bluecalm

Yeah, makes sense. Probably the same should go for multi ?

Interesting. It seems that elite pairs are not employing this strategy. They could have their other reasons though. I will try my ways of improving intuition on this one (dealing 100 hands and trying to guess "what would happen"). For now my intuition tells me that it may well be very good strategy. One question: If you employ this change do you still open weak hands with 4H thus making it extremely wide range or do you just play it as more constructive ? I am not a fan. Prepared opponents will use dbl as pure t/o (which could be lighter and more shapish) now and pass and then dbl as heavy nt like/penalty oriented dbl. This gives them significant edge. This is the reason I think all those transfer openings like Namyats or 3NT as good 4M are garbage.

I dunno, maybe it's even "expert standard". I just ask how they play :) It's true that returning card doesn't look like 3 of them at all so there is probably not much to fish out for. Anyway, if the 9 is falling to the heart it seems to me that problems disappear.

Good points awm. I was only evaluating how I feel about myself and not what I am actually doing compared to other people who are considered competitive. That's why I said it would be nice to devise a test for this. We are probably very similar in respect of being competitive but you rate yourself lower because you have different standards (admittedly more reasonable) than mine. Those different standards will be also seen in other categories. Some people might think I am the most passive first leader in the world but from my perspective I am just a bit below average. Among my friends I am "scientist" who also want to play something "fancy" but seeing what people are playing I "know" I am not even close to higher end of the scale etc.

If 2NT is natural I consider it's obvious to bid it. If it's not I think it's closer. I prefer to bid 3NT than pass on first sight.

I think it's much more likely that RHO has stiff club. First LHO would almost often lead or switch to his stiff club because on many layout he is only looking at 9-12pc and can well think partner has one of the black aces for quick set. The reason for him not leading stiff club could be also that it's stiff honour. In that case we will be able to use our 9 to hook RHO's HH. I am starting with K♣ and if H doesn't fall on the left I am playing club to the ace. If RHO shows out I am ruffing diamond, drawing 3 round of trumps and exiting with my last club endplaying him either to lead into my AQ♥ or to set up club suit. If H falls on the left to K♣ I will take 3 round of trumps ending in dummy and hook the club.

First I ask how do they lead and bid. Because if the lead is standard and bidding is standard then it looks like RHO is 4-4-3-2 and my plan is to collect 5spades, a heart, 3 diamonds and a club for an overtrick. So 9♥ felt to this trick ? It seems like quite an important information. It's unlikely that LHO played the 9 from A9 in my opinion because for all he knows partner can still have QJx. With that assumption I really want to play a heart now to see the distribution of the suit.

I took average for Axx and the difference is quite big. Lead from A8x is probably in fact worse though (cause 8 could be a trick). I will run it on bigger sample out of curiosity. In my opinion those A leads only works double dummy though as in real life it could be difficult to switch in time to other suit which double dummy player always does.

Sweet! Do you have those available for other parts of their system ? :)

Just play that after 2♣ 2♦ shows most normal hands and higher bids is something very unusual and you bypassed ACBL regulations :-)

Pass wouldn't even cross my mind to be honest. I think it's very bad. I don't think it's close even at matchpoints.

My simulation tells me that: A♠ = 384 3♠ = 339 A♥ = 369 5♥ = 343 J♦ = 375 T♣ = 401 (times the lead defeats 3NT on 1k hand sample) So I am leading a club next time I am dealt this hand. This is the second time lately when I would expect major suit lead to be a winner but it isn't. Last time it was Kxx holdings now Axx. If we substitute our Axx of spades to 8xx then the results would be: ♠ - 388 A♥ - 326 5♥ - 315 J♦ - 294 x♦ - 309 T♣ - 351 It seems that underleading Hxx sucks even double dummy. Obviously it's even worse in practical play. EDIT: For Q43 A85 JT43 T94 the results are: 3♠ - 205 A♥ - 253 5[hearts= - 249 J♦ - 238 4♦ - 251 T♣ - 285 and for the same hand with Jxx of spades: x♠ - 327 A♥ - 299 x♦ - 295 T♣ - 325 and the last one for Txx of spades: 3♠ - 396 A♥ - 363 5♥ - 350 3♦ - 352 T♣ - 399 The trend is clear: if there safe major suit lead available it's the best. If not, clubs > diamonds. I have found that 1k hand sample still have some variance but is quite reliable (by that I mean that if the difference is 25+ hands it's rarely due to luck).

It would be cool if someone could describe a set of questions which would then gives score. I am reading awm description of himself and I would assign different numbers to him based on this information. For example "I am very competitive but I don't try to be rude" is 8 or 9 in my book :-) I am 578499 I like a bit of science and good bidding system but would hate to play sophisticated relays or even too many gadgets but if something solves important problem then I am in. I lead more actively than some of my friends but still a lot more passively than "standard" so 4 and maybe even 3. As to carding I still try to convince my partner to play substitute count in more spots than we currently do so I guess it gives me 8 ;)

I would love to play this style but it requires a lot of partnership understanding imo.

I have no idea. Some good players I know insist on playing dbl as showing at least 5-4 here on the argument that no normal t/o hand is good enough if it didn't double before. On the other hand partner can easily have: xxx xx AQxxx QJx or: xxxx QJxx AQJTx x and we have our +110/140/170 take. On the other hand: KJ3 QJ3 T832 QT7 and it will be 200 or 500/800 if one of them can double. We need a parlay here to win imps: -they have exactly 8 tricks in spades (most of the time they have 9 they will be able to bid 3S or double us) -we are making 9+ tricks somewhere If we are correct we win 6imps. If we often break even but also could lose 5imps (neither side makes anything) or 11+ imps (they get us). It's difficult to say what are exact probabilities but my intuition enhanced by some simulations is that pass is a winner.

And what is the bidding so far ?

It has nothing to do with knowledge. Both of them could be world class players and they still may land in something silly after nmf if they haven't discussed it before.

Despite you have quite a clear direction with your 7carder. Most of the time partner is balanced and has club tolerance (because the less he has in clubs the less he is likely to double).

Only the first one is pass for me and only when vulnerable.

T♥, spade is probably close. In such problems it's important if they open 1NT wit 5M and if they play puppet stayman (if they do then major suit lead is more attractive). EDIT: My oracle says, that my intuition was wrong. Assuming no puppet stayman and 5M possible for 1NT opener the results of simulation for 5k hands are: 4♠ 854 T[hearts 782 5♦ 850 3♣ 754 I change my mind to spade especially because simulation assumptions are the worst for major suit lead (no puppet, always open 1NT with 5M, always bash 3NT wit 4M-3-3-3).

Sweet but partner made negative double at 3level and you are bidding 4♣ which is not forcing while your hand warrant at least game. Completely normal hand for partner: Axx Axxx Kxxx xx And he won't even consider raising you but 12 tricks are laydown. There is merit in playing this dbl as game forcing but this is not standard by any means. Nice convention, I haven't heard about it, but... : Wishful thinking imo. Why we are not able to play in 4♥ if I have 7 of them ? or 6very good ones ? Imo partner should accept this transfer with for example Axx x KQxxx Kxxx which isn't exactly tolerance and even with: Axxx - KQxxxx QJx.

Very weak system in my opinion. It's profitable to run to 3M with basically every weak hand with 5 card major. Also this: Sucks big time. Whatever tiny gains you may have thanks to this once every 500 hands or w/e that is will be washed away by all the lead direction double and free information given to defenders on your way to 3NT on normal hands. I spent a lot of time analyzing this and I think even playing puppet stayman is a bit -EV especially at matchpoints (where they are happy to make aggressive lead directional double). Conventions which doesn't allow you to just bash 3nt on 4-3-3-3 5 count are shooting yourself in the foot.

They play 2nd transfers after major suit transfers so: 1NT - 2D 2H - ???? 2S = transfer to 2NT (invitational hand with 5H) 2NT = 4+clubs 3C = 4+diamonds higher = I am not sure but one of them is choice of games 1NT - 2H 2S - ???? 2NT = transfer to 4+clubs 3C = transfer to 4+diamonds 3D = transfer to 4+hearts higher = as above You may ask what about balanced hand with 5spades - answer: they bid stayman with that and then 2S. This is what I remember. I am not a fan of playing like them here because I don't like opening every 14-15balanced with 1NT. I think opening 1M is better on many hands so I like to have a choice. This makes all their stuff after 1NT and 2/1 not for me.

After looking at some generated hands my opinion is now that 4♠ is the worst bid by far. Double and pass are close but double is a bit better. EDIT: I've changed my mind again; my friend pointed out that I estimated 4M opener range wrong. I assumed it's purely preemptive while many people open (semi)constructive hands that way. After this adjustment I am convinced pass is the best action and it's not particularly close.

Yeah, the idea is somewhat known in Poland. Especially after 2NT o some competitive situations. For example Martens gives example of: 1♣ 1♥ 2♠* pass 3♣ pass 3D/H/S = shortness or: 1♣ 1♥ 2♠ pass 2NT (18-20) pass - and again 3D/3H/3S = shortness here. *2S = transfer to 6+clubs Also people here play: 1D - 1S 2D - 2NT* = asking for shortness and support, not for 4card side suit. In general shortness is more important information than side suit. Many conventions were built around this idea, one more which just comes to my mind is: 1m - 1M 2M and now you show shortness directly or ask for shortness via 2NT instead of usual help suit game tries. This is much better but again very low frequency. This is usual dillema: introducing this kind of conventions gives you negligible advantage but the risk of forgetting and memory overload increas risks of disaster or getting tired faster. Btw, as to original idea of reverse at 2 level I don't like it. If you play classically you still could have 6D-5M there and also: 1D - 1N 2C ; I don't agree that they would always find a major. Being able to bid natural 2C especially vulnerable is important imo.