bluecalm

Damn, I didn't check this forum for like 1.5 month and now JLogic is winning Bermuda Bowl ? That's quite a fast progress there ;) J/k, I didn't watch any vugraphs so far but you have me booked as kibitzer for the final. Go, go, go I really wish you guys take it down !

You call non trivial matter which some intelligent people who actually played a lot of bridge debate "obvious" and then offer moronic 50-50 (we don't know, so 50-50) as universal answer. It's easy to think about games when one element is much less important than others so far there is no convincing argument that bridge isn't one of them.

Assumptions I usually use for responder are: 2-3 card in majors, 9-15hcp or any 4-3-3-3 9-15hcp. Hands with 8hcp and 6 card minor usually don't raise to 3nt imo but I am not sure. I can check in my database if that's turns out to be important point but I highly doubt it.

+1 The only way for people who are not programmers is to fire up something like dm pro and manually go through the cases to see how often declarer guesses.It could be made automatic but it requires some coding which for now nobody did (or published). I think that if the book will be terrible enough it will be good incentive for me to actually do it :) I can tell from experience that this is wrong and in fact after running the simul: 6♠ - 151 T♥ - 177 2♦ - 162 Q♣ - 194 And there is a factor that xx major leads are overrated by dd simuls because with semi-solid suit and side entry partner would often double 3NT (or as some play he would do taht only with spades then xx spade lead is overrated). I suspect that they screw up the assumptions and forgot about some cases (like for 1NT - 3NT auction responder doesn't have stiff major (unless it's at least a Q generally) or they excluded 4M-3-3-3 hands which is also a mistake).

Well, maybe that's because I recently went through all Martens' declarer play problems as well as most issues of dotw but it seemed really basic. I was kinda surprised declarer didn't get it but he was unknown (to me) so well, ok. Then I saw Meck also failed and then all those other top guys. Must be something to it if they all had this blind spot.

[hv=pc=n&s=s7h6djt43caqj6532&n=sk84ha74da986ckt8&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=3c3s3ndp4hpp5cdppp]266|200[/hv] That's the bidding from one table, at others LHO showed big major 2 suiter in one way or the other. The lead is 2♦, your play ? It was missed by Meckstroth, Greco-Hampson, Helgemo-Helness and few others but made by local Polish stars. Quite surprising if you ask me as I am not sure if it would qualify for bridge master level 4 :) Have fun :)

I would really love to try the following system: -No bid is forcing unless it's jump in new suit then it's game forcing and showing 5+ (this means that 1/1 and 2/1 are not forcing) -every bid expect 1NT-...-2NT openers is natural; 1/1 shows 5+cards, 2/1 same; -openings: all 1level openers shows 5+suit and are 12+hcp -1NT/2C/2D/2H/2S/2NT are all balanced hands with 12-14, 15-17-, 18-19, 20-21, 22-23 and 24+ respectively. -3/4 level openers = preempts I think it's "reasonable" by that I mean it's possible to achieve good score on most deals using it and it can have some benefits as auctions like 1S - 3NT or 1D - 2H - 4H - 6H are standard and you often play "fast 3NT" having some 5-3 or 4-4 fit which makes for big variance and some fun.

Play 6 hearts, 3 clubs ending in dummy. In 3 card endgame you have: 8♠ Q6♦ to AT♦ 4♠ If RHO has K♦ and LHO J♦ we are home because they both need to keep 2 diamonds and it doesn't matter who takes spade trick as none of them can open diamonds safely. (yeah and we need to watch for those small spades to guess if W was 6-0-5-2 or 5-0-6-2)

I play an ace and then club to the table if they hold up I will just run T♥ because it looks like E has a lot of hearts so probably J♥ is there. I can also play the spade back, maybe they will discard imprecisely on spades but that gives away my overtricks in case E has AJ♥.

2S which is eitehr 6spades or 5-1 majors; KI has nothing to do with it. This is acutally kind of hand when Gazilli gains despite this ugly rebid because in "standard" bidding you would face either 2NT or 3m rebid and would be force to bid 3NT (or 4D after 3d) which is kinda random at this point in hand.

Why ? We have less hearts than diamonds, so they have more on avarega also we can just blow a trick leading ♥ even if nothing is going away while it's very unlikely in diamonds.

Standard is A from AK, K from KQ, Q from QJ, J from JT. Or in other parts of the world K from AK, Q fom KQ, J from QJ, T from JT. The card you lead should depend on what you have in clear way not on wishful thinking like "I think seeing attitude will be nice so I lead this or that". As far as I am aware no elite pair play in such a way unless they hide it diligently in their cc's and on vugraph hands (I mean some of them play ct to king or the other way around especially vs NT, but they lead given cards from given combos) EDIT: I just found an expception. It seems that Bocchi - Duboin played K=cnt, A=att at least at some point but they combined with something similar to rusinov (so Q is always KQ)

I think you meant 5♥-4♠ ? As to original question, it depends what are 2♥/2♠ after 2♦ I think agreeing that those are to play is quite good and simple. Then you always bid stayman with 5-4majors. The drawback of this is that you lose the way of inviting with 5♠ - 4♥ but that's life. It always never comes up and you can always either force to game or signoff if partner doesn't have 4 card fit.

I am very surprised you guys prefer ♥ to [trumps] lead. Imo ♥ is the worst choice by far.

Yes, standard is better than this crap but if you were to play it just lead standard anyway and agree on K att A count (unless AKQ/AKJT or KQT9 vs NT); your loses will be minimized then :-)

Even my (very crude) simulation likes Q♣ and they usually don't like active leads. As it's both standard, making my hand easier to read for partner and the most effective I choose it as my first lead :-) My 2nd choice is 9/T ♦ and I think it's close. I wouldn't complain if partner lead it.

I don't think pass is an option. I would consider it a blunder at imps (and at matchpoints it's still serious mistake imo). If they double it's time for soul reading but I guess pass is normal. If anybody can run it's W imo.

This seems to be pretty serious problem with this method. It's also a problem with strong king, when you lead Q from KQ and QJ and partner is faced with awkward decision what to do with a Txx(+). Maybe one can avoid this by not leading a from empty KQ, if we always have KQT the problems disappears. If we could have KQ9+ then the problem is a bit less sever (because we sometimes see the nine somewhere) but still exists. It make me think that maybe in recent hand I posted Bocchi has chosen low heart for this particular reason. My opinion about this agreement is that one should encourage with Jxx and one should lead A from AK basically always. I think the more "judgement" is used when selecting honor card you lead the less effective this is (and less ethical). I played A=count, K=att for some time with partner who insisted on it and I didn't like it but I think that if you follow standard lead rules (ie. lead A from AK and K from KQ unless AKQ/AKJT or KQT9+) you will be fine in most cases.

Too difficult for simulation because it's not clear how to define opponents hands. I would lead Q♦

Btw: NEC cup 2011, semi final: [hv=pc=n&s=s87542ht7dat75ck9&w=sajthaj5d8643cqt5&n=sk6hkq932dk92c876&e=sq93h864dqjcaj432&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1d1h1sp1nppp]399|300[/hv] Bocchi chose low ♥ and 1NT made instead of going 2 down. Simulation (winning lead): K♠ - 556 K♥ - 677 3♥ - 521 2♦ - 492 7♣ - 633 Clear enough. Even the best of the best cardplayers could learn something from those simuls ;) (according to double dummy simul his choice was about 1imp/hand worse than the best choice so it's quite a lot)

Looks like very clear 3♠ unless you are playing constructive jumps then 4♠. Difficult to comment on this really, seems obvious.

Winning = defeating 3NT Best = leading to maximum amount of tricks for defense; It's not surprising to me because I saw this few times in double dummy simulations. The reason is that if we run spades we will run them anyway after A♥ and if partner has Txx and side entry we will find his entry or just wait after A♥ (double dummy). A♥ cater both those cases which are very important at imps. This is anomaly and unless you play suit preference to A leads at trick 1 you won't get good results doing it :) What is surprising to me is how much better spade lead at matchpoints than any other lead while at imps it seems that passive lead is better.

2k hands sample. Winning lead: A♠ - 419 Q♠ - 362 6♠ - 333 A♥ - 515 (!!) 2♥ - 371 4♦ - 449 6♣ - 456 Best lead: A♠ - 1524 Q♠ - 1471 6♠ - 1014 A[hearts[ - 970 4♦ - 960 6♣ - 983 DD simul loves banging aces at imps because it's then always switches perfectly I see it again and again :)

JL beat me to it. I am leading A♠ if I choose spades at all (despite stiff K, there is Kx). Running the simul now :)

Not really. Results for 97 QJ543 A65 765 Winning lead: 7 ♠ - 105 Q ♥ - 153 4 ♥ - 169 A ♦ - 74 6 ♦ - 79 6 ♣ - 93 But: best lead: Q♥ 668 4♥ 600 On the same sample which suggests that Q♥ is better at matchpoints which may or may not be true but for sure it's reasonable hypothesis (btw my theorem that one should lead the same at MP's and IMP's is taking some heavy blows in simuls I recently made).