rbforster

My card says support doubles through 2♥, so I guess I'm supposed to pass or bid since I don't have 3+♥ :).

nm... 2N seems fine

I think you might need to check your math. For 3 loser hands, I see 16+16+12+5+4=53% without counting the 2.5's at half or something.

I did some basic calculations for the opening lead, under standard leading (spade from AK or KQ but not Ax or AQ, no heart away from the A, otherwise all non-club suits equally likely). My estimates are: P(♠ lead)=53% P(♥ lead)=13% P(♦ lead)=34% The expected gain against the above shapes and relative probabilities was about 1/5 of a trick (0.19). This came from either pitching a quick major loser on a diamond lead opposite a singleton or void, or from guaranteeing the ruffing finesse in hearts when they lead into our void and set up fast pitches. Perfect Real lead Prob(4♣) 56.5% 41.1% Prob(5♣) 36.3% 48.3% Prob(6♣) 7.2% 10.6% The first column is the "perfect lead" outcome, while the second reflects the realistic leads that may cost. Game becomes a reasonable proposition at both MPs and IMPs, even discounting advance sacrifices. I will again caution against raising opposite 7♣(321) hands, where even with the lead the majority cannot make game. Perfect Real lead Prob(4♣) 72.4% 64.5% Prob(5♣) 26.7% 34.1% Prob(6♣) 0.9% 1.3% I did not include the 0.08 or so of a club loser in any of these results (which reduces the total tricks slightly but not qualitatively).

Now that's some shape! Another 15 card hand! :)

I think the earlier simulations were just small statistics and agree with later posts that game is relatively unlikely. Ignoring the off chance of a club loser (partner often has the K or it drops), the most likely shapes and their number of losers are given below: Shape Rel Prob Non-Club Losers 2-2-1-8 16.3% 3 2-1-2-8 16.3% 3 1-2-2-8 13% 2 3-1-1-8 12.2% 3 1-3-1-8 7.6% 2 1-1-3-8 7.6% 2 3-0-2-8 5.4% 2 3-2-0-8 5.4% 3 2-0-3-8 4.2% 2.5 2-3-0-8 4.2% 3 0-2-3-8 2.8% 1 0-3-2-8 2.8% 1 1-0-4-8 1.3% 1.5 0-1-4-8 1% 1 The above probabilities are calculated just based on the known hand's suits, and assumes no useful honor cards except in clubs. In addition, the losers only count top tricks and assume we will take a ruffing finesse if necessary to dispose of diamond losers. It doesn't count the possibility of defensive ruffs, etc. The chances for a club loser are quite small - something like 8% of the time we'll lose a club (missing the K or it doesn't drop), given that all hands with 8 clubs and 2+ of KQJ are equally likely and conditioned on our club holding. This leads to these outcomes (again ignoring the club suit): Prob(4♣) 56.5% Prob(5♣) 36.3% Prob(6♣) 7.2% I will add that if your partner makes undisciplined 4♣ preempts on 7♣(321) shape you are much worse off. Now you are very likely to have both 2 spades and a heart loser and the contract probabilities drop to: Prob(4♣) 72.4% Prob(5♣) 26.7% Prob(6♣) 0.9% Now game is quite poor.

I'm surprised at how the few strong club auctions haven't managed to have South declare. In several transfer-oriented strong club systems we would have bid: 1♣*-1♠* 16+; GF bal 1N®-... relays where responder shows 3235 and min GF values 3N Otherwise put me down in the 1♥-1N-2♠ camp that plays 3N from North.

From partner's discouraging spade, I am willing to place declarer with at least Q♠ and QJxxxx(x)♦ (or better) for his 3♦ call. This doesn't leave much for partner's overcall - at best AJxxx(x)♥ and maybe A(x) or Q(x)♦. Since partner is on a marginal overcall and since I'm a PH, it's unlikely that partner has lots of extra heart length or he might have preempted with 2-3♥ instead. Since partner probably doesn't have lots of extra heart length, I'm placing RHO with something like Qx(x) xx(x) HJxxxx(x) x(x). What can we conclude from this? Probably a bad board no matter what.

Yes.

They are Vul and partner is a passed hand. I see no reason to bid hearts here - I can bid them later but I've got a sure +100 already vs 1NT and I'd rather every extra side trick from partner and my combined honors holdings be scored at 100 each instead of 30. Double vs pass seems harder. I'm more inclined to pass just because I feel like with all my short suits if they have decent runouts they'll find somewhere other than NT to play and then I either bid 2/3♥ or pass and lose all my defense. In addition, since I don't have tons of extra strength there's a reasonable chance LHO will make some sort of invitation. If they end up in 2NT/3NT I'm sure +200/+300 is a good score.

This is a much better idea than the black lists or demerits. You can't solve the problem of new accounts created to evade some sort of "negative" that attaches to your BBO name since the annoying people will just make new accounts. You can however cost them money when they annoy you by having the bond forfeited.

I really enjoy the "Constrained hands" feature in the practice bidding rooms. When you want to work on a particular aspect of your partnership bidding (slam hands, 1♠ openers, whatever), it's nice to set up a table where you can get just the hand types you want to focus on. This is very nice for practicing uncontested auctions, but it's much clunkier for dealing with competition (the option to have the host bid isn't great, he can't see the opposing hands and just makes a random bid, etc). I would love for this to be possible to set similar hand constraints at a table that could take 4 real players. For example, have a setting that allows 4 players to sit at the partnership bidding table and allow constraint options on all 4 hands. This way you could practice for example bidding over a 3♠ preempt - just set the dealer to have a weak hand with 7 spades and shortness and see what happens. I know high level decisions are an area I'd love to improve but they don't come up often enough to really learn from them (at least for me). If I played a whole session of them I'm sure I'd get better!

I don't think the issue you're focusing on is that significant. 45xx is a pretty rare specific shape out of all possible shapes that normally open 1♥ playing 5 card majors. I get about 1.5% of all shapes being 45xx, while normal 1♥ openers (including these hands) are almost 10%. This makes the Flannery hand only about 15% of normal 1♥ openers, and then there's still the question of what fraction of the time you would reach a normal contract (4H/4S/3N etc) regardless of whether or not the Flannery shape was an option. In short I wouldn't expect its presence or absence to have a big effect on the rest of the system. That's why I think in this case a straight comparison with 2♦ natural and 2♦ Flannery is likely to be reasonably indicative. The precision example you give is much more complicated. Amen to that - plenty of stupidity out there to go around. More to the point though, arguments like "better players play/don't play convention X and therefore declare or defend better" often misses that better players typically play against better opponents if given the choice, so even if there is an expert preference for a particular convention it's unclear if there would be a relative scoring advantage from this.

I agree with all the caveats put forward so far - different skill levels, costs of alternative bids, effects on overall system effectiveness, etc, etc. However, that doesn't mean that this sort of study is without merit. I would be happy to do a straight up comparison of the IMP gains of 1. a "natural weak 2♦" 2. the above mentioned 2♦ Flannery results and if 2♦ scored a bigger average IMP gain than 2♦ weak, I'd think about adopting it (shudder). I feel like all the other factors are likely to be secondary or less to the cost of the alternative use of the bid. Of course since 2♥ is better as Flannery than 2♦ (on general grounds as well as in the above standings), I suppose you should want to compare 2♥ weak with this as the alternative instead (or 2♦ multi instead of 2♦ natural, and 2♠ something else... gets more complicated).

I've played XYZ for some time and generally been happy with it. However, I usually play it in a strong club context with auctions starting 1♦ (mostly natural). I didn't have that much experience using it over a natural 1♣ opening until recently. In some bidding practice online last night however I ran into some hands that gave me a new dislike for this at least over 1♣. In particular, the auction: 1♣-1♥ 1♠*-? * shows clubs and spades unbalanced, typically 4+/5+ (Walsh style) can leave some pretty poor alternatives. Consider your rebid as responder on the following hands: [hv=s=sxxhatxxxdxcjxxxx]133|100|[/hv] [hv=s=sxxhatxxxdxcjxxxx]133|100|[/hv] [hv=s=sxxhatxxxdxcjxxxx]133|100|[/hv] [hv=s=sxxhatxxxdxcjxxxx]133|100|[/hv] If, as I suspect, these hands are all stuck rebidding 1NT, it seems that 1N promises neither length nor a stopper in the 4th suit, nor does it promise any sort of moderate values aside from those necessary for the initial response. In contrast, over 1♦ (which tends to show more length than 1♣) at least the option of signing off in 2♦ is an reasonable alternative with a weaker hand or one where 1NT would be otherwise inappropriate (thus making the 1NT rebid more sound in terms of both values and length/stoppers in the 4th suit). In light of some of these hands, does it make sense for opener to consider bidding 2♣ over 1N on this sequence with just 5 clubs? More generally, I guess this is another drawback of inverted minors where a direct 2♣ constructive raise isn't available.

Some people play that a double of the weak NT stayman shows a good hand with no direction, maybe 14+ or something (rather than showing clubs). I don't think South's hand is quite good enough for this, but it's important to have that option so North can get involved when he's passed with an opening hand. To be more precise, the opening is legal as long as it promises 8+ points and a reasonably balanced hand. You are correct that 2♣ as pure stayman would not be allowed when the minimum of the NT range falls below 10 points. Of course that's not to stop them from playing "natural/better minor" stayman if it promises 3+♣s (since that's "natural").

A friend of mine did this analysis of when it's right to overcall against a strong NT. 1NT Safety Analysis (by Ben Leitner) Under pretty conservative assumptions (which are described and include optimal doubling by opps), you pretty much always want to bid with 6+ points and a 6+ suit at NV. I think you meant "WOOLSEY IS SO GOOD IT'S BANNED!" (at least GCC due to that trick 2♦ overcall).

A few matches back I found out an additional benefit of using the stop cards before your opening skip bids - when you're about to make a bid out of turn, your partner can stop you from making the actual bid! I'm not sure what the penalty is for a "Stop out of turn" but it turned out to be nothing on the hand in question and certainly much less than an actual bid out of turn. We were playing precision so there are several "opening" hands (2♣,2♦) that would also use the stop card so there wasn't a clear inference that I had a weak hand. The auction was started with RHO as it should have (who passed) and I made my intended bid so this didn't turn out to be a complicated situation.

So I've gone back to thinking about this issue for the system I'm working on, and I think I'll take the majority's advice here and allocate the space to better bidding on other hands treated less well presently. In particular, I think I'll be using the 2 different "strong" 1NT bids in my strong club system (1C-1D-1N, 1C-1D-1H-1S-1N) as 16-18 and 19-21. The NT ladder looks something like this: 10-12 weak NT (NV) 13-15 1D...1NT (NV) 12-15 1NT (Vul) 16-18 1C(strong)-1D(neg)-1N 19-21 1C(strong)-1D(neg)-1H(stronger)-1S(weaker)-1N 22+ 1C(strong)-1D(neg)-1H(stronger)-1S(weaker)-2C("strong 2C")...NT This frees up two 2N jumps (over 1C-1D, and 1C-1D-1H-1S) as available to show other hand types like long minor + 4 major + extras or whatever else looks awkward.

I think there's a big difference in benlessard's system where responder has shown inv+ for his relay bid and the original one suggested where 1S-1N was NF 6-11. If you're in an inv+ relay system, it may make sense to have transfer or other artificial bids. Especially when opener is usually 12-14, responder will be the strong hand and transfers help both with right-siding and act as a cheap further relay to ask again. But if you're still just trying to find the right strain for a partial opposite a 6-11 NT response, I don't see how second round transfers helps with that especially if responder almost always completes the transfer. Opener is still pretty much in the dark as to the right strain and both hands could be on minimums. Does opener really want to be forced to take another call in that situation? Edit: I suppose one advantage of this system is that the limited nature of the 2 level transfers means that responder can pass(!) the transfer with the right hand (a long weak suit). This will get you out at the 2 level some of the time when standard methods would have to sign off at the 3 level.

I think if you want to play these methods, you need careful agreements as to what responder will bid after the "transfer" by opener. When will he accept the transfer, when will he bid the opener's first suit instead, etc. If responder must always complete the transfer (or super accept) and opener will bid again, you might as well make opener's bids natural and forcing, right? It's not like you want responder to declare the 2nd suit since presumably opener is the strong hand on these auctions.

As the Rob in question, I appreciate Eli's endorsement and I hope I gave good advice. While I am indeed very knowledgeable on most things personal finance-related (and many things finance related too, as that is now my job), this is not really the issue for the young lady in question. For now this is mainly a question of her personal priorities and relationship issue for OP as to how he can best handle the situation and preserve his friendship while still trying to be helpful. This is certainly not the first time someone has seen a friend heading into financial troubles due to their questionable choices, and the advice I gave above generally holds for these sorts of situations. To reiterate, be supportive but not a pest about your views, be available for advice when and if they decide to seek it, and never ever loan them money.

Funny how on my proposed 5116 hand we get 4/4 replies so far in favor of (re)bidding spades rather than taking a preference with a stiff. 80% of you, including Han and Justin bid a clear 2♥ last year when I asked about the same auction with 5116.

This was the actual hand - [hv=n=shak8xxdkj9xxcakx&s=saj98xhxxdcqt8xxx]133|200|[/hv] 3N or 5♣ were good places, and even 6♣ might be possible with a slightly better responder or some luck. Seems hard to get to clubs at all if one chooses a 3♦ rebid at either opener's first or second turn and we might miss game too (stopping in 3♥ or 3♦ sometimes). 3♣ on the other hand seems at least to move the auction in the right direction. PS For Ken's 4♥ blast, I've got this slightly different one :D [hv=s=saj98xhxdxcqt8xxx]133|100|Scoring: ?[/hv]

First to bid playing 2/1, you hold: [hv=s=shak8xxdkj9xxcakx]133|100|Scoring: ?[/hv] Uncontested, the auction proceeds: 1♥-1♠ 2♦-2♥ ? What's your call? Also, do you agree with the conservative 2♦ rebid, or would you favor a more aggressive 3♦ rebid instead?