CSGibson

How are hands added to your database? Randomly generated or self-selected in some way?

South needs to bid game, south has a moose in context, and the heart finesse has a much better chance of being on if needed after the negative double. This is true at both teams and matchpoints, but doubly so at teams. North bid the value of the hand. While I sympathize with Ken Rexford's idea of 3♣ asking for a club control for NT, I personally have the agreement that when they have two bid suits and I could cue either one, I cue what I have, not what I need, which would be unavailable here; I would also bid 3♠, and hope that partner realized that they needed stops in both to try 3N - which would be a great bid in context.

Yes it is obvious to raise to 6 with the responding hand. When we bid, we bid to make at this vulnerability.

Show me a single breach of civility of mine in this thread, or apologize for giving the impression that I have been uncivil.

Pass /4 n

Pass /4 n

Its not the same. Its close, but there are significant differences. Your matchpoint score relative to the field in slam is not going to change based on you taking more tricks via an alternate line of play - you get a top if they go down, and a bottom if they don't, irrespective if you took 11 or 12 tricks. The only thing you have to worry about at the table is taking the same line as everyone else so that you take the same amount of tricks (hopefully 11, but 10, 9, or even less works just as well as long as you are a level lower, thus getting the better score). In the 2nd example, you are taking a different line of play because the ONLY way you are catching the field is to take the same amount of tricks, and you can see that it requires you to do something different than the field will do in their 4M contract. Now you alter your play, because how you play matters. To put it in a different way, its risk reward. If you are one of 20% not in slam, then 80% of the board is already decided, you are now just competing for the remaining 20%. Taking a normal line gives you a positive EV in terms of the 20%, and has no relation to the 80%. In the 2nd example, you have a chance to outpoint the people in the normal contract only by doing something abnormal. So say the same 80% are in 4M and 20% in your 3N. You are risking 10% of a board to have a chance of getting 90% in that circumstance, so your ev for an abnormal line is +EV as long as the abnormal line is better than ~10% - clearly dropping the doubleton Q, or taking a finesse beats that threshold. I feel like I'm saying this poorly. Help?

So the common theme in these examples is that by altering your line of play, you actually have some chance to outscore the majority who are in the correct contract. Do you see how that is different than examples where you are in game and the field is in slam?

Pass. Any other seat or any other vulnerability and I open 1♦.

I have to say that I am opening 2♣. I'll never convince partner I need one ace and a fit for a (grand?) slam if I open 1♠. When I open 2♣, rebid 2♠, then keep bid diamonds, partner will know how big of a hand I must have, since I declined to jump shift.

I'm aware of your tricks, lawyer! Where did I say that particular post was valuable insight and nice? Your question appears to assume a false premise as fact. Stop with that wordplay trickeration!

I think this is really over the top. I disagree with Mike's assessment of the value of presenting alternative bidding solutions in this case, but I've found him to be helpful and even nice when pointing out I'm an idiot previously - he usually talks around it instead of saying it straight out. And he definitely adds a great amount of insight and value to the forum - I think of him as one of the level heads around here, and one who is always willing to expound upon his idea into multiple paragraphs of actual understandable logic.

Hey Mike, chill dude. Showing what methods and thought processes is helpful, it says that this is a problem that many feel is best solved through a conventional solution, and opens the eyes to what conventional solutions are available. This is entirely different than when OP actually gives you the conventional tools they have available - obviously there they want a judgment about what is best to do with their own agreements, and there is an implication that they are not interested in hearing alternative methodology.

By the way, my auction would be unlikely (but not impossible) at the table, quite likely in the post-mortem as a way to have gotten there.

my own auction playing my preferred xyz methods would be: 1♣-1♦, 1♥-2♦*, Transfer to hearts, either game forcing or drop dead 2♥-2♠, Accept transfer (not just shy of a jump shift), patterning out & showing GF 5+♦, 4+♥ 3♣-3♦, Values or advanced cues 3♥-3♠, Values or advanced cues 4♠-5♣, Kickback, showing 0 or 3 5♥-5♠, (systemic, with 0 pass, with 3 clarify the Q situation, 1st step denies the Q but shows 3 keycards) 6♥

Barry, this doesn't make any sense. All that is ever at stake on your line of play is the 10%. Now, are you willing to lay 9-1 odds on a line of play based on gaining/losing 10% of a board? It doesn't matter if the variance is between 80-100 or 0-20, 10% is on the line, the other 80% is out of your control. Now you may decide that you are not going to win anything if you are in the 0-20 range anyway, and make a line of play to maximize your chances in the event that you are in the 80-100 range, but that feels like a last round strategy and not a general wise overall strategy, because you're EV from the line is negative. Likewise with your 4 or 6 decision. I'm willing to bet that the decision that maximizes your potential matchpoints on the hand is to take the highest percentage line of play.

Slaps head (my own, not Justin's)

I agree with Brian, I would bid 2♣ at the table, and would not give serious consideration to anything else. It helps that partner is a passed hand, removing a layer of hands that may make 4M - now we really want partner to have a good fit, which he may show anyway, since you did come in Red vs white.

How are you going to draw 3 rounds of trump, ruff away the K of spades, and ruff a club in dummy?

I think he was thinking of the 4 card ending with dummy having 4 hearts, declarer 2 hearts and both pointed jacks, an auto squeeze, not a positional one. Squeeze is the far better chance, also add in the Q doubleton possibilities and the JT doubleton/third in hearts falling. I also don't think the finesse is 50%; there is a restricted choice position on the opening lead if you assume that they would never lead from a Q in NT.

Sure, unless you have specific agreements to the contrary - my preferred agreement is that preference shows Ax, Kx, or any 3, and that the default bid in this sequence with no clear preference be 3♦, to allow the most room to explore.

1H-1S, 2D-3C*, 4th suit forcing 3S-4N, 5S-5N*, specific kings 6C*-6D*, King of clubs, asks to bid grand with the K of diamonds 6N*-7N. Denies K of diamonds, but does show extras in context, 7N says perfect, just what I was looking for.

Heart. Seems to take the least to beat this.

I've done so once. People don't play forcing passes through 2S after a penalty double of a 1N overcall, I decided to transfer to spades in the auction (1♦)-1N-(X) with a 4=2=3=4 yarborough and hope we weren't doubled; it worked in that it played better than NT, and was not penalty doubled. I consider it a desperate manuever, though, and not a recommended tactic unless its desperate times. Edit: For clarification, we did not have a run-out system in place, it was not a regular partnership.

If your agreement is that XX shows general strength, and no clear fit, which it appears that S believes, then N should 100% make a penalty double of 2♠. With 9+ cards in the black suits for partner, and spades behind the bidder/hearts over the negative doubler, it looks right to me to pass the X as South despite the void. If XX means something else conventional, then I would give up on it, instead bidding 2♥, non-forcing but constructive. Its an underbid, but not by much.