junyi_zhu

that's why I never understand why so many play 1C to show 2 or more. It just puts way too many hand types to 1C and make 1D opening less frequent. Therefore, it would be very difficult to set up trumps in clubs, especially after preemptive bids or 2NT jump rebids by the opener. After a 1D 2H(invitational) sequence and seeking for shortness, the reach of 6D is indeed very possible.

Well, it's still quite possible. 1S 3D(solid) 4H(how many side aces?) 4S(1) 5C(we have all aces, CK) 5D(no extra length, no side king) 5H(HK) 5S(SQ) 6H(HQ, 6NT is safe, so let's try to 7NT) 7NT(now HJ gets the value)

I feel 3NT is an underbid. This hand looks too slamish.

What is the logic about this? (Before I read this I thought making a post to ask this & I was almost sure that you could do it always.) Logically you would think that if LHO leads a Heart then vacant spaces are 12:13..? I can only remember this if I understand it. Because vacant space calculation is an approximation in some situations. For example, suppose opps have 8 spades, you draw two rounds, both follow. Therefore, spades can't be 8-0 or 7-1. However, 6-2, 5-3, 4-4 are all possible, so you just don't really know the exact distribution of that suit. In this sense, you can't include this suit into your calculation. All you know is that spades distribution is rather unknown and it's impossible to be 8-0 or 7-1, which is still a very small percentage comparing with all the possible spades distributions. Therefore, It's still fairly good approximation to assume that you don't know the spade distribution at all. In the other thread talking about the probabilities, one post was very well said: what's the average number of your heart suit if you open 1H showing 5 or more? I guess it can't be 6 and should be in the middle of 5-6, because frequency of 5, 6, 7 hearts holdings are very different. In this case, it's the same logic. When they hold 8 card, even if you know the distribution can't be 7-1 or 8-0, you still don't know the exact distribution and 7-1 8-0 are very rare events, so you can't really take those out of your approximation easily. Therefore, you'd just stick to what you have and consider the distribution of spades is unknown. The real percentage can be calculated by computer simulations in a quite accurate way, which should be slightly different from the vacant space calculation. However, at the table, vacant space counting is still your best friend. Still, in many situations, vacant space counting actually gives the accurate result. Thanks for the effort. I want to believe the above, but I wonder how far off both methods are: [hv=n=skjt9hkqjxdxxcxxx&s=saxhxxxxxdakqcakq]133|200|[/hv] ♠ is trumps. LHO leads a small ♥, RHO return a ♥ and LHO ruffs. LHO plays a random ♦ and RHO follows that suit. You cash ♠A and lead a second round. All follow with small ♠'s. Probability that LHO has ♠Q according to vacant space theory: 13-1-3:13-6-1=9:6=0.6 Probability if WRONGLY taking the ♦ play into account: 13-1-3-1:13-6-1-1=8:5=0.615385 If Playing ♣/♦ before the 2nd trump then: - for Vacant Spaces this will always be 0.6 - for the WRONG calculation this will be: 1 minor: 0.615385 2 minors: 0.636364 3 minors: 0.666667 4 minors: 0.714286 5 minors: 0.8 ==> Is anyone able to calculate the real probabilities? BTW: Does it make a difference for vacant space theory if opps always play their small cards from low to high? You made a mistake in your vacant space count, spade situation is still unknown. You can apply vacant space counting only when the situation of a suit is clear, or missing one key card in your key suit. Here, you just don't know the spade distribution yet. It could be 3-4, 4-3, 5-2, 6-1.

This is a clear 6D hand. Well, 7D can be possible, but you may not have good gadgets to explore. Partner's 3H shows doubt in 3NT, so he can't hold a lot of value in H. After you show both D and S, he shows no interest at all. Therefore, he must either have a club one suiter, or a hand with good hearts but too good to bid 3NT. In both cases, you should push to 6D, which should offer you a very reasonable play.

What is the logic about this? (Before I read this I thought making a post to ask this & I was almost sure that you could do it always.) Logically you would think that if LHO leads a Heart then vacant spaces are 12:13..? I can only remember this if I understand it. Because vacant space calculation is an approximation in some situations. For example, suppose opps have 8 spades, you draw two rounds, both follow. Therefore, spades can't be 8-0 or 7-1. However, 6-2, 5-3, 4-4 are all possible, so you just don't really know the exact distribution of that suit. In this sense, you can't include this suit into your calculation. All you know is that spades distribution is rather unknown and it's impossible to be 8-0 or 7-1, which is still a very small percentage comparing with all the possible spades distributions. Therefore, It's still fairly good approximation to assume that you don't know the spade distribution at all. In the other thread talking about the probabilities, one post was very well said: what's the average number of your heart suit if you open 1H showing 5 or more? I guess it can't be 6 and should be in the middle of 5-6, because frequency of 5, 6, 7 hearts holdings are very different. In this case, it's the same logic. When they hold 8 card, even if you know the distribution can't be 7-1 or 8-0, you still don't know the exact distribution and 7-1 8-0 are very rare events, so you can't really take those out of your approximation easily. Therefore, you'd just stick to what you have and consider the distribution of spades is unknown. The real percentage can be calculated by computer simulations in a quite accurate way, which should be slightly different from the vacant space calculation. However, at the table, vacant space counting is still your best friend. Still, in many situations, vacant space counting actually gives the accurate result.

Against Henri, it could be different. :D

You can count the vacant space only when the suit distribution is clear. Suppose for one certain suit, opps have 8 cards, you play two rounds, both follow, you can't count this suit yet, because the distribution of this suit is still unclear. vacant space count can only be applied when the suit distribution is clear(or one card missing in your key suit). So for your example, the correct way to count vacant space is: LHO: 13-1(singleton) -3(three trumps)=9 RHO: 13-5(5 in that side suit) -1 (one trump) = 7 So it is 9:7 better to play finesse vs. dropping. Wouldn't you have a complete guess since the difference is 2? No, this is the difference of total vacant space, which just gives your final answer. If The difference of your opps' total vacant space is zero, it's 50% to finesse or to drop. What Fred suggested is that vacant space difference other than the trump suit. When that number is 2, subtract the difference in trumps, which is 2, you get your total vacant space, which is 0, that gives even money to finesse or drop.

You can count the vacant space only when the suit distribution is clear. Suppose for one certain suit, opps have 8 cards, you play two rounds, both follow, you can't count this suit yet, because the distribution of this suit is still unclear. vacant space count can only be applied when the suit distribution is clear(or one card missing in your key suit). So for your example, the correct way to count vacant space is: LHO: 13-1(singleton) -3(three trumps)=9 RHO: 13-5(5 in that side suit) -1 (one trump) = 7 So it is 9:7 better to play finesse vs. dropping.

.... 3C 3D(5 or more D, not suitable for 3NT) 3H(two way cuebid, either C one suiter, or D fit, doubts in 3NT) 3S(S value) 4D(D fit and slam interest, without slam interest, responder can bid 5D) 4H(RKC, a little bit pushy, since partner denies a lot of H value, it looks not bad) 4N(3-0) 5C(Q?) 6C(CK and DQ) 7D.

I do not think Fred said anything about trump length having been shown. Fred, would your rule also apply if we had 9 trumps and RHO had, say, opened a weak 2 and marked the distribution in a suit that way instead? (ie 6 opposite 4 = guess) This is the correct way to count. His assumption is that 4 trumps are shown and trump Q is missing. The magic number of 2 is just due to the shown trump number difference, which is also 2. The other number 2 rule case is the 10 trumps case, suppose your LHO gets a ruff and plays low under your Q, should you drop or finesse K? This is also determined by the side suit shown cards difference. I'm a little confused. For deciding "odds" shouldn't it also matter how many cards remain to be played? Or does that simply determine how much of an advantage these observations give you? It is determined by the vacant space of your opp's unknown distributions. Suppose, LHO leads singleton and gets a ruff, you get the complete picture of that suit. So the vacant space for LHO is 12 (13-1) and the vacant space for RHO is 13- length of that suit. After you draw one round of trumps, play another card and LHO follows, your totally 4 trumps are shown with Q missing, now LHO's vacant space is 13-1(singleton side suit)-3(trumps) = 9. RHO's vacant space is 13- length of that side suit - 1(trump). Since the probability of Q is proportional to the vacant space, all you care is the difference of length of that side suit between RHO and LHO. If this number is 3 or more , you should finesse. If it is 1, you want to drop. If it is 2, it is 50% either way. Of course, it your opps show some distribution in other side suits (they could play out that suit, or they show it by bidding) the calculation can be different. The basic idea is still very simple, counting the vacant space.

yeah, just a simple matter of counting vacancies....

I do not think Fred said anything about trump length having been shown. Fred, would your rule also apply if we had 9 trumps and RHO had, say, opened a weak 2 and marked the distribution in a suit that way instead? (ie 6 opposite 4 = guess) This is the correct way to count. His assumption is that 4 trumps are shown and trump Q is missing. The magic number of 2 is just due to the shown trump number difference, which is also 2. The other number 2 rule case is the 10 trumps case, suppose your LHO gets a ruff and plays low under your Q, should you drop or finesse K? This is also determined by the side suit shown cards difference.

Any chance of an explanation for the somewhat idiots like myself who don't find this somewhat (or the least bit) obvious? The LHO shows two more trumps than RHO. Therefore, if the difference of side suit shown distribution of LHO and RHO < 2, RHO is more likely to hold the Q. (because the probability of holding Q is proportional to the unknown cards in one's hand) For example, LHO leads a doubleton to partner's AK and obtains a ruff and your side holds 8 card in that side suit, then LHO shows 2 cards and RHO shows 3 cards in that suit. Therefore, you should play to drop. If it is greater than 2, LHO is more likely to hold Q. For example, LHO leads his singleton to partner's ace and gets a ruff, his partner holds 5 card in that suit. You should take the finesse. If it equals 2, it's just a guess. For example, LHO leads a singleton, his partner holds Axx and gives him a ruff.

Good post. I actually never feel garbage stayman is very useful. Suppose you open 1NT with 2-2 in the majors, you just don't have a good place to play after garbage stayman. Therefore, a sign off gadget to 2D certainly looks better than garbage stayman IMO because it most likely may improve the contract.

Your partner should take most of the blame in this sequence. He can make a constructive 4 card raise at first if your overcalling style may be based on many 4 card suits. Once he decided to bid 2D, he didn't have to compete to 3D with soft holdings in C and H.

Pass is bad. Gotta bid 3C here because it is your hand. After 3C, at least it is not difficult to bid 6D. 7D might not be easy.

This sequence showcases the advantage of using 2nd-round jump bid by responder as game-force. However it makes 4th-suit-forcing ambiguous, which may create other problems on different hands, unless the partnership is prepared and thoroughly discussed this. For this reason, many players (including me, and I suspect same is true for many others on the forum) favor the simplicity and agree to play 4th suit GF. I think the OP's question is in this context: assuming you play 4sf to game and 3♥ rebid would have been invitational only, what is the best route to slam? Well, the so called "standard 4th suit gameforcing" (especially after 1H 1S 2D) should have been abandoned long time ago. The reason for its existence as a standard convention is that most players are just too lazy to improving their bidding structures. Playing 1H 1S 2D 3C as a general 4th suit gameforcing, you basically have no any low level raising method at three level to show a gf hand, which is just horrible. It is also very ridiculous, you have an easy way to bid 3H to invite, which only covers a very small spectrum of the hands, and you can most likely show your gf hand with support at 4 level, or even 5 level sometimes, which means you have no cuebids available, your rkc sequence can be messed, and opener has to bid 3NT over your 3C with a very wide range of hands, from 12 to 18. All in all, this "standard" treatment isn't very effective at all if you want to achieve high bidding accuracies. The similar wrong structure also happens after 1H 1S 2H, now you have many ways to sign off or to invite and very few ways to show gf hands and set up trumps at 3 level. That's also why many now play 2S and(or) 2NT after this sequence for conventional meanings. IMO, the basic design principle of bridge bidding is not to devise a lot of sign off or invitation sequences, but to improve the game and slam bidding.

Well, it depends on how you bid over 1D, if you play 1H or 1S showing 4+ and forcing one round, I don't see any difficulties finding 4-4 M because of 1D. Of course it may give some extra calls to LHO, that's probably a minor drawback of overcalling. This hand is actually quite strong, comparing with hands like AQJTx and nothing else, although you may make less tricks if the trump doesn't break well. IMO, it's more like "take the position overcall". If your opp can open 1C with KJxx xx x AQxxxx, it certainly doesn't feel very wrong to overcall 1D, which is just one or two HCP short of an opener.

Seems no rebidding problems after partner's possible forcing 1H or 1S. So it is indeed a marginal 1D overcall, which is about one jack or queen weaker than a normal aggressive minimum opener. When white vs red, it is possible to bid 2D IMO.

Gib doesn't play any defensive signals at all. The bbo convention card page is just wrong. Also, gib doesn't assume its partner gives any defensive signals. Actually the key to the success of on line gambling bridge of gib is to improve its bidding and defense IMO. For declaring, it's very trivia, the web site should give the option to allow human player to declare when in dummy, which makes a lot of sense, but you are the one who is responsible with your money on the table, not programmer's silly mistakes that blew tricks after tricks in some very simple situations. In that sense, really, to improve gib, only defensive signals, realistic assumptions based on partner's early defensive carding and bidding are the keys. For now, gib just plays the highest card it doesn't think may cost a trick(this assumption is also very invalid because its simulation sample size is very small, so many rare situations can not be simulated) and often, it just pitches cards randomly.

1H 2D 2N(4 or more spades extra value) 3S 5D(erkc) 5N 6D (confirms all kc, no lower cuebids available) 6H(HK) 7S

It really depends on your overall opening style. If you open 2C with rather light values and open 1 level with also some rather light values, you can actually pass with many weaker hands. The odds for you to find a magical fit in a game isn't very high, and even if you pass, you still might find it by opp's help. Of course most forum posters play a very different style, so they would say you should respond with any 5 card suit or with one ace, which isn't my cup of tea at all. Another important consideration is that can you improve the contract? With stiff or void in C, you certainly want to improve your contract when red, because the auction may die out and you may find youself playing a 3-1, 4-0 fit in clubs. Although I generally respond sounder than most here, I still don't think bidding 1S with xxxxxxx xxx xxx - over partner's 1C when red is a sin.

1H 1S 2D 3H(gf) 3N(serious slam try, denies high card spade controls) 4C 4D 5H 6H 4C/D are both cuebids. 5H shows slam interest, but no cuebids available, so it denies S control and showing good trumps and(or) diamonds), now 6H isn't too difficult to bid.

2D should be natural and nonforcing. Now it's just marginal. If your partner bids 2D to show longer D than H, I would happily pass.