bluecalm

Imo it's trap in ♠ t/o in ♦. I don't like my aceless hand with xx of diamonds thus I bid 4♣. 5♣ is an alternative.

I played 2NT = minors most of my life (as it's standard in Poland). I am not impressed at all by this. Gains are rare, loses happen (when they declare). That being said I hate "standard multi" scheme which unfortunately is so standard in Poland that it's difficult to get people to play anything else. 2♦ multi sucks because you can't preempt effectively and if you do jump you say too much about your distribution (because you need two fits) 2♥/2♠ as 2 suiters with a minor sucks even more because you help them in play and partner can't preempt effectively anyway because he doesn't know your second suit (same problem as with standard michaels cuebid). I like 2♦ majors as 5+-4+ (either way). This is very frequent and difficult to handle for opponents (because they often have their game in our 2nd major. I feel taht gains from that convention are quite frequent.

[hv=d=w&w=sq3hakj2dqjckq532&e=sa98h98764d642ca6]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] W plays 4♥. First lead: J♣. Plan ? I am posting because I believe I found better solution than the one offered by Martens. Have fun :P

NT is 15-17; dbl is 4-3 or 4-4 in majors 10+hcp;

Looks like books answers are mixed up imo.

I don't think so only based on sim. Quite the contrary. I think the hand suck because of lack of intermediates and Kx of spades and is not worth an invite . This is why I didn't say anything about sim in my original post.I just made it because I always make a sim when it's possible to make at least some reasonable constraints. I find it fun. I am not that much into double dummy results. If constraints are loose enough (ie. they allow for more hands than would bid 1NT but doesn't reject many which does) you can quickly develop a feeling about your decision by just browsing through those hands and seeing how good 3nt would be. Back to double dummy results. This situation is difficult for sim because the reason you mentioned. It's very hard to define 1NT range (and even harder to define hadns which accept the invite). From my experience though it doesn't matter that much here if you allow for 6 diamonds here or not or what exact club holdings are possible. I didn't allow for 4 hearts becaue I wanted to see how many tricks we take in NT if we play in NT. Anyway, I always say that if someone is interesting in sim results. Just post your constraints here. I will make it for you and post results :)

Yeah, that's the problem with simuls. I did 16-17 (hand which accept invite) with 2clubs A, K or 3+clubs at least Q or 4clubs JTxx+; no 5card majors, no 6 diamonds. The result was something like 32 or 36% for 3NT. I don't remember exactly. I can repeat those with your assumptions if you are interested.

Bidding ?

Anybody into simuls besides me ? I obviously did mine before answering the question but it would be interesting if someone else took a stab at this.

1NT - pass - pass dbl pass- 2X - dbl what if x is ♣/♦/♥/♠ I thought it's pretty obvious but recently my friend surprised me with his treatment and he said some other pretty good players play this way. What's your treatment ? What do you think is expert standard ?

Is that true ? Some of the best players I watched are very fast. I only see one truly world class player in action live (Balicki).

I don't agree with this assessment at all. I do agree that 1♣ opening make it more likely that we have game. I think it's still a pass though. This hand is just too awful.

Vul vs not. E deals. [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sat52hk6dj982c943]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♣ - Pass - 1♠ - dbl 2♠ - ? 1♣ may be 2; Partner is very good player aware of vulnerability.

I clicked GF by accident. My choice is to pass. I consider it clearcut. I often force to game with 8 count in this situation but this is about as bad 8 as it gets.

Passing with E hand is terrible. I mean, wtf ?

Given choice I would choose this. Most of my partners insist on playing FP if we reach game in semi constructive+ auction when vulnerable against not though. I really don't like it for example. I like this treatment a lot. We switched to t/o doubles in most FP situations.

4♦ = slam try in ♦. After that : 4NT = bad hand for ♦ slam, signoff; 4♥/4♠/5♣ = cuebids, forward going. This is how we play those situations. I think the blame is with E. He has easy 6♦ after 5♣ bid, especially at MP's. For all W knows we may be missing ♥ control (AKxx xx AQxxxx K). I guess it's system choice but I don't like hiding 6card suits in 2nd round of bidding.

♣ to the K and ♠ to the Q ? It wins with spades 2-2; Kxx - x and even with spades 4-0. I guess that if it was that simple it wouldn't make this forum though.

Thanks for that. Now I have motivation to look into it much deeper. I will try to evaluate this more carefully with the assumption I am probably wrong wanting to bid :lol:

No more takers ? :lol: Meck led 8♠. My choices were ♣>♦>♥>♠ I thought we need to attack after this auction hoping to force declarer. I also wouldn't be surprised if ♥ scores high double dummy as I learnt that leading from xxxx of trump in similr situations is usually very effective. Here we have Jxxx but double dummy it doesn't make that much of a difference (thus I think this lead is overrated in simuls). I tried many constraints for Lauria's hand (14-19hcp 5-4, 13-16 5-4 or 12-14 6-4, etc etc.) and for Versace's I tried 8-9 with doubleton somewhere or 7-8 with 4card support etc. but ♠ always came first with♥/♣ being 2nd choice. Full hand from 2003 bb final: [hv=d=e&v=n&n=sq74h2dj752caqt63&w=skt5hk85dqt96c874&e=sa632haqt97da8c95&s=sj98hj643dk43ckj2]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] On actual layout probably every lead would have worked so it's not that interesting (♦ would allow to make it double dummy but not in actual play I believe)

Yeah, you guys are right. I now believe 2NT is much better than 3♦.

Isn't technically correct play at IMPS A♦, ♥ to dummy and T♦ ? It guards against KJx with RHO

I agree. Capp is probably the worst possible defense against NT (close contest with DONT but at least DONT is reasonable in reopening seat). No wc players use it. If you want something reliable just copy from pairs who played in bb finals or something like that. Simple reasonable choices are: a) 2♣ majors 2♦ one major 2♥/2♠ nat + minor dbl penalty (top Italians and Norwegians play it) :) 2m = nat +major 2M = natural x = one minor or both majors or any very strong hand (Meckwell and Greco-Hampson play it) c) 2C = majors 2D = D + major 2H/2S = natural dbl = penalty (Helgemo used to play it; Zia - Hamman play it) d) 2C = majors 2D = weak major overcall 2M = good major overcall (Brink - Drijver play it) Why is Capp so bad ? 1)2♦ majors is not effective because you can't ask for longer one and it's not preemptive enough (it's better to use 2♥ as majors if anything) 2)2♣ bid is garbage if they find a major you can't compete because you have no idea what partner have; even playing 2♣ = one major rest as in Capp would be much better but obviously it's not optimal;

World Championship final. Your opponents are Lauria - Versace. Your partner Eric Rodwell. ♠J98 ♥J643 ♦K43 ♣KJ2 We are vul. RHO deals and bidding goes: 1♥ - pass - 2♥ - pass 2♠ - pass - 4♥ - pass 2♠ is natural; invite+ 1♥ is 11-22 natural. Your lead ? (I am posting this because Meck led something different than I would have and my very simplistic simulations confirmed he was right, still it's kinda surprising to me).

Investigate what ? Grand ? :) I hardly see any sequence when I could stop below 6♦ now. It's reasonable slam opposite Qx x KQxxxx Kxxx or x xx KQxxxx QJxx and those are not even standard opening bids.