bluecalm

1. How I play and most people in Poland plays: low = even, high = odd. With xxxxx people play anything from the highest to the middle. From xxxx people play the lowest. From 3 almost always the highest unless the highest is important. 2. How I think it could be played (not strong opinion about value of this agreement) lowest = xx or xxxxx highest = xxx from xxxx play the 2nd lowest It seems to me that 2nd should be good for discarding. No idea what about playing to 1st trick (if count is appropiate signal). Do you have any rules/conventions regarding those in your partnership ?

I am just criticizing wishful thinking like: "isn't just some hand that's shooting out a game hoping for a random 8-count from pard to bring it home." or: "it should be similar to 2♣ opener" Playing forcing pass here is one thing. I don't like it but at least it makes some distant sense. Making argument for playing it in a kind that 4♠ promises things which it can't logically promise is another. I just can't believe they are still people who question that if we play fp here they have an easy life (6♦ if we bid 5♠, pass if we pass and partner removes to 5♠, 6♦ if we remove partner's double to 5♠) which will make ton of imps to them in exchange for slight increase of our slam bidding precision. Why slam bidding and not game bidding ? Because in this kind of problem we need to be making our game about 30% of the time to make profitable and that is assuming they don't even take phantom save. If we add this possibility it will be probably around 20%-25%. Maybe forcing pass will help you just a bit to bid those 30% games and avoid those 20% ones but this is very narrow target which removes large part of your equity on the deal (by making saving decisions much easier to them).

It's a pity we don't have a 9♠ but as they didn't raise maybe spades are 6-2 even if partner has a stiff. 3NT for me but I see how 4♥ could work on some layouts.

There is also a line of playing club to the ace and running J of clubs. This wins whenever clubs comes in or W has Qxx/Qx/Txx of clubs and A♦. Looks like 45+% to me. Even better would be to play spade to the ace first I think and then run J♣. Additional chance is that RHO won't put his Qx on this. If he does play the queen then we play Ace and King of clubs if T won't come up then we try spades "knowing" T♣ is on the right. If spades provide 5 tricks then we just play diamonds. I don't know how much % is that but looks like 50+ easily.

LOL. Yeah, and it should show REAL 8 card suit with AT LEAST 3 aces AND two KINGS !! IT's not just some hand hoping for a random 8 count from pard blablabla. And what if you have KQJTxxx AQJx x x ? You eat the cards ?

It would be too easy if I said "5♥ is encouraging for hearts", right ? Maybe it wasn't ? I haven't talked with Versace obviously. I can only read their convention card and draw some conclusions from other hands I saw. I thought this problem is solvable and interesting without going too much into ♥ spot as it was played at other table. I am not a bridge writer, next time when I come across hand like that I will do better :)

yeah.. but those are Italians, they have this strange idea, that odd encourage :-)

Depend no style. I can't imagine myself or my pd ever leading JTx of third in minor suit against this auction but yeah, general point is valid. Anyway, full deal: [hv=pc=n&s=s982ht73d986cak86&w=sjt53hk854d74c543&n=sk64hq62dakj52cq2&e=saq7haj9dqt3cjt97&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1nppp]399|300[/hv] Versace played clubs in 5-3-4 order according to vugraph archives and Lauria didn't split clubs and then let 2 tricks and the conract go by playing a diamond back. At the other table Bocchi played A♦ and club after winning the first trick but didn't put an 8♣. Without cashing A♣ he played 8♦ and finessed. Bertheau let the contract go by playing A♠ (Nystrom played clubs 5-4-3 and diamonds 4-7). 7imps swing on this one, so not minor by any means. Would you played better ? :)

Maybe he was afraid it will be for spades ? He doesn't know that he will have a chance to play 2 cards to diamond suit just yet or if declarer's suit is ♦ at all (it could be ♥ and in that case by playing 5-4-3 he will encourage disastrious ♠ switch. I for one would be pretty sure that partner has K♠ if I saw 5-4 of clubs. Maybe if he doesn't have neither of AK♠, AK♥ he would just play neutral club (a 4) to the first trick ? Or maybe first club card should always be as loud as possible, because he doesn't know yet that he will have a chance to play all 3 of them ?

Attitude is nor relevant once declarer played low. Maybe the first card was s/p ? or maybe just count ? Is it suit preference for hearts or just lack of suit preference for spades ? What would he play holding Qxx Qxx in both suits ? What about JTx Qxx ? What about Qxx Jxx ? I am asking those questions because those dilemmas arise all the time and even elite 20+years partnership got it wrong (and another very good Swedish partnership at other table also got it wrong).

This is only matter of agreement. Some people play discourage = obvious switch preference in those situations. I think the rule: "attitude is always about current suit, to give info about other suits we always play S/P" is less error prone. There are still situations when you have to know if S/P to given suit is always true (hearts here) or just partner had to played some card (low here wouldn't mean diamonds, just "lack of hearts" and if hearts and diamonds were reversed high card would mean just "no diamonds help, partner").

Btw guys, instead of arguing what is mainly semantics please tell me how you solve this one: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/45106-and-another-carding-problem/ with your methods.

Maybe take, diamond to the king and T♥ from the table with the plan of running it if RHO doesn't cover ? LHO didn't lead spades and could still be convinced we have a stopper so maybe he will not play them again and we win with hearts 3-3. Not a big chance but at least something :) Oh, I saw the answer. That was my first instinct to try clubs but somehow I thought they are probably 6-2. Nice play :)

Except that he could just have 8.5-9 playing tricks and hope for the best knowing we wouldn't raise his 3♠, something like: KQJ9xxx AQJx x x Doesn't look like 2♣ opener but is quite possible 4♠ bid. Now if you want to play a system which require you to remember 100's of situations (would it be forcing if 5♦ bidder isn't passed hand ? would it be forcing if they play 3[diamonds} as "constructive" ?, would it be forcing if both side were nonvul ?) and force you to double them just because you have this 13count and partner have nothing, all in exchange for maybe slightly more accurate bidding, which also makes opponents decisions easier, then good luck to you :-) Also what exactly partner would double with after your "encouraging" pass ? I mean he jumped to 4♠ when he could've doubled with powerful hand and something like 6-3-1-3. I wonder what kind of hands which were suitable for 4♠ now want to defend after your fp. Won't be easy to make those decisions without very detailed partnership understanding.

Seriously ? If partner doubles then it's easy 5♠ his double should be competitive and I see 4trumps support and lack of trump stack.

I bid 5♠ fast, maybe it will make maybe they will save. I don't see how we gain by added "precision". I want to pass with nothing, bid with something and double if I can't resist licking my chops. Color me yellow...

I took some hands which people routinely bid puppet with and look at the possible layouts (100's of them because I am an addict). My conclusion was that puppet causes more loses (because of better 1st lead) than it ever gains on 4-4-3-2 hands and 5-3-3-2 hands. Also system with puppet is weakier because there is less space for other hand types but obviously this one is difficult to quantify. Obviously all the muppets and romexex which doesn't allow you to bid 2NT - 3NT aren't even worth considering.

Is it that obvious ? I can't see it intuitively. I think I made a mistake again (like 10th time) and won't attempt to solve it today again but I am still not sure. Looks like a wash to me now.

[hv=pc=n&s=s7653h2da986ckj52&n=saj9hkj98653dqca6&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp1hp1sp3hppp]266|200[/hv] Italy - Bulgaria Euro 2010. Declarer is Norberto Bocchi. Play: 7c, Jc, Qc, Ac Qd, Kd, Ad, 7d 2h, 4h, ????? I am calculating this and I keep making mistakes and arrive at different results. Now I am pretty sure I finally got the solution but it's different than the line Bocchi has chosen. I doubt there is much to read fomr the play so far so it's seems like "pure" suit combination hand. Anyway, your play ? EDIT: ok I finally got it. Not surprisingly the way the Bocchi played is the best. I am leaving this thread for educational purposes :) Maybe someone who doesn't know the answer would like to have a shot.

Maybe they have another reason, like reducing variance and playing along with the other table. No idea, I spent enough time on this one to be confident that at least at imps puppet is not profitable and it's better to just bid 3nt on all those 4-4-3-2, 4-3-3-3 and 5m-3-3-2 hands. If someone very good had told me "I spent a lot of time analyzing this and my conclusion is that puppet is +EV instead of bashing 3NT" then I would probably reconsider but intuition alone even from someone very good isn't going to convince me as I saw tons of layouts and I don't have selective memory bias on this one (as I saw them consecutively with the goal of determining which is better). One day when my program is ready which can make reasonable human-like lead on most NT biddings I will just simulate 10k hands and see. For now it have to wait :)

Ask Lauria. At the other table defender also hasn't split and Bocchi as declarer didn't put an 8.

5♠ but I am in no way convinced it's correct bid. I suppose it will work often enough. Even if we don't make sufficient % of the time they will sometimes bid 6♦. The idea of pass being forcing here wouldn't even occur to me. Crazy !

Sorry, corrected. There is AK in the dummy. The purpose of this thread is to establish what partner's cards should mean and how you would solve it in your partnership. It is very advanced elite level problem because Lauria and Versace screw it up (along with Nystrom Bertheau at the other table) :) . It was supposed to be 2♦, not 2♣ on the 4th round. I mistyped. Thanks for correction. Now what should the carding mean ? :)

Very strong hands with support shouldn't bid 2NT in the first place. There is a lot of place in 2/1. Start with 2♣ and get to know partner's hand exactly if you have SI to begin with. Playing it as invite or invite and some weak GF hands (the ones which could only make slam opposite extremely good opener) makes much more sense. This is what Italian and Polish pairs are doing for ages. I am surprised Americans haven't catch up on this one yet.