for the actual response. I can't say directly if they have some problematic sequences other that locating side 4-4 major fit that is inherit problem of 2♣ opening if opener holds long minor as primary suit. But it looks very much playable agreement if you also agree subsequent auction well to be able to show shapes, fits and extra strength. An alternative that game to my mind is to play 2♦ as only positive response and all other bids are negative showing the shape. Even balanced negative would pre-empt opener automatically but limiting values makes biding still easy for opener. That is surprising good alternative that I don't see played in practice (I have agreed it once a while back).

(1NT)dbl(2m) F1 pass and dbl is penalty (1NT)dbl(2M) NF pass and dbl is T/O In low level forcing pass situation without fit I prefer double to deny penalty or shortness from direct seat and balance double is penalty with assumption partner knows what pass holds. That helps doubling correctly with our trumps break 3-3. But this approach needs quite a lot practice before one gets used to it. Also it has a weakness that opponents failing to make fit pre-emption we might double them from 11 card fit at low level. But I don't play 1M/m(x)xx as strong. That prevents some problematic auction to read the meaning of pass correctly if playing this inverted double in a low level penalty situation.

We have only two top losers. So we can just play trump from top from our hand and avoid LHO getting in with ♠jack to force us or any unlikely ruff for LHO. EDIT: IMP mode left on from yesterday team match. So yes. MP finessing spade jack is something that I would have to do. 4-2-?-? for RHO means trump coup works when RHO has 4-2-3-4 or 4-2-4-3 (LHO 1-7-2-3 or 1-7-1-4) but fails with RHO 4-2-(25) or 4-2-1-6 (LHO 1-7-3-2 or 1-7-0-6 or 1-7-4-1). Which leaves us losing option if 1-7-3-2 opener doesn't have trump jack. That makes more combinations won if crossing to dummy with diamond and finessing first trick. Of course that could go down too if LHO has Jxx AQJxxxx xx x and managed to pull a diamond ruff after our play. But the shifting to singleton club would have worked for defense too. But there is alternative to play spade ace for RHO and play twice from dummy to honors. That wins any 3-2 trumps with marked spade ace on side (opener 2-7-2-2, 2-7-3-1, 3-7-2-1 making that more likely than 1-7-(32) and 1-7-(41) shapes for 4-1 trump break. That line even picks the singleton jack if trumps are 4-1.

Planing to ruff one spade and two diamonds and play clubs from top to end play Qxx to open trumps sounds like nice plan to avoid trump control issues. I would expect RHO to hold a balanced hand to only bid 2♠ (if they play 4 card majors I would reevaluate my thinking)

Dummy has the ♦3. But I would still continue two more diamonds to put declarer in, Declarer probably has something like x AQJxxxx QT8 xx and I don't see any realistic way to prevent declarer from scoring the diamond trick. But with some luck diamond continue might be able to setup an extra trump trick for partner later when we get in black ace to play the last remaining diamond.

Simple default advances: DBL: T/O for ♠ 2♥: F1 5+ cards 2♠: inv+ support 2NT: invitational with stopper 3♣: FG 5+♣ 3♦: competitive 3♥/♠: Splinter A bit more complicated agreement: DBL: T/O for ♠ or FG 5♥ 2♥: NF 2♠: inv+ 5+♣ 2NT: invitational with stopper 3♣: inv+ support 3♦: competitive 3♥: FG 6+♥ 3♠: Splinter

Favorable this could fit to 3♦ opening but no 2♦ weak option for me. After figuring that 3 side jacks is not an opening hand biding might go. P-1♠; 2♦-2♥: 3♥-3NT 2♦: "weak two" 2♥: inv+ relay 3♥: Max without shortness 3NT: Not looking for possible wrong sided perfect fit slam without shortness and only 27-29 hcp.

North hand looks a bit like JT8753 K764 ?? AK?. That means I would be playing south for at least 4 diamonds making south favorite to hold the jack. But this feeling might be badly off if my reading from played cards and biding is even slightly wrong. So with given information I would be likely to run diamond now. Of course then north has JT8753 K74 Jxx A and none understand why I went down in a cold game :)

Derric and me would like to play if we can manage a team with this short time left.

Against shape bidders low club becomes better because 3NT is a lot less likely to be based on half stopper (At least if they have agreed on that method). Also against shape bidders partner holds more values making it more likely that he can stop two suits from running.

Opponents rate to have a bit extras for their game if they have cards for their biding. Also partner is likely to hold 4 card spade and 4 card hearts. That leaves only 5 minor cards. IF opponents have diamond fit then partner is likely to be 4-4-1-4. In that case 3NT might well be cards like Qx AKxxx xxxx Qx. But I would rate it to be more likely that partner is 4-4-(23). If partner is 4-4-2-3 then leading high works well giving us chance to lead a small next without killing our entry to run the suit. If partner is 4-4-3-2 then we have to lead a small club and hope that partner can stop 2 of their 3 trick taking suits and play back a club. How likely is it that opponents holding 27+ hcp and our 7 in clubs leaves enough room for partner to stop two suits? 5-6 points maximum for partner is just enough to have stoppers in two suits. Then it is only question if heart honors are enough to stop the suit under declarer. That of course requires pretty good cards for partner which makes it a bit less likely that partner holds enough stoppers to prevent 9 tricks from running if we give first trick to declarer. I feel this is very close between low or high club. High club can win when partner and dummy hold JTxx clubs and partner has a quick side entry to play through declarer. Also when declarer bid 3NT with half stopper only if they have close slam values but not quite enough to invite a slam.

Me and Derric would like to play too. I'm looking forward for a fun match :)

Ok. ♠K and ♦K are good cards, ♥A is ok card but ♥Q and ♣J are poor cards. Was it IMP scoring? In MP 4NT S/O would be a clear bid trying to score at least same number of tricks that spade games score. In IMP my hand looks even less perfect for a slam because I would expect a bit more active slam tries. So I would probably just tell partner I don't have good cards for a slam. But what is the best contract? 5 level requires one more tricks but is often our better fit assuming partner is holding 5-5 for the biding. For that reason I feel like biding the 4NT S/O also in IMP assuming it should be likely to make 10 tricks after a slam try.

It uses bit vector permutations to select how to distribute unknown cards for each hand. Bit vector is enough because only two hands can hold remaining unknown cards when two hands are completely known. That vector is then converted to bit hand presentation with bitwise operations. That part is about 10 times faster than generating a random deal using rng. The remaining works is done by the script interpreted that is slow for complex scripts. In this case relaxing 1NT requirements produces more matching deals for analyze steps showing how much analyze scripts takes even in this fairly trivial looking case. If no cards are known for remaining hands then there is 10 million possible deals to generate. Even that takes just under a second if using a very simple script.

How about 4♣ pre-invite because unfavorable?

True. I would assume A lead to slam must be AK. But I probably should prevent DKQJ if no HK. But even with that opening leader might try to take A if thinking that there is sure trump trick. That why I didn't assume HK has to be with opening leader. Some lead agreements even make A lead to 5+ levels deny king. Too bad that kind of information is rarely provided in posts.

Sorry to crash the simulation party a bit late. But here is my take on simulations with a bit different per cents to success but same line winning. The simulation code that I used for exhaust mode. Exhaust mode generates all possible remaining hands when two hands are known. Results: condition west1NTstrict meaning only 4333 4432 and 5332 shapes allowed with no 5M ♠Q onside: 0.704208 ♣K onside: 0.889556 Club finesse: 0.369362 Spade finesse: 0.421982 Spade ruff: 0.580242 Generated 2704156 hands Produced 224820 hands Initial random seed 1422703180 Time needed 0.278 sec condition west1NTno5M meaning all balanced and semibalanced shapes without 5M or 22M ♠Q onside: 0.686543 ♣K onside: 0.872162 Club finesse: 0.442801 Spade finesse: 0.425987 Spade ruff: 0.548297 Generated 2704156 hands Produced 262285 hands Initial random seed 1422703358 Time needed 0.323 sec condition west1NT adding 5M332 hands to the previous simulation ♠Q onside: 0.68623 ♣K onside: 0.873573 Club finesse: 0.451725 Spade finesse: 0.435276 Spade ruff: 0.560902 Generated 2704156 hands Produced 294843 hands Initial random seed 1422703487 Time needed 0.329 sec

Please apply here if you'd like to play vs JEC/Garozzo on Saturday at 2PM New York Time (8PM Central Europe). Suokko and Derric would like to play tomorrow if there is a match.