effervesce

I prefer 2♠, but I don't mind 1NT. [Edit-saw that it was for 2/1 - then 2♠ definitely better than 1NT]

In the same vein, having mere advanced level declarer/defensive play is all you need for about 75% of the boards you play.

I think most hands with 3 card spade support will want to be in 4♠ unfortunately.

Why are these two numbers multiplied? Maybe they should be added, or maybe bridge performance is the square root of the sum of the squares of these quantities? And how do you even measure the right-hand-side quantities so that you can benefit from this formula at the table? A world-class declarer who has no clue how to bid will lose since they will never reach the right contract. A world-class bidder who has no clue how to play will lose since they will never play a hand correctly. It's my approximation of the importance of each. Say one bids to the right spot 80% of the time, and plays a hand correctly 80% of the time. Then the 'skill' of that person would be 0.8 * 0.8 = 0.64. If one plays a hand correctly 100% of the time but bids it correctly 60% of the time, their 'skill' would then be 0.6. It's just a way of thinking about it-not that it's anywhere near how bridge skill should be measured or anything. I certainly don't think bridge skill is a sum of bidding and declarer play. It also explains why alot of people believe bidding is most important at WC level - most players would play a hand correctly 95+% of the time, and thus there is little difference there. On the other hand, there is more variance in their bidding skills.

I like to consider bridge performace as somewhat like bridge performance = (bidding skill) * (play skill). Serious deficiencies in either area will make you a poor player, while being competent (not necessarily expert) at both will make you a better player than a world class declarer but poor bidder.

Suggestions? Absolutely! 2C puppet to 2D followed by an invitational 2S bid. This is not good enough to force to game. Problem is, alot of minimums belong in game, and alot of maximums dont. There's no way of really way of avoiding guessing whether game is right or not, hence I think it is correct to force to game on this hand.

I cue 4♣. If partner then cues 4♦ I RKCB. If partner bids 4♥ over 4♣ I'm happy to play there.

Bump. So what happened?

Just made these up just now for fun (probably not practical)- 4D = signoff in a major or slam try in a minor (ie puppet to 4H then correct to your suit) or slam try in a minor(s) (rebid 4NT slam try minors, 5m slam try in the minor) 4C = hand type ask ......4D = long minor .....4H = 4H longer minor .....4S = 4S longer minor .....4NT = bal 4H = hearts + another slam try 4S = spades + minor try 4NT = inv 5m = to play

The X of 3♥ should be penalty, however, you don't have a penalty double of 3♥ with your given hand. The hearts are too bad.

1♠. Sure, partner may raise you too much sometimes- but in my experience the good things that happen outweigh the risks.

Agree with your bidding - partner's pass of the 2♣ bid was wrong.

So what was the diamond 10 lead all about? He led the ten from KT7543 :) [hv=d=n&v=e&n=saj65ha53da98caq7&w=s8hj74dkt7543cj94&e=skthq2dqj62c86532&s=sq97432hkt986dckt]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

I played the hand as on Andy's line, playing for elimination and for split heart honors (and made). Later I realised that cashing the AK of hearts is slightly better than playing for split heart honors as the person with Kx spades is more likely to hold a doubleton/singleton heart (as you have mentioned) - this line also makes on the given layout.

Pass. I prefer classic takeout shape for my doubles.

5♦ for me-much more helpful than a 5♣ bid for partner IMO unless you play this denies a club control (5♠ is available for asking for a club control). We play cues in own suit to show two of the top three honors. If partner cuebids 5♥ I bid slam. If partner bids 5♠ I pass.

The chart doesn't specify pass as 0-11 as being legal. Pass doesn't promise any suit either! Therefore it must be illegal!

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=saj65ha53da98caq7&s=sq97432hkt986dckt]133|200|Scoring: IMP Bidding went 1C-1S-4S-6S. Plan the play on the lead of the ten of diamonds.[/hv]

Agreed. LHO and partner have at most 12 between them; on average partner will have 6 or so. Given some expected wastage in clubs, it's unlikely he'll have much in your suits. With such poor suits I'm passing - too much of a risk to bid. If he does have stuff in your suits, 2NT probably will not be fun for RHO...

I pass at these colors. Give me the K of hearts and I'd bid (4NT, two places to play). If non-vul I'd bid with the given hand.

What I don't like about precision and my solution to it. 1C for 16+, leading to opening 1C too often. (I strongly suggest to play 17+) 1D--that show only 2. (You can play 1D to show 0+ to avoid having to waste a mini-Roman opening and allow 2C to promise 6+C. From what I've seen of top level precision, super-nebulous 1D is the way to go-not because 0+ is better - 4+D is certainly better-but because it saves on other bids, notably improving the 2C opening and removing the need for the 2D mini-Roman) The 5C+4M hands (My solution is to make 2C promise 6+C, making hand evaluation easier) The 2D opening. Too infrequent. Opening these as 1D, while inferior, you still do not lose the major fits and does not provide a roadmap for the opps in defense or play. NT range (Smaller NT ranges are better. 14-16 NT, with 1C-1NT rebid showing 17-19 etc) Okay some of the above was just having a go at Ben's points - but they're valid points (I too prefer 1C as 15+, but not to increase frequency as Ben said (strongly disagree with) but to allow 9-14 as the opening range rather than 10-15).

I'm not sure if I'd actually do this, but 4♥ preemptive at MPs seems reasonable. At MPs frequency is king-how often do you actually want to be in slam, and how often will you want to be in anything other than 4♥? (Actually I guess clubs will often be a better spot given the opps can probably tap dummy). There is also an extremely likely chance the opponents have a spade-diamond doublefit. Why give them the chance to bid spades or diamonds at a low level? Also, no fit-showing jump option? (Then again, fit-showing jump hands are also relatively infrequent...)

Perhaps I can reveal a few more bids of your perfect system. Opening bid of 7NT: Any hand which is likely to win all the tricks no matter what lead. Opening bid of 7♠: Any hand likely to win all tricks with spades as trumps, excluding hands qualifying for an opening bid of 7NT. (Wash rinse repeat all the way down to 7♣)

You seem to be saying that - partner will play on the assumption you might have an 8 count - opponents will play you for a full opening bid Welcome to the idea of full disclosure That is disclosed on our CC-3rd seat, fav vul. Which is more than can be said for the large number of people who would open 1♥ 3rd seat fav vul with xxx KQT9 xx QJxx, but don't write anything about such tendencies on their CC.

My claim is that a swingier style increases the chances of winning. On average, you have have a worse % but you may still increase your chances of winning. For example, assume a field of 100 pairs with a SD of 10, such that a winning score (top 1% or first place) is typically 71+. If you have an average MP score of 60, with a SD of 10, you have a 14.7% chance of obtaining a 71+ score. However, if you have an average MP score of 55, but a SD of 15, your chances of a 71+ score is 14.9%. Thus increasing swinginess at the risk of worse MP scores is a valid MP strategy (assuming that the actions taken for increasing swinginess do not lower your overall average too far). Of course, MP scores are probably not normally distributed for the field, and neither would a pair's MP scores be normally distributed, rendering the above numbers invalid, but it's for illustrating a point/