bluecalm

I am pretty sure I would end up with this exact sequence with my regular pd. Especially if we try to play well and avoid making "genius" bids. 2♦ ? Never. I prefer the school of thought that 2♦ promises 6♦. I am raising to 2♠ with 3-4-5-1 and bid 1NT with 2-4-5-2. Holding 2-4-5-Hx I wouldn't dream of 2♦ even if system allows it. If opener had something like : Jx AKxx KQTxx xx he could bid 3H after checkback (max, concentrated values) but here I see no way to avoid 3NT.

Yeah I understand. I think partner shouldn't be willing to reopen light though. Especially without perfect shape or only 3 spades. We often miss a game if we don't bid now that one is for sure. We also sometimes (often ?) go overboard if partner goes to slam. On the other hand this : KJx AQx KJx QJx Would be considered by many standard 3nt but is it really any better for slam purposes ? I understand there are no takers. I will be more careful with those 3nt's. Especially with partner who doesn't expect such hand. The hand is from European Champions Cup. Polish players passed Fantoni's opening and lost 7 imps. At the other table Polish player didn't open with high preempt and it was easy for Italians to bid 3nt. Full hand: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sa8632h8dkt65cq54&w=sk54haq3d8cat9873&e=sqt9ht4daq9743ckj&s=sj7hkj97652dj2c62]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I don't think E should reopen. What do you think ?

The choice is between ♣ and ♦. I am not convinced either way. ♣ looks standard but I am not buying argument about "obvious source of tricks". It's not obvious to me that it's more likely we need to cash our club tricks before they got discarded on clubs or hearts or that we need to cash diamonds for similar reasons. Anyway, I lead club. Even if it's close I prefer normal leads to make it easier for partner to read hands.

Some random hands generated by DMpro where 3NT is a winner : [hv=n=saqjthtdkqj9642c2&w=sk54haq3d8cat9873&e=s98632h42da5cqj64&s=s7hkj98765dt73ck5]399|300|[/hv] [hv=n=saqjthtdkqj9642c2&w=sk54haq3d8cat9873&e=s98632h42da5cqj64&s=s7hkj98765dt73ck5]399|300|[/hv] [hv=n=saqjthtdkqj9642c2&w=sk54haq3d8cat9873&e=s98632h42da5cqj64&s=s7hkj98765dt73ck5]399|300|[/hv] Something like that also may happen : [hv=n=saqjthtdkqj9642c2&w=sk54haq3d8cat9873&e=s98632h42da5cqj64&s=s7hkj98765dt73ck5]399|300|[/hv] :-) I am browsing through generated hands and it really seems like 3NT is big winner. I usually readily accept that my opinion is wrong when all the better players around says it's ridiculous but here I just can't convince myself...

Well... I feel 3nt is right but I can't find any people who agree with that so I need to reconsider. I think this hand is better for 3nt than most 15-17balanced ones because we have 2 sure heart tricks and good suit to take tricks in. We also don't pay 1100 if they double (because of 4C runout). I generated some hands and tried to imagine how the auction would go after pass and 3nt and 3nt still seemed like a big winner. We are making about 60-65% of the time double dummy (assuming all pass, depends on exact setting for the preemptor) but of course it's not in itself strong argument because on many of those hands we would play 3nt anyway and on some we will end up too high after partner raising us.

You think only chickens do that. "Can't double, they can make it", "Can't balance they could double" but consider what aggressive great player playing against aggressive great opponents may think : "I am happy to double those balancing bids", 'uhh... they are happy to double too, better be careful". So it's not like chicken like attitude is the only one consistent with not balancing here...

IMPs. None vulnerable. World class opposition which doesn't make wild preempts. You are W. ♠K54 ♥AQ3 ♦8 ♣AT9873. S deals and opens 3♥. I have moderately strong opinion about it but I am in the minority among my bridge playing friends. Your call ! (if vulnerability matters please comment on it) (if style of opponents matters please comment too)

I did some more simuls and it seems that they confirm common wisdom more or less (lead major against 1nt - 3nt auctions unless you have good suit etc). Some examples : 1)♠T32 ♥K6 ♦K975 ♣QT83 Best leads : 3♠ 173 K♥ 109 5♦ 123 3♣ 121 2)♠T32 ♥K6 ♦K95 ♣QT853 3♠ - 124 K♥ - 100 5♦ - 86 5/3♣ = 139 3)Same as above but opponents always stayman with 4 card major : 3♠ - 175 K♥ - 122 5♦ - 117 3/5♣ - 154 One thing which those simuls clearly shows is that it's very important if opponents always use stayman or not. I wonder how many honest answers would you get if you ask this before your lead. I guess matchpoints is different animal. I am not feeling like doing those simuls for mp's (they take a lot of time) but maybe I will leave my comp for the night to calculate one or two cases. Hands like those tell me that those simuls despite being simple/imperfect/not always on spot with the bidding and double dummy can tell us a lot about correct leads in different situations.

Some time ago it was insta balance for me hand 1. Now I've changed my mind (after watching tons of vugraphs of wc players). I can bet my ass that the best player in the world (in my very uinformed opinion) would pass that, so I pass too :-) Not to say that there aren't some who would balance. I am sure there are but the one I am trying to model my play on is passing those 1H - 2H, 1S - 2S auctions very very often. I would also pass if you move ♠ spot to ♣'s.

Isn't it more logical to play dbl as promising some points and 1NT as 2suiter ? Maybe it's style thing but where I live (Poland) people rarely steal in 1/1 sequences and natural 1NT there is huge loser.

Hmm, looks like hand number 1 is unlucky. Maybe N can invite over 2H ? I dunno. I am interested in what others think here. 2nd is also unlucky I believe. I couldn't resist trapping on this one :) 3rd seems like bad play by N. Passing 3C doubled as N seems to be clear. I like your partner pass over 4s :)

3NT for me. My main concern with that call is that we can miss a slam but it's not too likely opposite passed partner. Quick simul suggest 3NT is making 60+% of the time. I don't think we can find other making game more often while avoiding disasters (like partner bidding to slam after dbl - 5C - 5D).

I was only talking about 2level openings. I believe there is some limit for strength for 1 level openers ? (not less than a king from average hand ?). So you couldn't play that anyway. Maybe a good idea is to have similair limit for 2level openers. If you want to ban very weak destructive openers you can for example make a following law : 2level openers are only legal if they promise at least 8 "points" where "points" are defined as hcp + 1 for every card above 4 in every suit or something like that. If ACBL really wants to ban only destructive/difficult to defend methods they could easily work this out. If they want to ban everything which isn't popular among american pairs then it's different story...

I understand all the concerns about people being not prepared for strange openings but why just not allow EVERY natural opener promising 5+ cards in given suit ? It can't possibly be that hard to defend against...

Game for me too. I think it's not bottom of my range for 4S either. It would be nice to have some discussion about hands partner would bid 4S after 3S. I think he should pass with Kxx xx Jxxx xxxx for example.

We didn't drop from 140. The first simul didn't include 4-3-3-3 hands with 4 card major in 3nt (they would stayman). The second one did. In the second one the score was 1030 (for 10k hands) so it's a drop from 103 to 88 not from 140 to 88. Seems like you have very good intuition noticing that it's too big a difference :) By they way from my experience those simuls are statistically significant after 1k hands. I am yet to see the case with big difference for different sets of 1000 hands. At least if the hands are "not wild".

New simul. 1000 hands. Our hand : T32 K6 K975 Q652. Opponent opens 15-17NT (5card major possible) and responder jumps to 3NT (9-14 balaced without 4+card major or any 4-3-3-3 10-15). The winning (setting) lead: T♠ - 103 3♠ - 104 K♥ - 88 9♦- 66 5[♦ - 70 2♣ - 76 All makes sense in my opinion. Now we are not desperate so leading spades is good. I wonder how meaningful is that opener can have 5card major but it can only be bad fo rmajor suit leads. I am pretty sure that including any 4-3-3-3 is also bad for major suit leads which suggest that against opponents who always stayaman leading spade in this example and Kh in the previous one is clear (and big) winner. I am going to find out how good the minor suit need to be to lead it. Is it possible that 4 card minor like QT8x is good enough ? What about KQTx ? Do you lead any 5 card minor ? If how strong it needs to be ? Results soon :(

It would be great if it was possible to generate the hands using some kind of simulation software and give them to strong computer program to play. That should be much more reliable than double dummy analysis. Your analysis is great but it would take some time to reach significant number of hands :-)

Would you guys trap with QJ7543 A 984 A53 after 1H opening from partner and 1S overcall from opponents vul against not? I am watching high level match from vugraph archives and member of one of the best partnerships (some says the best) in the world did trap with that.

This is great. I think even people with disrespect for logic and with clouded judgement/understanding of bridge will understand that rules simply MUST be more clear.

I am convinced 2D is the worst option. My way to improve my intuition in such cases is : a)listen to good players b)run some simulations, go through hands and see what option fares the best. All good players I talked to hate overcalling 2D on those hands. I saw some sample hands and while it certainly may be variance my conclusion was that we are much more likely to lose very good club or heart fit than diamond fit after 2D overcall. I would like to comment on style things. You can't go as far as saying that any decision with some alternatives is "style thing". Some things are simply better and some are worse. We won't ever improve if stop discussing if 2D is WORSE or BETTER than double saying it's "style thing" instead. Well if it is then some styles are worse than others. I am more open minded about such things these days but still there is a line somewhere. I am pretty sure most my bridge friends would say 2D is insane/stupid/retarded if it weren't the public forum (we are young and like to exaggerate :rolleyes: ). I don't see anything unreasonable about drawing the conclusion : "Croatian forum A voted for 2D" --->>>> "probably they are not as good as people here". It's simple bayesian reasoning. The more bad decisions one makes the more likely it is that he/is is bad at making decisions. I hate political corectness it's better to have honest heated debate than situation where everybody holds their views in the name of being nice. My opinion is : "2D is bad" and "people who vote for 2D are probably not that good". I accept that I may be wrong and I may be convinced by strong arguments but for now it's the way I feel about the matter.

Well... I think most players would bid. Maybe both rec.games.bridge and this forum isn't the best representation of bridge playing population :rolleyes:

Very simple and for sure imperfect simulation : 1000 hands. S is 15-17 balanced (5majors possible, no 5-4, no 6-3-3-2) N is 9-15 without 4card major or singleton anywhere No. of deals where specified card is winning (setting) lead: T♠ - 89 3♠ - 95 K♥ - 140 6♥ - 66 7/5♦ - 69 any low ♣ - 52 This strongly suggest that K♥ is at least reasonable lead. My intuition before running this simulation was that club is the worst lead and diamond probably the best. Now tend to believe that Kh is best in the absence of strong arguments against it and some very good for it. EDIT : I run it one more time. This time responder has either 9-15 balanced without 4+card major or 10-15 any 4-3-3-3 (including major). 10k hands. No of deals where specific card is winning lead : T♠ - 817 3/2♠ - 823 K♥ - 1030 7/5♦ - 629 low ♣- 555

The way I play this with most partners is that double here shows 15+ (4s, 5c) or 18+ balanced which doesn't want to bid 1/2nt. We came to the conclusion that reopening here is pointless with 12-14 and balanced hand so we actually have systematic solution. You just simply must pass. It's just to point out that my post wasn't just simply " me too". I just appreciated that Fred made very good argument and made the point clearly. I remember some time ago wanting to play the double here as simply reopening (one that doesn't promise extra strength) but my pd convinced me that it's not a good idea and that I will never have a hand in 12-14 range that want to reopen here. I believe this is a way of playing quite popular among polish club players btw.

Fine, that makes sense. Feel free to comment what would you signal with various holdings I outlined in my first post.