BillHiggin

I expect some loses, but always feel poorly when it happens. If I am seldom losing, I look for a bigger challenge. If I do lose, then I try to examine the poor results to see if there is something that needs fixing. I do succomb to olds-timers disease from time to time. When that happens, I try to remind myself to focus more. The thing that can put me on tilt is criticism from partner at the table. I hate that. Unfortunately, there are instances when I commit the same crime - perfection is still just a future goal.

4♠ undo 3♠ seems to most accurately describe this. Since I do not actually do that sort of thing, 3♠ (have I told you how much I hate 4333)

When dummy flops, is not the correct question "Where are the cards you held during the auction?"?

How are we supposed to explain a false statement. Are you claiming that declarer will for some reason adopt an inferior line of play at MP scoring. Perhaps he does not recognize that the defender is "optimal" and hopes for typical MP foolishness? Declarer only deviates from drop-pin when he is seeking to exploit foolishness on his right. This does not vary by scoring!

anti cue bid negative cue bid un cue bid asking cue bid There must be plenty of options (how many are already claimed and is there a clearing house?) I have toyed with (implies less than seriously) such an idea with the following rules: Applies when normal mixed cue bid would. un cue bid (to pick one name) asks partner to sign off with no control (it might not actually deny a control if ready to deal with the possible sign off) If control is held in the asked suit, response is either another "un cue" or RKC. The scheme fails miserably when the first cue might also carry some additional information - i.e. it cannot say "I have a spade shortness and wonder if you have a control in this suit" since partner might need to be able to answer "spade shortness is not good for me" and there is only one "NO" available. This is at least partially mitigated if there is some "serious/frivolous" buffer bid available. There is good news and bad news - the good news is that there is no last train ambiguity to deal with - the bad news is that there is no last train bid at all. There is a way to deal with this that is only somewhat insane. If anyone feels a need for further details - see a shrink.

I am trying hard to imagine a reason to consider pass as a valid alternative. I cannot find one. 2♠

Q1: With a real club suit, that is what I would choose to bid. Others might choose 1♥ and that would not bother me. Q2: Without a real suit, we have no option but to look for the least (cheapest) lie.

Regardless of who is scientific and who is naturalistic, this sounds like a great show. Just putting the words "zia" and "goulash" in the same sentence sends tingles down my spine (I bet science has little to do with things on that day).

Be thankful that you have a suit. Forget about mentioning the ♦ option since your agreements seem to be based on the expectation that responder will often hold a suit that is better than opener's. Forget about some magic spade holding. 5♣ stands out.

If you do not know the player then: 1) You can use pin-drop which always wins against KT or Kxxx and always loses to K and Kx without regard to defensive strategy. 2) Or you can assume RHO covers too often (since the actual break even point is 5.5% rather than 33%, this is almost always a correct assumption) and use pin-finesse. Then you still win against Kxx every time. But now you win against Kx when they cover and stiff K, always losing to KT and losing to Kx when they do not cover. Since stiff K compared to KT is almost but not quite even (similar to quart:liter), it does not take many mistaken covers from Kx to put declarer ahead of 1). This declarer strategy is very slighly worse than pin-drop against defenders who never cover with Kx, so declarer does not risk much by making this assumption. The mistake some declarers will make is to try drop-drop or drop-finesse. Trying to drop the K when there is no cover loses to Kxx (where covering cannot work for the defense) and only picks up Kx when defender has not covered. Essentially declarer is conceding a sure win situation (Kxx) for an equal probability maybe win situation (Kx no cover). The best declarer can do is break even when the defense never covers from Kx with this (non) option.

Things go better when partner is in on the secret. Cue bidding his first suit will sound like preference for that suit unless you have explicit agreements. Cue bidding our own suit will certainly convey the wrong message. Jumping in the 4th suit will indeed sound like spade agreement but shows shortness. Raise partner and he is on the same page as you are.

Back to "optimum" For case b, declarer strategy mix does not change his success rate, it is 50-50. If he choses to always try to pin the 10, he will pick off Kxx on his right regardless of defensive strategy. For case a, declarer can choose to always try to drop the 10 and his odds will be 1.41:1.35 favorable regardless of defensive strategy (since declarer is conceding to Kx, no mix can help the defense). Declarer wins for Kxx or KT on right, loses to stiff K or Kx on right (the fractional advantage comes because stiff K is slightly rarer than doubleton KT). If declarer suspects that the defense is covering from Kx some portion (say z%) of the time, it might be advantageous to switch to back finesse for case a. There will never be an advantage to switching strategy for case b. If z=0, his odds will drop to 1.35:1.41 (he is now winning against stiff K and losing to KT). For non zero z, we will switch to long numbers (more digits = author is smarter :P ). The odds for back finesse-pin become: (1,352,078 + z*1,058,148) : (1,410,864 - z*1,058,148) If z is greater than 5 out of 90 opportunities (just over half of edit:Helene's Frances' guess), declarer will be doing better than sticking with drop-pin. The best the defense can possibly hope for is to actually cover less often than 5 of 90 and hope declarer believes they are covering more often. The original post specified "optimal". That would be cover only with stiff K or doubleton KT and settle for being a slight dog to optimum declarer strategy on the cases that matter. In practical situations, nobody will have perfect information. Then declarer should take the slight hit against perfect defense by switching to back finesse-pin and gain when the defense covers a bit too often from Kx. Always try to pin the 10 when the first finesse wins. At least the defense cannot attempt to get inside your head.

Stoppers for any 1N call are very overrated (a 1N overcall ought to have some semblance of a stopper in their suit - usually even a real one). Once they finish running their suit, I will take the rest ;) ! Especially in response to 1♠ - what else ya gonna do with run of the mill minimum responding hands that cannot raise? Disclaimer - I do not claim expert status!

The jec team system includes this agreement, and I am trying to understand all the ramifications. I like 1m 2H as responder's reverse flannery showing 4(+)♥ and 5♠ with less than invite values (a hand uncomfortable making a 2nd F1 bid). I strongly like full xyz (pick a variant - any variant) and some form of cheapest 3rd suit invite+ agreement. It seems preferable then to use the 1♣ 1♠; 1N/2♣ 2♥ bid as an invite (non-forcing) and 1♣ 2♠ as wjr. Over 1♦, the 2♠ jump as invitational 5♠-4♥ seems needed (partner might rebid 2♦ and we then need our artificial invite+ bid). Is the complication of differing responses to 1m depending on actual suit worthwhile? Maybe yes, maybe no. I do like to make it tough for 4th hand to get in a cheap red suit call after partner opens 1♣. What I really need is a partner willing to consider some of these newer inovations!

Sometimes people get carried away with attempts at semantic exactness. SAYC was originally defined by the ACBL (you can still get that definition from their website) as a defined system for restricted system events and they allowed virtually no user modifications to the agreements in those events. When on-line play started, people from geographically diverse areas found it difficult to agree on systems with random partners. The fairly brief definition of SAYC provided a convenient starting point and led to its popularity on-line (virtually nobody chooses strict SAYC for face to face events - the fuzzy word will not save me from flames). Most pairs that start with an SAYC foundation will actually add toys to it (which would not be allowed in an SAYC only event). Techincally they are no longer playing SAYC (but the technicality does not really cause confusion). One agreement that would be very unusual in a system claiming to be SAYC is 1N forcing by an unpassed hand. That agreement is so contrary to SAYC that the system should be named something else. 2/1 is a bit fuzzy itself. Some play that a 2/1 response is 100% game forcing. Others alllow for responder to rebid his suit to show a merely invitational one suited hand. Many 2/1 systems include a lot of extensive (and varying) fancy agreements. Virtually all systems that are called 2/1 include the agreement that 1N is forcing by an unpassed hand. There are similar systems without that agreement, but they usually are given a different name (Ambra is an example). Given that neither 2/1 nor SAYC can really be considered to completely describe a system in the on-line environment, we can identify a single trait that defines what they are not. A system that does not include 1N forcing by an unpassed hand is not 2/1. A system that does include 1N forcing by an unpassed hand is not SAYC (modified). I will leave recommended references to others. Edit: read 1N forcing by an unpassed hand in response to a major suit one level opening bid for each instance of 1N forcing by an unpassed hand. (must not offend the semantic gods :) )

If RHO's optimum strategy is to never cover except with KT doubleton or singleton K, and that makes playing for KT doubleton declarer's optimum strategy whenever the Q is covered, then the first statement is not true. While I am no game theory maven, I know that RHO's optimum strategy would be to cover with Kx some of the time so that you cannot rely on the cover being from KT or singleton K. Should declarer switch strategy becuase he thinks RHO will only cover with stiff K or doubleton KT? Only if 100% sure of that strategy. The back finesse is only a 6:7 underdog in that case, and is nearly a 10:1 favorite with random covering. If declarer has any doubts at all, he will back finesse. So what percentage of opportunities should defender cover with when he has a realistic option? None! Every time he covers with Kx or Kxx, he is commiting suicide. Declarer's strategy switch is questionable (and in a practical sense, unwise). Defender's strategy is clear. Cover only when you must (things change if the 9 is not visible).

There are 16 possible holdings where the K is onside (not all conform to all the conditions): RHO holds Stiff K KT Kx (*3) KTx (*3) Kxx (*3) KTxx (*3) Kxxx KTxxx The last two do not conform to LHO following suit with a small card so can be eliminated. The first two are not possible for case b. The possibilities are not quite equal, the 4-1 splits each occur 293,930 times to 352,716 for each 3-2 split. You are dead to RHO holding KTx or KTxx (cannot win). With no considerations for RHO strategy (covers or not randomly): a: Take the back finesse - wins when RHO held K, Kx or Kxx - loses only to KT - not even close (about 10:1) b: Choices are to drop the K (from Kx) or smother the ten (RHO having Kxx). 50-50. So, what is RHO's optimum strategy? Do not cover except with KT doubleton or stiff K! This changes case a to always play for the ten to drop (slight favorite for 3-2 over the 4-1 split). If no cover, you are still on a 50-50 guess. edited to fix d*$# smilie glitch

Which causes more problems: Sticking with a standard that may be suboptimum but is consistent across all your patnerships. Tweaking a percieved weakness but then having to remember which partnerships use which version. Unfortunately, you do not have to do your own tweaking. Others will do it for you and you still end up having to track minor version differences of multiple conventions. "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from"

Scenario #1 is easy - 2♦ The call for scenario #2 is also an easy pass. The complication comes with the required diplomacy. I lay down dummy with the ♦4 at the bottom of the ♥ suit, quickly fix that with an astonished look, and announce the "I clearly need a cup of coffee, can I get you anything - my treat".

4N says this (well, it says two suits and this is one of the possibilities)

Edit - changed mind

I agree 100% (can they shoot me down for this opinion?) :rolleyes:

Yes, partner deserves your trust. Keep it alive by bidding 4♥ with 4 card support and a side singleton. Partner has NOT unilaterally bid 3N as the FINAL contract. If partner had no interest in playing in the 4-4 fit, he would never have bothered to introduce the suit in the first place. Instead he is now offering a choice - "I have values for game, and am happy about the fit, but 3N might be better. What is your opinion". In both cases your singleton swing your opinion towards the major suit game. It matters not what the final result is - your hand is definitely better for suit play and since you were asked, you should base your action on what you can see. Trust your partner! He asked a question - give the answer.

The extreme position at IMP scoring is no invites. Too extreme for me. However, I do feel that attempts to grade invitational bids have no place at that scoring - I have no sequences that ask "was that a max invite or a min invite?" Over the 3♦ invitational bid, I would play that opener may pass if not accepting the invite or do something else and anything else establishes a game force. Yes, I get too high some of the time.

Yes, give poker a whirl. At least your bad strategies will yield predictable results - your money will fly away from your possetion. Then, just maybe, the truth will sink in. Going against the odds has a negative expectation! You get occasional lucky results that are invariably overwhelmed by frequent poor results. Good news - at the poker table you will become very popular (this seems to be one of your concerns at bridge).