PhantomSac

How about partner having QTxx(x) and declarer having A8(x) lol?

How is this different than against standard? :P

Ducking is a very bad play at MP since partner 100 % has K9 doubleton to win the king at trick 1 and you will sometimes cost an overtrick since you might never get that trick back. Ofc the ace being required to beat it is an unlikely layout.

Nope, you really don't!

Imagine a world where one defender, on lead, said out loud: "My play does not matter, declarer is going to get the rest of the tricks. I am just going to play any card." The partner of that player said, "Actually your play does matter. We get one more trick if you make the right play." The defender on lead, now knowing that one of his plays will beat the hand, goes into a long think and figures out the layout where it matters, and plays the correct card. Do you think that is OK? That is what happens if one guy concedes and his partner objects on the basis that his partner has a winning play. The UI is that the defender who is on lead has a winning play. He did not know that, in fact he thought all his plays were the same and that declarer was making the rest no matter what. He was willing to play anything as it didn't matter; he conceded. His partner telling him that his play matters makes him re-think this and after a lot of thought he realizes why it matters and finds the winning play. The UI has impacted the defender. I cannot believe anyone would really think my first 2 paragraphs are ok. If that were ok then any time I thought my play did not matter and I was playing with a strong player, I could just concede. If it does not matter my partner will accept and I won't have to spend time thinking (in a situation where I think it really doesn't matter), but on the off chance it did matter my partner would say something and I could reconsider. That is a very efficient use of my time and brain power in situations where I think declarer has the rest of the tricks.

I have played this with Sheri, it has never mattered (good or bad) that I can remember. Maybe if Fred reads this he can comment since I assume he plays it with Sheri and has a lot more experience with it than I do.

Why would this not be fair? Is it also not fair if your partner does not concede but makes the wrong play and drops a trick? That is the equivalent of what happens if someone concedes, and why should that be wrong? Yeah if you have a trick that cannot go away then you can stop the concession, just as when declarer concedes if they have a trick that they cannot reasonably lose they also get it, but if there are multiple plays possible and one is winning the person who concedes does not get to make it, he tried to concede! Is it fair if he then gets to make the right play? I mean even when you claim all the tricks and miscount your tricks you cannot take a finesse later. This one is even more obviously fair.

If they have an even amount of cards in the suit they lead the A from AK, if they have an odd amount they lead the K.

That seems like a really good treatment, thanks.

Congrats to Germany, deserving champions.

Yeah. Which is superior for NED? I would guess that their best defensive player being red carded in the first 2 minutes and having a free kick from right outside the box is superior in EV than having silva yellowcarded but getting a penalty kick. They are both awesome obv and I don't know soccer so maybe I'm wrong but they must at least be pretty close? Missing the PK and having silva YC seems like such a disaster though, playing 10 vs 11 with the best defensive player out for an entire game while also getting a great free kick opportunity 100 % of the time seems better, even if the PK is like 80 %.

Bronze medal game is so lol. Ref has gotten like 5 huge calls wrong (2 involving penalty kicks). Just like in bridge championships it seems inhumane to make them play this match heh

I think 3415 is a more classical shape to bid that way on (since you gain the added upside of passing a 2S response).

I mean, in classical INTERNET FORUM POSTING, if you side track to something, you can create a new thread about it from the debate spawned in the initial thread, and then you don't de-rail the original thread. I actually think this is the correct system, though possibly too idyllic, and agree with barmar.

Haha no way, I agree with his top 2 rankings but he has 1N 3N as an 8! There is no way 1N 3N can be an 8 compared to stayman and 3N, if partner has 4 hearts I'm thrilled to play 4H!

Yep exactly. A different way to play if you wanna be really sick is after 1H 1S 2C 2D is natural non forcing and 2S is art GF. You lose room when you have a GF so nobody will actually play this, but it's fun when it comes up and it solves the gross problem hands that usually have to pass with a doubleton club or false preference to a stiff or bid 2N very light. But what you said is normal heh.

Johnu, you seem to have forgotten how this interaction went. I said: You replied: I replied: So, I claimed that 2 rounds of trumps is better against optimal defense than a club to the jack. You asked what optimal defense. I illustrated that to you by asking you how you will play the hand after a club to the jack wins, or loses and a club comes back. You still have not answered how you are planning to play against optimal defense. You are now simply saying you would not play a club to the jack. But let's remember the first statement I made that you responded to that started this interaction, in case you forgot already it was: You can keep trolling me and calling me a troll and avoiding what we were actually talking about, I don't really mind. I stand by my statement that 2 rounds of trumps is better against optimal defense than a club to the jack, and that GIB assumes optimal defense (to its detriment!). You have failed to state any line that shows superiority over 2 rounds of trumps after a club to the jack, in fact you have just continually avoided it so I am not sure on what basis you are disputing that a club to the jack is worse than 2 rounds of trumps on optimal defense other than OMG TWO ROUNDS OF TRUMPS IS BAD.

Giving them minimums of 12 and 6 is not realistic. The guy who responded white/red with 1N to 1S does not have a minimum of 6, he has a minimum of zero, so I don't really agree with "partner has maybe a 7 count at most." It doesn't really matter though, if my partner has a 7 count we have a majority of the points and likely have a fit, I would like to be competing on a "partscore hand" at MP. I would expect that if someone passed, they are much more likely to be a good player than a bad one. That is, I expect all bad players to bid 2H on this hand since they have 15 points and a 5 card suit. It is only a good player who might think to pass. So I doubt we will have lots of company if we pass unless we are playing in a high quality field. I doubt we would have any company in a club game. Not that it matters, if you think passing is right then you should pass but it is not going to be a field action in almost any field. I expect most people are planning to bid at some point anyways if the opps don't bid a red suit? eg 1S 1N 2S p p, or 1S 1N 2C p p, or 1S 1N 2C 2S. Is that correct?

Fair enough sry

Yeah obviously if you don't open 1N with 6 card minors (and I'm guessing if you do it it's a baddish suit and positional/nty stuff outside?) then you don't need 5D natural. I was actually serious in my first post ITT when I asked are we not allowed to have a 6 card minor heh. I don't know about disclosure issues, to me 6322 is similar to 5332 with a 5 card major or 5422 with a 5 card minor, I open it always if I feel I am in range, which 14 almost always is and 15 usually is and 16 rarely is (in general if I'm happy to rebid 3m or 2N I will open 1m, otherwise I'll open 1N). 13 sounds weird unless you're clee :P I do always make an effort to disclose that all of our NT ranges can be upgraded and are almost never downgraded. Should I be making more of an effort to disclose that 6322 with 6m is generally treated as balanced if in range (and how do I do that?) I don't think it's that weird that 14 with a 6 card suit can be upgraded to 15, I doubt a committee would have a problem with that. edit: FWIW I looked at my USBF system summary cards here is what they say about NT ranges... With Joe: "frequently shade all nt's tactically and when have a good 5card suit." With Kev: "Ranges are flexible and upgrades are frequent, downgrades not frequent." With Bob: "decent 14-17 NT" which was actually our range since I would never be upgrading 13s when my max was 17 but many 14s were opened 1N so "decent" instead of "good" seemed appropriate.

Again you are very focused on rightsiding, and not at all about information leakage. IMO playing your methods bidding 2D instead of 2C with a hand that wants to play 4M opposite a fit for the M, and 3N otherwise, would be a mistake. You gain that you get to play from responders side, you lose that if you do not have a major suit fit you have given the opposing side information about declarers shape (possibly a lot of information) which will help them in the defense. Playing from the 15 count instead of the 11 count is really not that important, the defense knowing declarers exact shape or even just that he has a 5 card minor is. And more often than not you will not have a fit if responder has only 1 4 card major. Also I'm not sure what point you are making that it is important for opener to know if declarer has GAME GOING strength or not. If responder just wants to know about 4 card majors before placing the contract it does not matter if opener doesn't know he's going to bid game until he does it. What would happen if I were playing these methods with you and chose to bid 2C then 3N lol, would you be greatly confused and not know what to do? It wouldn't matter. Anyways <3 2 way stayman 4 life. At least we agree on that :)

Lol that is a nice troll. You keep saying how awful playing 2 trumps is compared to playing a club to the jack and that GIB doesn't understand bridge, yet you have no plan for what to do when you win a finesse (or lose a finesse and they return a club). You have not accomplished anything unless they win the CK and return a non club, or if you can assume that the club king is onside when the club holds. Meanwhile you have opened yourself up to club ruffs. That is the point: GIB is trying to take good lines assuming double dummy defense, human beings don't do that. If you want to argue that a club to the jack is even correct against double dummy defense then why don't you tell us what your plan is?

How are you planning to play if a club to the jack wins (hint: the CK may still be offside!). How are you planning to play if they win the CK and return a club?

If you just want to play 3N or 4M depending on whether your partner has a major suit fit, start with 2C to avoid (more) information leakage. If you care about something else for slam or choice of game purposes, start with 2D. Don't consider 2D stayman, just consider it a game forcing relay.