bluecalm

I agree with basically everything nigel_k wrote. What do you think of 4NT by W though ? If it's quantitative as I think it should be it seems it fits the hand well.

Because of this: If clubs were originally Qxx to xxxxxx then 3rd club discarded by LHO would be the queen and we would cash 13th trick with our J♣. This is why 1) question is different than 3) question. In 3) question location of club queen doesn't matter.

First thing that you are missing is that the point of the thread is to give exact or approximate odds of both play working not to point which play is correct. You are also missing some things in your reasoning: This can't occur because then RHO wouldn't play a heart honor on 2nd round (having Jxx or Txx). The possibilities are: -LHO has Q♣ and x♥ or: -LHO has ♥Hx This as already explained by previous posts is nonsense. This is why in MFA's original analysis he says that if clubs are 4-5 location of the queen doesn't matter And now this is completely wrong. If you want to argue that please explain how did you come up with that 66%.

I have no idea. I see arguments for different styles of reopening here which depends heavily on what you overcall with. Despite playing all natural there are more options. Some of my polish friends like to play that dbl is 4♠-5+minor here (so responder could bid 2NT to ask doubler to show his minor). I am not big fan of this style. There is also a point in playing that 2♠ is now 4♠-5+m as you would overcall round before with 5spades and if the hand was too weak it's still to weak now. If I play all natural I think I would be tempted by 2♣ round before. I know we are vulnerable and all but it's 6-4 which might be lost later.

I agree with your critique of 2♣. It's just hopeless if opener could be 5-4+ in majors and is afraid you may even have 17. The same arguments (despite limiting strength as 2♦ is a bit more limited) goes for 2♦ call though. You may still play in 5-1 fit at 2level having 8 or 9 hearts on the side or in 5-2♦ diamond fit at 3 level when you belong in spade 5-2/5-3 partial or in NT partial.

Good thing I play a system in which this problem is solved once and for all. Taking it from Meckwell precision 2♣ can be 4-4,5-5 or 5-3,5-4 either way in minors but thanks to limited openers (up to 15hcp) and responder not having 5♠-4+♥ (cause he bids 2♠/2♥ with that round before) I am in much better situation than all standard bidders or even polish club bidders. The problem with rebidding 2♣ in standard is that you lose very good 4-4♥ partial or even 5-4♥ on bad day. The problem with rebidding 1NT is that if you do that with stiff partner can't rebid his 5 card ♠ suit and you will lose very good 5-2♠ and 5-3♠ partials on hands when 1NT bidder have normal hand. You also lose good minor suit partials often (5-4 diamonds, 5-3 clubs). The problem with 2♦ is obvious, it's not really an option for me. Overall my opinion is that in standard'ish systems the best solution is to bid 1NT on those hands, same goes for 1-4-4-4. Partner should be careful with only 5 spades and should in general not bid 2♠.

According to my simulation based on your assumptions 4♠ makes: <7 tricks: 8.9% 7 tricks: 24.8% 8 tricks: 62.1% 9 tricks: 4.2% 10+ tricks: 0% Also in 90.4% of hands the best lead is natural A♣ which seems to confirm that double dummy simul doesn't skew the results too much. I run 6♣ from N hand on the same set of hands and the results are: 6♣ makes: 68% 6♣ doesn't make: 32% So assuming 5♣ always makes we have the following: 4♠x scores 32% vs slams and 43% against 5♣ 5♣ scores 66% against 4♠x and 32% against slams 6♣ scores 68% against everything. Assuming field is not so often in slam and equally often in 5♣/4♠ (say 40-40-20) scores should look like: 6♣ - 64.4% 5♣ - 52.8% 4♠x - 43.6% Scalling it to make top score a 10 and rounding the other scores, we have: (this is based on pure mp expectancy) 6♣ - 10 5♣ - 8 (it was 8.2) 4♠x - 7 (it was 6.7) If you want to somehow reward the top spot the score could look like this for example: 6♣ - 10 5♣ - 7 4♠x - 6

The problem with bidding game is that we can easily have a slam imo. I bid 4♥ if that's splinter. If not then I cuebid and then bid game.

As to the first question my simulation gives: Hx - 47.2% JTx - 52.8% which again is in line (almost) with MFA's result. I'am jealous of you guys who can figure it out without simulations. I am always afraid I will make some stupid mistake counting combinations or just misrepresent the problem. I lost trust in my ability to solve such problems on paper long time ago :)

After running my simulation on large sample assuming all clubs are equals the results are: JTx - 42.8% Hx - 57.2% which seems to be in line with MFA's result.

I lead red card. I think it's close between diamond and heart. Diamond looks more natural so I lead diamonds. I think leading spade gives 9th trick too often.

I always hoped someone teaches me how to solve such problems :) Awaiting replies...

Weren't you afraid you partner takes it as showing 19+hcp and solid 8 carder ? :P

Then read souls and decide between various lines. I don't see a point of making plan for whole hand now. A lot depends on situation in hearts, if T get covered (so we have one more entry to dummy and what their discards are). If T♥ wins I think finessing diamonds is good. If that wins too we can try to set strip squeeze against E or just set up clubs depending on their discards to our running hearts.

I am surprised we are doing so well in this, on the other hand my partner became world champion (university wc 2010) in the meantime so maybe he just wins at everything :-)

I understand people who bid 2♦. I even think it's classic "book" bid. We don't have enough to invite but we want to keep bidding open in case partner has 16-17hcp. That being said I think Fred's argument is more important. We are just giving away equity by choosing inferior ♦ fit instead of ♣ one. My opinion is that this is another sequence which shows weakness of classical systems. 11-17 range is just too wide here. You will have some awkward guesses and this hand is as close as it gets. It's even worse in "standard" american systems (no gazilli, so no intermediate jumps with 5-5) because partner may have real powerhouse here as 3♣ is game forcing. Note how much better this situation is in precision. We know partner don't have great 15 with 5-5 (cause he would open 1♣ or jump to 3♣ depending on style). We know we have at most 23hcp combined and we have easy pass. Same goes for most 9's hcp hands leaving narrow range for 3♣ (good 10-12). My vote was pass but I forgot about possiblity of strong 5-5 in partner's hand (I am too used to precision or polish club when it's not possible). I now agree that 3♣ at imps is probably better. We will be often in inferior 3NT after that but I hate missing games :P

Yeah that's interesting option I completely missed when considering my answer.

Wow I am amazed to see everybody bids 4♥. Count me in too !

I think expert standard is now 2NT = lebensohl and 3♣ natural GF but it seems that more and more players go towards transfers which might be better solution.

I am confused. Lebensohl is used by responder in sequence like: 2X - dbl - pass - 2NT = lebensohl It seems that you are talking about something different though.

Yes, right. I assumed he had spades. Once he showed hearts after 2NT I agree our hand isn't too good.

I doubt they are standard. Coming from a country where everybody and they grandma play multi I can say that most exp++ players here use: 3♣ = any minimum 3♦ = max with hearts 3♥ = max with spades or reversed structure (where 3♣ is any max). After 3♣ bidding 3♦ ask partner to show the suit he doesn't have (so strong hand declare). Anyway it seems easy so far. Whatever my system is I set spades and hope partner cuebids ♣. If he doesn't or can't (because the sequence is such that we have to cuebid first) I cuebid 4♦ and then make another move towards slam by 5♠ or w/e you use in your style. After that he will cuebid his A♣ at 6level and bid slam with K♣ or ♣ shortness.

1) 2♠. It seems likely that they have only 6-7 hearts (responder would bid his 4-5 heart suit instead of diamonds) so chances of partner being 3-3-3-4/3-4-3-3 are too high to risk 3♣. 2) 3♦ ? I am posting my picks before reading the replies I wonder if anybody comes up with other bid here. 3) No idea. It seems that we have super maximum and lack of aces shouldn't bother us too much (as partner could've asked for those if they were the only problem). It would be nice if we could offer choice of slams here. If not such option I think I am going for 6♦. EDIT: after reading the comments I still don't like 3♣ in the first one. If partner is 3-3-2-5 they will probably compete to 3♦ no matter what we do now. If he is 3-4-3-3 we are too high in wrong strain and risking being doubled. If he is 3-3-3-4 I don't think 3♣ makes more often than 2♠ anyway.

Americans... What is ridiculous is that it can be 3-5(3-2). Just bid 1NT wit that, you will find 5-3 fit anyway, wtp ? Even if you are into business of raising with 3 card support, the problem hand is 3-5-(4-1) not 3-5-3-2. I think most 14's counts with 4♠ should bid only 2♠ btw. You will just wind up too high too often if you jump around with too weak hands. The solution to his seems to be really easy: 2♠ = 12-14, four spades 3♠ = 14+ - 16 Some sort of gadget with 17+ (gazilli). If you refuse to play gadgets then 2♠ is basically 12-14; 3♠ 15-17 and with 18+ you bid game.

I don't have strong opinions about those. Just don't redouble with any of these hands!