bluecalm

I don't understand this. Could you please explain ? How could any method which is worse at evaluating final contract show profits considering double dummy analysis ? I need to verify this. My intuition tells me that there aren't many hands of this kind. If hand makes good game opposite maximum it usually is good enough to play 2NT opposite minimum. Do you refer to dd simuls here or to real bridge ? I agree that it is defended more precisely. I don't agree with "much more". Opening lead is usually the same (you gotta lead a major unless having like QJTxx in a minor) and then knowledge that opener is say 16-17 instead of 15-16 doesn't help THAT much. Well... I played that way for some time, I've changed it with most partners to 1NT - 2NT being natural invite and stayman promising 4 card major. I don't think it's "hideous". I agree it's worse but it's not like you are giving away every board or close to it. I would say loses are relatively rare. I would much prefer to play that way at atchpoints than pass or bash. At imps I am kinda pass or bash player myself (I sometimes invite but much less than other people).

Just be aware that simulations often overestimate corectness of slams but those are easy to evaluate "by hand" usually. Anyway, whatever you decide I am fine with it obviously. Where does 2nd round ends ? My partner is now at univ world championship in Taiwan and will be back about 12th. I hope we can make it.

Yeah, "pass or bash" doesn't make sense at MP's. It's approach based on argument that often contract one below game goes down anyway so shooting at very narrow target isn't profitable as if you are level higher it only costs 2/3 imps. At MP's if you play 3NT instead of 2NT and the latter makes while the former doesn't you are headed for the bottom.

Yes, especially if it's exactly: 3♠ - 4♥ - 5♦ - 1♣ after 1♦ opener or 3♠ - 4♥ - 1♣ - 5♣ after 1♣ opener. Those are the only hands on which I would bid 2M personally. I understand those concerns. I saw too many times American pairs getting owned by themselves in: 1m - 1M 2M - 4M auctions getting to 4-3 contract which has no play though. I guess the solution is to use some kind of gadgets but I am big believer in bidding games fast on simple hands and system which produces long auctions on the simplest of hands is not what I like.

Well, I agree with that. Both Bermuda Bowl and European Championship as well as all other European big tournaments are played that way though. If they think it's just not possible to have the same boards they can generate different set for every match, that's not really any kind of problem is it ?

a)hand dealing is not random enough comparing to computer dealing; hand dealing in general generates more flat layouts b)you can cheat when dealing hands; even if you don't "fix" the deck it's easy to have a pick or two when you deal or when someone else deals c)it's just waste of time d)it's not attractive for players/kibitzers as you can't compare scores with others nor have nice paper sheet with layouts/double dummy results after you play As to your concerns about predealing. The deals can be prepared 5 minutes before the event that's not a problem at all. To me playing with hand dealing is like coming back to stone age but I admit c) and d) are only luxuries which are not necessary but hard to live with once you are used to them. Standard tournament here offers you all the layouts after the tourney so you can have a chat about hands during the dinner/on the way back home. When you arrive there are all the scores/protocols waiting for you on the internet so you can see what every other pair did on given board. I mean do people really play bridge without those things ? :)

Now: 1) Assuming any 5-3-3-2 from reponder with 4♠ possible in opener's hand: 1NT makes 45% 2♥ makes 52% 2) 5-4-2-2 with 4 in black suit (still 4♠ possible in o's hand) 1NT makes 46% 2♥ makes 60% Those takes a lot of time. I can run more cases later if there is interest I suppose adding 4♠ makes overall playability of hands weaker as there won't be as many 5-3 ♥ or 5-3 ♦ fits.

First simulation according to awm's requirements. I've changed spade length in opener hand to 2-3 because he would rebid 1♠ in standard with 4. If that seems wrong to you let me know I will run it again with changed assumption. Once I generated some hands it was obvious to me that unfortunately layouts are not realistic at all because opponents often has 6-5 somewhere and the like. This is why I added the following assumptions about defenders' hands: -0-6 any or: -no 6+card suit or 5-5 anywhere So first one (1000 hands) : 1NT makes 49% 2♥ makes 62% Number of tricks (different 1000 hands sample): 2♥: <7 7 8 9 10 11 122 270 339 223 50 6 avg: 7.83 1NT : <7 7 8 9 10 11 514 280 160 41 3 2 avg: 6.455

Why ? If it's that easy it won't change anything (as everybody is supposed to get it right) and misbidding simple hands should be penalized harshly. If anything I think it should be the other way around so bidding to some esoteric perfect contract shouldn't be scored that much higher than normal good contract but missing obvious games etc. should be near 0's. Why not ? If you tank for like 10 seconds it's already obvious for partner that you have a problem so additional minute won't change that and some people need some time to make difficult decisions.

I mean, the way people play here raising to 2♠ is major partnership discipline violation. It's like opening 3M with 5 cards basically. I like this style but I am probably biased as every bridge player I know personally play that way.

Just as a side note. In Poland in every local event we have computer dealt hands with live scores available on the internet etc. I know this case is very bad but what you Americans really should focus on is to pressure td's to organize tournament in normal modern way or just to stop choosing retards who are responsible for the way American tournaments are organized. Last time it was different boards in every match at the same stage, then it's hand dealing in major tournament. I mean what the ***** ?

Matter of style. It seems for many Americans it's clear 2♠. Here in Poland (and almost whole Europe I believe) people don't like raising with 3 cards. For me it's 100% 1NT. I also know that partner will basically always bid 2♠ holding 5 of them so it's not like I am missing any 5-3 fits.

I don't know. It's split here in Poland where everybody plays multi. Some people play it as invitational, some as preemptive+ (so you bid 2NT or side values with hearts). Some plays 2♠ as game forcing relay/ask having only 2♥ available for weak hands. I don't think any option is standard. I would say about 50% of people play the first one, 40% the second one and 10% the third

4♥ is tempting to me. I realize partner may be stretching but still we can scramble 10 tricks opposite some pretty weak hands with those kings being often well placed. To solve (?!) those problems some people play good/bad 2NT here, not to say I recommend it, just pointing out.

My thinking was: My partner could have passed with minimum but he bid 3♣ At the time I was thinking that I could have much weaker hand but that is probably wrong. (just those habits, opposite "polish precision" with 5+clubs people bid 2♦ with every kind of crap to scramble to better contract). Looking at it now it in fact looks like opener should've reopened.

Our auction: 1♦* - 1♠ - dbl** - 2♠ 3♥ - pass - pass !? 1♦ = prec dbl = 4hearts or exactly 5 hearts but then 7-10 (with 11+ or 6hearts we bid 2♦ which is transfer to hearts) 3♥ = to simplify the system we don't play any kind of good/bad 2NT here (and even if we were I think it should just show both minors). I think my partner made quite a hero pass here...

This is interesting. Does it also apply to : 1♠ - 2♦ 2♠ - 3♣ ? ( so it's 5-5 or 6-4 ?). That's completely different than the way I was taught. I posted this on polish forum to get some opinions but I am pretty sure they won't think for a second it's more than 5-4. Not sure which way I like more yet, yours for sure make it possible to bid 5+-5+ hands while mine (?!) makes it easier to avoid 3nt without ♥ stops.

I was 2NT bidder and I wouldn't duplicate this action now.. I think dbl should be t/o to spades as 2♠ will often be the final contract so we can't afford to pass those hands. What is left is pass or 3♠. I guess passing is right choice.

I meant what is better instead of pass after 3♥ from the 2♦ bidder. My partner passed in re-open seat and I think he was right but not sure after your comment.

Well, my complaint was that they didn't bid hearts at our table but we have half the score because N supposedly has hearts. I guess it's just variance. Maybe next time they won't bid and it will be S who has hearts so we will get the points back :)

I like both 4♥ and 1♥. First instinct is "wtp 1♥" but putting some pressure may be better. Not one of my partners would except hand that good for 3♥, even vulnerable. More of what ? You have more playing strength than standard 12 count with 6♥. If you mean "more points" I don't see any point in worrying about this unless you play with someone who likes to double "because you opened and I have 8hcp partner" but then it's a problem with your partner not with opening...

Why wouldn't they bid 5♣ after namyats being nonvul at MP's ?

2♣ - pass - 2♦ - 2♥ 3♣ - 3♥ - pass ??? I did screw this one up despite good 3♣ bid from my partner the weak-tight of me took the command and I passed ;) I am not sure if dbl or 4♣ is better now. Thoughts ?

Not playing kicbacks and other fancy stuff we bid: 2♣ - 2♦ 3♣ - 4♣ 4♦ - 4NT 5♣ - 5♦ 5♥ - 5♠ 6♣ - 7NT 2♣ = precision (6+ clubs) 2♦ = relay 3♣ = bad hand 4♣ = SI+, sets clubs 4♦ = forced cuebid 4NT = rkcb 5♣ = 1 out of 5 5♦ = queen ? 5♥ = yes, and nothing special on the side 5♠ = kings ? 6♣ = one 7NT = too many tricks

Our auction: 1♣* - 4♣ - dbl** - 5♣ 5♥ - pass.... 1♣ = 16+ dbl = GF (so 8+ basically) Precision makes contested auctions so ezy.. .;)