PhantomSac

I'm pretty sure Fluffy meant it shows one implicitly. He is not a native speaker. Obviously it shows one because his partner has denied one, if he also did not have one he would not make a slam try since he would know they are off 2 club tricks.

LOL, well predictably I'm a monkey who would bid but I don't really have much of a problem with pass since the plan is to bid later in a hopefully more descriptive way (if they bid clubs). I like bidding immediately since we might get to the wrong red suit with the pass then X plan (MATCHPOINTS GOTTA PLAY THE MAJOR!), it preempts them if they do have a club fit (it will be harder to find), and there is some chance 1N will be passed out which kinda sucks (but might be a good thing also if 2H is down), or if they rebid 2S I will be forced to balance and that might be dangerous/still might get to the wrong suit. Also there is some chance we will miss a game if I start with a pass, I might have less values to balance and esp might not have the 5th heart so partner might not jump to 3H for instance after 1S P 1N p 2C p p X p ? when game makes. I would pass if you reversed the red suits though. Obviously passing has benefits if diamonds is our fit on this hand, and might also benefit us greatly if we are in trouble on this hand.

You would sign off over 4H as you know you are off the cashing AK of clubs.

I mean, there's no question that 2 rounds of trumps is better against optimal defense than a club to the jack right? It's not like a club to the jack solves your problems, it just creates some more. Ofc I would play a club to the jack in real life and agree with rainer/quiddity.

Another possible solution (that I like to play) that might be simpler (but also accident prone if you forget) is to play 1H 1S 2red 2S as art GF, and to play 1H p 2S is 6-10 or w/e with 6 spades. This also solves the lesser problem of 1H 1S 2H being a very bad auction (3minor third suit forcing nonsense etc). But yeah this is the death auction for a reason and you either need some science or to just deal with having a hopeless auction. Whether or not it's worth adding one of the many fixes to solve this is up to you, but there is no great solution if you are gonna play that 3C is your art GF.

I would certainly want to bid 5D with 6 diamonds and nothing in clubs since we probably belong in 5 or 6 diamonds in that case. We are allowed to infer reasonably that partner has a club void esp if we have 3 clubs (but even with 2 small clubs and 6 diamonds I would almost always want to bid 5D). For an extreme example with Ax Ax AQxxxx Jxx if I had one bid for my life it would be 6D, partner as a passed hand is very likely to be 4630. I mean I would bid 5D with that hand not saying it's right to bid 6, partner can still bid 6 themselves, but to be forced to X or something because 5D is considered artificial would be very sad.

Are we not allowed to open 1N with 6 diamonds?

I was thinking of voting other and psyching smolen lol. Will be sweet if partner has 2 hearts and we stop the spade lead, and if partner has 3 hearts maybe 4H is alright?! But I'm sure I'd just bid stayman and 3N. I don't think this is a great hand to be playing 2N in even if partner passes, on a spade lead I think it will often be the type of hand where we make many or few tricks based on a finesse or a break or w/e. But I do like your dream of bidding 2N and getting to 6m haha.

I played 2 way stayman with my dad (over 10+-13 NT). My reasoning was that 2M NF is much harder for the opps to deal with than transferring when it is their hand. Similar to why transfer preempts are bad, it gives them the ability to pass then X, X then X, X then pass etc, and most importantly pass then balance(and allows the other side more bids, eg 1N p 2D transfer, X showing a good hand, 2H, X responsive/card showing). When your NT range starts that low, one of the main advantages is making it hard for the opps since their ranges are so wide (like any other preempt). I mean it's obviously a tough spot for them if it goes 1N p 2H and they have to decide whether to get in with 2S or not (they want to, but they would also bid 2S with a good hand and their partner has no idea). This is not an issue vs transfers if they get to pass over the transfer and then balance 2S, or just overcall 2S directly, or X the transfer showing cards and then bid 2S. Playing transfers allows them to have more accuracy in figuring out at a lower level how much values they have. That said, if it was our hand I would certainly prefer to play transfers than 2 way stayman, transfers are just better for constructive bidding. I think people who are likely to play 9-12 or 10-12 or 10-13 NT are more likely to be the types who want to steal more/more effectively. I'm sure that's true of Brink-Drijver and obv my dad and me heh. Rightsiding was never a concern. It is super tilting to see people use rightsiding as an important reason on whether or not to play transfers lol.

You have some edge if it goes low to the 9 and J/T, followed by low towards the AQ whether they play the H or low. Against bad players if it goes low I assume you will always play the ace, losing to JT on your left and winning vs KJ/KT since RHO will never falsecard. More importantly against really good players I assume they play the H almost every time the 2nd time so you can play for the drop against the H play on the second round and if they play low play for JT doubleton. I can def say I have done the first but not the 2nd but I think I would do it in the right circumstances heh. And yeah I know this means they are not so good in this spot if they always play the H the 2nd round with Hx heh. But I am glad to know I have not been wrong to think of this combo as about even money my whole life, did not know it was actually so close to that though!

Yes, obviously I am not comfortable playing this way and am in disagreement. After all, I said in my post: I think having a bid dedicated to showing an unbalanced 3 card LR is a waste, there are too many other useful bids to show it. I think lumping an unbal 3 card LR in to a 4 card LR is fine and have played that way, as mentioned. You act like there is no benefit to having a LR show 4 which I think is not true, some hands are better opposite 4 trumps for game purposes and for slam hands (which are not that likely, but possible) it can definitely be relevant. Whether I show a LR or bid 1N with this is not a huge deal to me, it is unlikely to occur, and when it occurs it is unlikely to matter. I mean yeah it is possible that partner has a 5332 min, and it is possible the opps don't bid, and it is possible that 3M makes and 1N goes down, but it is not that likely. Just like it is not likely to matter that I have 3 trumps + shortness rather than 4 trumps when I show a LR. Since you are happy/like bidding 1N with a 3 card LR that is balanced (like the one posted in OP), I agree we are in agreement. In my post I argued that bidding 1N on such hands is not a problem, in fact it is a benefit and rates to work well at imps. You seem to agree with that. I also argued that the 3 card unbal LR is not good to bid 1N with, if you have to it is a system hole. Sometimes system holes are ok to make other bids better defined, sometimes they aren't (in which case you can eliminate it). I even noted that I had played both ways. Thus I don't understand your response to my post, but whatever I guess! Since you seem to think we disagree frequently you can save your argumentative replies for when you actually disagree! I was baffled by your initial response. I guess this is our only disagreement: Yes, I think bidding 1N will be much better long term opposite 5332 mins than playing 3M. If that is our biggest disagreement, I can live with that :P I agree with you that no rules are absolute, if I had 6322 with xx xx I would be uncomfortable playing 1N if it happened, I would rather play 3M. But in general with a 5332 opp a 5332 (with 2 fits even) I would prefer to play 1N than 3M. Perhaps that is wrong but that is my general feeling, I think taking 3 extra tricks in the major is way less likely than making 1N or 2N down in 3M.

The hand posted in the OP is a balanced 3 card limit raise. The implication is that bidding 1N with this hand is a flaw in 2/1 with semi forcing NT. Is that not the hand we are discussing? Several people have stated they would start with something other than 1N. Again, wtf are you talking about? Are you sure you were trying to reply to my post? I will refresh your memory as to what I said: I know you have a hard on for trying to argue with me, but come on, you can try harder than that.

For a long time now I have played semi forcing NT. I am never uncomfortable bidding 1N with a 3 card LR that does not have a singleton, if partner passes I get to play 1N with 2 balanced hands rather than 3M, that sounds awesome to me! There are many hands where 1N will make and 3M will go down, the converse is much less likely, you need the major suit fit to play THREE tricks better than 1N when you don't have singletons. I view it as a system win that I get to play 1N tbh. Last week there were 2 hands where this happened and I got to play 1N instead of 3M and on both of them I went plus in 1N and 3M would have been difficult (tbh I don't know if it would have made or not). I mean seriously, if your partner is gonna pass only with 5332 minimums if you are 4432, 4333, or 5332 are you really unhappy with that? At MP it is different, if 3M is making then it's probably better than 1N (unless you make 3 in 1N). You still win when 3M is down and 1N makes 7+ tricks though. But at imps I'm sure 1N will do better than 3M long term on these hands. Hands with a 3 card limit raise and a singleton are a different story, I view it as a system hole that I might play 1N. We know they have a 9 or 10 card fit in my singleton, and it is likely that playing my major and getting ruffs will be very advantageous. In most partnerships I have no way to show that hand type, I end up often making a light GF raise (which in my view is fine with a singleton and a fit at imps when I'm not going to be able to show my singleton anyways... inviting is lame when you have shortness and can't show it, it's not really about whether partner is min or max but how they fit your stiff, in those cases I am ok punting game and hoping we fit well anyways...). Other options are a heavy constructive raise or just risking 1N... it isn't that likely partner passes and if he is going to the opps might bid, they have almost half the deck and a 9/10 card fit, and even if it does go 1M p 1N AP you still might make it. With Bob I played that a direct LR could be an unbalanced 3 card LR and that worked out reasonably fine also. I am not a fan of dedicating a bid to a 3 card LR rather than bidding 1N, and even if I did I would still bid 1N with a bal 3c LR and only use that with an unbal one. I don't understand the point of not wanting to bid 1N with the OP's hand... if it goes AP I am really happy. I guess not many others feel that way? So basically +1000 to Frances itt.

You are hoping to score a club finesse if you duck. If you win you are hoping spades are 4-2 or the KQ of diamonds are on. I think fluffy's point is that the club hook is more likely to be off and the KQ of diamonds are more likely to be on if LHO has 5 spades and RHO has 1 and that changes the odds. Ofc if you think spades have a reasonable chance of being 4-2 winning is clearly right... That is a different story (and Mikeh's views are telling that even if you are a non spade leader at MP with AQ9x, some very good players are, so winning might just be clearly right regardless of the empty space thing.)

Yeah sorry I did not mean to come across like I know what the right lead is, I think basically no one knows much, and I certainly don't :) I was just telling you my reasoning for in general not liking that lead at imps, I think it is an interesting problem in that case. I think many world class players would lead a spade at imps and many would not, partially evidenced by this thread heh. I don't even know if it is an experience based thing for me, I have never been a spade leader with that type of holding but it is more because of what I have thought not what I have done. My dad and some other partners I have had like Hamman have definitely led spades at imps in those situations, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't heh. I do feel like at MP AQ9x would be a bad lead though, feel pretty strongly about it at that form of the game (though ofc I could be wrong. Just felt that your comment about imps was an interesting point to this hand worth commenting on. edit: after re-reading your post I think you were saying even at MP you might lead a spade but you feel stronger about it at imps? In that case, I disagree with you at MP and at imps I am different from you but am not sure that I disagree; I have no idea/strong opinion heh. And FWIW I feel like I am pretty weak at opening leads in general, so take that for whatever it's worth!

I'm not going to check your math but I assume that 60 % must be wrong for xxxx opp AQ9x for one loser? I have always thought of that as about even money. If I knew my partner had xxxx I would think it's not great since they might get a diamond ruff or w/e, but partner could have Txxx or T8xx or Jxxx which is awesome obv so I would always bid this slam.

Yes obviously you can do well with a zero. And sometimes you might risk a zero if you will get a top more often than you will get a zero. That said, do you have any bridge reason to think that 6N is a good contract a majority of the time, to offset the times you get a zero? It seems like your sole reason for wanting to bid 6N is to get a top. To go with your comment, people have also won bridge events without getting a top on every board. It is still a bridge competition and it is not a valid bridge reason to do something because it is your only chance to get a top. To my eyes, I have no idea what the field will do on this, I'm sure there are many possible results. I don't care. Based on our auction, it looks like 6C will be pretty good (clubs coming in) and 6N will not be (no heart lead + clubs coming in). Sure I might not get a top but I will get consistently above average results by having good auctions to good slams and hopefully making them.

keycard and bid it opposite 1 or 2 seems so obvious playing no methods. It might seem ugly to purists, but you're not going to have a realistic auction where you have a better chance of knowing whether partner has the DA or not without bidding 4N if you don't play 5S exclusion or 5N GSF. I mean, what are we really expecting, we bid 4S then 5H over 5D and partner with the DA and a crappy hand will always give us a delicate 5N? That is not practical to assume in a partnership that doesn't play anything, a majority of the time you're going to make 2 cuebids and partner will sign off twice when we have this much, then you will still be guessing. At least by bidding keycard you will know you're off the DA when partner shows zero.

I found this hand very interesting, mostly because my thought process was similar to Fluffy's (I ignored empty space implications on the finesses). Yes, it does not make a huge difference, but it makes a reasonable difference and in a close decision that can be a factor. This is the type of hand where other factors should sway your decision. For instance, a quick spade lead makes a 5 card spade suit more likely against almost everyone (I don't think anyone even if they would lead from AQ95 would be thrilled about it, it is usually that they have no other good lead, like Jx of hearts and some minors). Conversely, a slow/tortured spade lead is probably a 4 card suit. Even a normal tempo spade lead is very likely to be 5 I think. Also, whether this is a qualifying game or a finals would influence my decision heavily, especially in an event with no carryover and not a massive cut, I think not many people are going to duck the lead here so it's a big play and if my goal is just to qualify and I think I'm likely to do that, I don't think there is enough of an edge in it to risk the variance. I always post here that people are WAY too into what is the field doing and blah blah but this is a spot where it would impact me since I think it is a normal auction (unless it's a heavy weak NT field), and if they are leading from a 5 card suit it's very normal, and I think I can accurately predict that few declarers will duck (if it's not a normal lead then they have a 4 card suit, which is a good time to win it!), and I think it is already a pretty close decision either way. I really think it is possible to get a lot from the tempo of the lead vs most people, that would probably sway me the most. But I'm sure in a qualifying game I would also always win the K unless I was a bad pair. The point about empty spaces, and maybe judging based on your opps age/nationality/skill level how often they would lead from AQ95 is also important, obviously against a pair who just knows 4th from your longest and strongest a 4 card suit becomes much more likely again. I don't think you made a horrible play or anything Fluffy, and I do think the point about empty spaces is easy to overlook and might (or might not) change your decision. @Mikeh, I think even at imps AQ9x is not great, it at best sets up 1 trick and if your partner has two tricks a non spade lead might beat them anyways. Obviously that is an overly simplistic way to look at it though. On the other hand, if your partner has 1 trick and you went from 4 spade tricks to 3 that's a disaster. But of course this is a matchpoint event and I think AQ9x is really really unappealing there.

I didn't know this was an old thread, and when I read it I thought almost exactly the same thing I said in 2007... Nothing wrong with this. I guess I don't know if I think "everyone followed to 2 rounds so they played 4" or "everyone followed to 2 rounds so 8 are gone," they are interchangeable... I think both ways I guess? But def the key is if I am losing it and forget what happened I can definitely re-create the play. Like, they led a spade, I cashed 2 diamonds to test something then played a heart blah blah blah. If you know why you have played something it is easy to re-create it from the beginning trick by trick. I am not really entirely sure how I count but if I need to know how many are left in a suit I just think about how many rounds were played (and if someone showed out...) or if I need to know their pattern I think about how many cards of their hand I know about. I don't keep a running track of someones shape based on if they showed out, but if I have 8 trumps and someone shows out on the second round I intuitively know they are 4-1 and then can think about how many rounds of trumps I've played to know how many remain. If I need to know their exact pattern in some endgame I just think about how many of each suit I know they have etc etc. I guess all methods are good, it depends on what you need to know about the hand at the time. Trying to keep track of everything at once is inefficient, first think about what you need to know and then use the most efficient process possible to get that info. I don't agree with the whole thinking about their pattern/their possible patterns from trick one and adjusting based on every trick, that seems really hard and like guesswork... the first question is what do I need to know to solve the problem at hand, then think about that info. Sometimes that will be what possible shapes they have, and fine, think about it, use the auction use everything available, but if you just need to know how many trumps are out then just think about how many trumps you've played and how many you started with. Information overload from being inefficient in your thought process will cause dumb errors.

I agree, it's a critical topic and has always been in the modern game. Flexibility is really important at high levels and obviously that is where these things have gone, I suspect we still have not come all the way in testing the lower limit. I will definitely double next time I hold this hand (but sorry Phil I need a few more decades before I double and bid 3S on KT98x AJxx Jx Ax haha). If it's good enough for the TeamEngland it's good enough for me :P

ok now you're just being weird :P

lol, ok that one went way over my head, well done.

I have always overcalled 4C with this hand type. I have always felt trepidation of missing spades or 3N, but X has always just seemed too scary. X then 4C is not like a great solution, we are a little bit light (but no it doesn't show a MONSTER, it is still what we would do with an ace more and I think we are like a queen light for what partner will expect. Maybe that is circular though and if we X with this hand type he can expect it but then we have a really wide range for a bid that is at the 4 level already and partner has no invites...). But that might just be irrational fear (and when you are SCARED of Xing with 2 hearts, your natural fall back is overcalling in your long suit). I could definitely be convinced that X is right, it is so foreign to me to X with a doubleton major and a hand that is not that good though. I think partner being a passed hand makes 4C better, he can bid 4M over it suggesting a max pass with a 5 card suit, he can cuebid as a strain probe rather than having us think that is definitely a slam try in clubs, etc. But maybe that's not right also. I have definitely bid 4C and had partner pass with 5 spades and 1 club and felt dumb lol. I really think this hand type just sucks.

Are you suggesting a 4S overcall?