dake50

I once had a source for one who did a simulation summary of game percent by hand patterns. I have lost that IP address. EG 2-2 Majors w 5-4 minors made game 24% Anyone know sources for this type of simulation??

How far from 6C? Where are my slam tries? At worst push to 4NT.

Hope partner recognizes 4D as we're OK in 4H. Maybe 6H/6D on his Sxxxxx HKxxxxx Dxx C --- Or opener psyched 1NT on 6-9hcp? So partner has STUFF??

Want to play Herbert to X so 1S isn't weak. Or Xfer advances so I make a 2nd noise.

With 1 card spade, it's 87% they have 8+spade fit. Opponents non-V, they must simply make the right decision/guess. Bid 3D. Opps V, they must not miss 4S if making. 3D is wasted breath unless suggesting sac. So NV vs V, 3D is senseless preempt. Give them a 'fielders' choice'? ?

Give me a 3rd spade then pass. But with 2 card spade, it's 60% opponents have spades so obscure/obstruct this hand. 1H to leave ambiguous HCP or 2H to take space for their 2S/4S decision. 2H for me --that even increases my chances to win SQ on defense -- preemptor having side Q? ?

ideegan is correct. I prioritize thus 1. Mentor/teacher Schooled by Lawrence/Pavlicek would be great. 2. Read from many top authors. They will stress counting, counting, counting. Then inferences from counting. 3. Establish a partnership. Develop feedback analyzing results/hands. Find a student of the game not a social partner, OK with any results, but work for best, real valuable critique. 4. Play serious bridge, not the 'lets try this on club' game.

Opponents SILENT with 11 ! ! hearts? Hearts must break 6-5/5-6 with KJ/AJ 5th in last to speak. Factor in the 6331/6322/6340 that only 7/6 slots remain. This reduces the unbalanced cases. I expect 2-2 spades is well over 54%

Try Herbert negative for non-GF; freeing others for suit-showing GF.

This is nearing the point forcing pass systems would long ago have reached in bidding theory. The FP just showing HCP is silly. What other partitions of open/pass work better. This would have evolved in the 3 decades since inception, barring barring! So what UNFORCING but good hand passes work? What benefits to rest of system bounds (upper/lower)? What bids are freed for other shape/hcp cases? Develop that idea, it seems intriguing.

I think this goes to basic bidding theory. Which bids/rebids will be ambiguous to allow the others to be clear? I much prefer many clear (re)bids, a few ambiguous to always unclear bid/rebid. Eg. 1m-1H-1S is UNbalanced. Ambiguous 1NT allows checkback if desired. I like 'got RIGHT stuff' immediate. 'Might have GOOD stuff' if/when I show it next.

Two cases: 1. 4S by RHO is guess to be cheap vs our 4H. -> HA. 2. 4S to induce error, if no blabbing. -> any reasoned lead. HA wins 1. Reasonable on 2.

The ACBL GCC lists xfer advances in 'Competitive' allowed. What is the GCC legality of the same method in competition BUT by opener's partner? Or expanded 4-suits xfers? GCC? or GCC only after 1NT, 1C(Force), 1D(Force), 2C openers and what others?

Play OC structure with X vs. 1NT distinction being X='beware of skying as one major is iffy', whereas 1NT= Majors OK minor iffy.

Will partner reopen with the 3-tricks to make 4H/5C? Or must I act direct? 5-4-22 is not inspiring me to direct action.

Lionel type double: suggesting S+2nd is safe and effective here as immediate action. Then all to partner's decision(s).

How does 4S play in 4-3 fit after neg double? As likely as 3NT needing CK on or 2nd H-stop.

4C is best. Partner knows C control, maybe his D are good enough; his H-support okay. Slam is suggested. One too high, 4NT vs. 3NT is the downside.

Is partner's direct action soo high that he needs this bal min to protect his 'near OC'? Likely SA,HAQ for him, does he have a 5-loser hand? Does he have the 13- count to make 3NT? NO, NO. NO.

Have a similar problem. 4cM, weak NT, natural 2m. Do I inform oppts that 1NT open/rebid has no 4cM? That reopening almost never seeks M-fit? That OC's take advantage of no 4cM (likely) in partner's passed hand? Defensive choice of lead/signal to that lead assume no 4cM?? These are all negative inferences available to a reader of our CC. And fully explained if asked.

Is it explicit agreement to 'implicitly' assume our structure still exists for 2-level trump agreement, cues, etc. later on AT LEAST? Thus to leave 'implicitly' explicit allowed 1S, with the agreed continuations. Or are we required to surrender this hand to adjusted score from the moment of 'insufficient bid'? Opponents win by accepting ALL insufficient calls!!! They can only get 'result stands' or better by adjustment.

S 1st: 1S-3C=GF S-raise: 3NT=2 tops; H-ask->no; D-ask->1top; 6S. N 1st: 1C-S-xfer-> S-trump ask; -> as above.

Awfully narrow to ASSUME 'Competitive' allowed GCC does NOT mean competing by the opening side??? Wouldn't that have been 'defensive bidding'?

One flaw: H-tops. Great boost 2cSpade -> oppts have 8+Spade >50%. Let them guess 2S/3S/4S. Always 2H, here; never with a 3rd spade.

Partner made no S/H OC= misses 5-suit, 4-suit with 2 honors. Partner made no X= not 4-4M nor 4-3M with plus hcp. Partner made no 1D OC= no 5card D decent, nor 4-card D with 2 honors hoping for Major response. He has C long. Double then double their escapes OR take undoubled set? Need a killing to Double. Down 6imp, yep. MP yep and hope later auction is OK.