bluecalm

I think they generally don't but still setting spades as trumps if they are 6-2 seems to be important. Yeah, I am pretty sure they bid 3S with 3 spades but still the problem of spades 6-2 remains. The only vugraph hand with sequence: 1S - 2C 2S - 2N 3C - 3D has 3NT alerted and explained as 5-2-2-4 (but you never know with alerts on vugraphs). On one other hand Sementa-duboin bid: 1S - 2C 3C with 6S-4C but very good hand (perfect 14hcp). I guess weak 6-4's go into 2S from general structure of the system but what next ? :)

So Lauria - Versace play this way: 1♠ - 2♣ 2♠ - 2NT And now: 3♣ = 4 clubs 3♦ = 3 clubs, then ask for amount of spades 3♥ = 6+spades, no 3 clubs, at least decent hand (13 good hcp or more) 3♠ = 6+spades, no 3 clubs, very weak hand 3NT = 5-3-3-2 exactly My question is what do they do with 6spades - 4clubs. I gather that: 1♠ - 2♣ 2♠ - 2NT 3♣ - 3♦ = relay But it seems to me from vugraph hands that opener just shows a stiff here (so 5-(3-1)-4) or bids 3NT with 5-2-2-4. If we try to pack 6-4 hand into this 3clubs and have some high answer to relay then there will be problems with setting up spades as trumps. Do you have any ideas ? Or maybe some of you play similar system and could help me out with this one ?

That many 8hcp passes, obviously not all of them. 1NT is 15-17. I want to bid 3NT so there will be no trumps to split 4-1 :)

I've never played that. I am curious what is the standard way to bid after 1♠. One system I saw is that 1NT is Hxx or four of them and otherwise you bid 2m (or 2D with 2-5-3-3 and 2C natural or strong or w/e). In such system I really don't like bypassing 1NT. I imagine it's not a problem at imps but what about MP's ? Or maybe there are other solutions to this problem ?

I am ready to play in those with my reg internet pd. I have no credentials besides being bbf regular and he is not bbf regular but he is European and World univ champion. We are amateurs who don't play much bridge but we likely won't give too many imps for free :)

I for one would be excited to play in such thing with my regular internet pd. I think if we try pick-up forum partnership we wouldn't represent enough challenge :)

Well I did think about it in my latest try post thanks exactly to your previous posts and before I read them I didn't see the problem at all :) I think Fred's reasoning is invalid too. This: Is incorrect. If we are that naive LHO will just discard diamonds from 2-4-5-2 but spades from 5-1-5-2 and we will be outplayed badly. Or in similar hands where diamonds where 4-4 only defender with Jxxx discards a diamond thus fooling us if use that information. I think that if spades are xx to Ax it's pure 50-50 guess. I tried this but while it seems to be good general rule I think there will often be problem interpreting what information was volunteered and which wasn't.

Ok, here is my latest try: we forced them to play 5 minor cards, one spade and one heart each. That leaves 12 cards in their hands out of which 8 are irrelevant and 4 are relevant: Jxx ♥ and K ♠ Possible layouts are: a)LHO has 6 irrelevant cards; RHO has 2 irrelevant card and both Jxx♥ and K♠ b)LHO has 5 irrelevant cards and K♠ ; RHO has 3 irrelevant cards and Jxx♥ c)LHO has 3 irrelevant cards and Jxx♥ ; RHO has 5 irrelevant cards and K♠ d)LHO has 2 irrelevant card and both K♠ and Jxx♥ ; RHO has 6 irrelevant cards We already know that a) and d) are not the case since we saw 3 irrelevant cards from both of them (played to clubs). We also know that b) and c) are symmetrical and equally likely. How does information about RHO being able to play K♠ come to play? My understanding is that if they agree not to play K♠ ever then it's just a guess on actual layout but it wouldn't be a guess if layout a) occurred. RHO had to play K♠ then and we play him for Jxx of hearts too. RHO can try to some mixed strategy of throwing K♠ from layout c) but then every time he plays irrelevant cards that layout becomes less likely (because his strategy consists of throwing K♠ from it sometimes) In other words: If we always play RHO for Jxxx of hearts we succeed every time against layout a), c), d) and lose to layout b) If we always play LHO for Jxxx of hearts we succeed against layouts b) and d). So if we just close our eyes (despite looking for K♠) and play RHO for Jxxx ♥ we succeed more often so we should do so. Opponent may play in such a way to give us exactly 50-50 flip on this exact hand (by refusing to play K♠ no matter what) but for using that strategy they would pay by giving us 100% in case a). Are current bridge playing programs capable of recognizing such situations ?

Ok, so it comes down to: "Only honest (ie not volunteered by opponents) information is that they have 5 minor cards each; we know they both have 8 more cards. Since LHO would be squeezed if he had both Ks and Jxxx of hearts those layouts are out and all other are symmetrical leaving the ones with RHO having Ks and Jxxx unmatched, so there are less layouts with LHO having 4 hearts". Now when I spelled that out it seems quiet obvious to me :) Thanks, that was nice explanation, I wouldn't have thought of this.

Please do. I am still not convinced but more from not getting it than from having counter argument.

Lol, you are completely clueless. Some random number generators are proven to be good. We don't have that informatino about dmpro so we use proven random number generator to check if dmpro give results with acceptable margin of error. Dealing random bridge hands is trivial task assuming we have good random number generator (which we just use to shuffle number from 1 to 52 and assign first 13 to 1st hand etc.). Now, dealing random bridge hands fast might not be that trivial task. It's quite likely that dmpro author used some not perfect algorithm for dealing hands in order to deal them fast enough. What other poster tried to show you is that what dmpro generates corresponds to what simple correct algorithm generates. Imo you have to be quite naive to think computer generated hands are "wrong". Staking your intuition shaped be few thousands hands you might have played during your life against trillions easily generated by proven random numbers generators is sign of either ignorance, arrogance or most likely mix of both. Now I am not saying you shouldn't question corectness of algorithm or admit your intuition doesn't agree with what computers generate but if you make a jump from that dissonance to opinion about correctness of generated deals you need to reexamine your way of shaping opinions.

Well, assuming that the opponents were told to lead club no matter their hands and that they discard perfectly it's pure guess as LHO will discard in such a way that information he gave me about 5 diamonds won't give away likelihood of him having 4 hearts. So it looks like perfect 50-50 guess to me with your assumptions about indicated club lead.

Not really. As new suit is usually played as GF after transfer we are forced to bid 2NT on various 5-4-3-1's or even 5-5's and partner is well advised not to pass that even with 4-3-3-3 so "balanced" is not quite a sure thing. Anyway we could have 8 or 9. Now we have 9 and information about 3rd heart. Is it enough for game ? If so, which one ? :)

So it's either: 1)xx-Jxxx-xxxxx-xx to Kxxxxxx x xxx xx or: 2)Kxxxx x xxxxx xx to xxxx Jxxx xxx xx First apriori chances. There are 8*7/2 * 4 * 8*7*6/3*2*1 * 4*3/2 ways to deal 1) and: 8*7*6*5/4*3*2 * 4 * 8*7*6/*3*2*1 * 4*3/2 ways to deal 2). Terms for hearts diamonds and clubs are the same so what is left is: 8*7/2 to 8*7*6*5/4*3*2 in spades which is: 56 to 70 so if my math is correct 2) constitutes for about 55.5% of all layouts. Now is there anything in play which influence those odds ? First, bidding is important because we need to know if club lead was obvious or if it was some random choice. From 1) W had 3 suits to lead from including 2 empty doubletons, from 2) he had 2 suits to lead from so if bidding wasn't informative club lead will more often come from 2) than from 1). Now discards. From 1) discards are perfectly consistent and the only way to discard. From 2) W sometimes would part with a spade or two before getting rid of all diamonds. So it looks like lead increase chances for 2) (assuming not informative bidding) and discards increase chances for 1). It's a tough call depending on how opponents lead and discard. My guess would be to play 1) against average opps if bidding indicated club lead as from two 5 carders they rarely discards exactly 2 diamonds first. Against very good opps capable of discarding in a way to suggest me wrong layout I go with a priori (+first lead information) chances so I play for 2). Against average opps with not informative bidding I again gor with 2) as then 1st lead inference is quite strong. It also seems likely that from 2) layout W would try to signal for K♠ using diamond spots so I look for that information too.

Hmm, I need to think about it but first thoughts are: -pass is terrible -3NT is automatic -5C is interesting Now let me think :) We are playign imps Mikeh.

No it's not. Signal just says: "From subset of all my possible hands I have either odd amount of trumps and even amount out of said suit or even amount of trumps and odd amount of given suit". In other words: "parity of trumps and that suit is the same or different, low card says same, high card says different". It can't be considered encrypted because then all "sophisticated" attitude signals would be encrypted too ("we either have honors in that suit or we don't want obvious switch" as commonly played by people). Common count signal: "I have either 2 or 4, you figure it out depending on your hand" is also encrypted. Defender almost always knows real count based on amount of cards in their hand while declarer needs to play some side suits cards to figure it out. I realize that in the end it comes down to what directors says but I am just pointing out that definition "key which is only available to defenders" is silly and if applied literally it would lead to ban of almost all signals played by people.

Meh, I could define is as: "from hands containing even amount of trumps we give natural count but from hands containing odd amount of trumps we give upside down count" and now the system should be legal... On the other hand many commonly played and legal agreements could be phrased as "cryptic" and still be logical equivalent.

So yet another case of British English making more sense than American English ? :) (my favourite example are dots/commas ending sentence/phrase going inside quotation marks in American English)

Oh damn, sorry. I made the culcations vulnerable and posted the hand with love all (because I thought it's more interesting that way). Good point. I am pretty sure 1st lead after this auction will be very costly in 3NT and not costly in 4H. I can't prove that I can just say I analyzed a lot of auctions like that along with real hands and declarer has big advantage over defenders comparing to dd play (that advantage comes from 1st lead). Anyway, it looks like I managed evenly split poll for once :)

I used exactly 15hcp with exactly 3hearts. balanced without 5 spades (because area people don't open 1NT with 5M too often). It shouldn't matter too much though if you add some details. The numbers will be in that ballpark.

Yeah, I've learnt English as my 2nd language and expression "limit raise" doesn't make sense to me at all. I just assumed that's the way invites are called in bridge lingo.

I am in 3NT camp. This hand was played by the friend of mine (quite a good player) and his choice was a pass which imo is a mistake. If we are to believe dd simulations 3NT makes about 35% of the time (similar to 4H) and 3H makes 80% of the time. This alone makes 3NT +EV call at imps but imo it will make more than 35% of the time as defending is difficult, especially 1st lead.

Double should be t/o to hearts not just "diamonds". Then E should bid 2S, probably even opposite dbl = diamonds it's good bid, I mean hiding 6carders is one sure fire way to lose at bridge. Pass after 3S is the worst bid of them all for which E deserves 100% of blame on this hand.

Isn't partner 6-1-3-3 quite often here ?

It would nice to have a chance to play 4S to 6spades in partner's hand and 5m with 5-4 fit. I am not sure if it's possible to achieve what about 4H ?