foobar

+1. Adam, if I am not mistaken IMPrecision also allows 1N to handle such awkward hands, especially after a 1♣ - 1♠ response, right (since 2♣ would be a GF)?

"...avoids problems with the standard or Precision 2♥ rebid that stem from the wide range." In the many years of playing strong club systems, I never thought of this sequence as being especially problematic given the tight (10)11-15 range. Can you please elaborate?

Since we are drifting off topic, isn't this situation tailor made for transfer advances of overcalls? In other words, transfers starting with the cue bid, i.e., 2♣ -> ♦, etc., ending @ 2♥ (showing a good ♠ raise; a direct raise to 2♠ is ostensibly weaker).

Sorry if this is flouting forum rules, but my new employer (lets say in the top 20 of Fortune 500) is desperately seeking to hire experienced software engineers in Amsterdam (200+ mile radius). So, if you, or someone you know qualifies, please send me a PM with your LinkedIn information ASAP.

Am a little late to the post, but we just moved here a couple of weeks ago after almost a quarter century in Portland, OR and really loving it so far. Few comments FWIW: At at risk of being tautological, Seattle is very beautiful If you are employed, please pay attention to your commute times. The short version is that if you work downtown, it comes to a tradeoff between commute times vs. larger homes, suburban vs. city life, etc. Distances can really deceptive, so while some areas like West Seattle are really close to downtown... I haven't had to visit a bridge club, so if you have any pointers, that will be appreciated

Since no one mentioned it, IMPrecision has had 1♣ - 1♦ as either very weak or a strong GF hand for ages. It might sound odd, but in practice works great, and IMO it's arguably the best strong 1♣ structure out there. On an unrelated note, it's probably one of the very best (artificial) 1♦ structures as well, but I digress :). http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/IMprecision.pdf

Easy 3♣ at this vul. (and even when all white FWIW). Over 3♣, we play that 4♦ is a five step ask for the number of key cards in the suit and outside controls (A/K) using the 0, 1, 1 (1 and one outside), 2, 2 (2 and two outside) scale, and we'll likely end up in 6♣

Finding a good source with high entropy is a really hard problem, but it's easier to think in terms of lower vs. higher entropy. A pack of well shuffled cards has higher entropy (more randomness) than the same set of cards that's fresh out of the pack (and presumably sorted). Computing optimal scores is typically done using a payoff matrix that compares the results from the various possible outcomes (assuming DD defence and play). There are several programs that already compute it from hand records (BridgeCaptain, etc.). The score can be one of the parameters used in the decision tree used by a robot to determine whether a sacrifice is profitable.

Yes, some of us do work with these topics on a regular basis :). The simplest explanation for entropy in the CS context is that it's a measure of randomness in a system. Regarding decision trees, a simple explanation is to think in terms of a bridge relay system, i.e., there's some amount of branching involved depending on the hand that's held, and each given hand has a well defined path through the tree (depending on the HCPs and shape). Matt Ginsberg (GIB fame) did some related research on computer bidding systems more than a decade ago, and exchanged emails with interested folks on the now-defunct exotic bidding mailing systems list, but it never went anywhere.

+1

A sample auction appears below, with RHO dealing and rebidding suit over your 1N overcall (everyone else passes). What is your X over the rebid? Do your agreements depend on vulnerability and / or whether the auction forces us to the 3-level? Does it depend on whether pard is a PH? [hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c(Natural)1n(15-18)pp2cd(What%20does%20this%20mean%3F)]133|100[/hv]

On B15, it's tough to get to 3N playing 14-16 NT, but with 16 opposite 9 and the friendly layout, it's a cake walk. The lose 15 for 6♠-X on B22 is totally my fault (domestic distraction ;)). As it turns out, even 5♠ would be -1, on the layout so we would have lost 10.

Deleted...

Are there no takers for Jacoby 2N on this hand? Note that our 2N isn't limited to balanced hands with 4+ trump and can include distributional hands. Maybe the best bid is some 4-level splinter, but assume that it isn't part of your bidding agreements. Slam isn't out of the picture facing: Axxxx AK Kxx xxx More importantly, the 2N bid conveys the offensive nature of the hand much better than 4♠ (which could be based on lesser distribution and / or flatter shape). Also, IMO having conveyed at least the "4-trump" message with LR+, it much easier to pass (5♣)-X.

Based on the data, there are couple of reasonable approaches: X: 4+ spades .....2S: 4♠ 2♠: 5+ ♠ 2N: Natural, invite (stopper may be nebulous in a pinch, and opener may express doubt by bidding 3♥) 3m: Natural, forcing X: 4+ spades .....2S: 4♠ 2♠: Ostensibly minors, maybe a signoff in diamonds? .....2N: Denies 4cm .....3m: Preference 2N: Natural, invite 3m: Natural, forcing

IMPs, 24 board match in the top bracket regional KO semi-finals, you are South. [hv=pc=n&s=st75432h43d873cq2&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1h2s(Weak)4n(RKC%20hearts)]133|200[/hv] Your standards for opening 2♠ are slightly better than this collection even at this vulnerability. What's your bidding plan for the hand?

Here's some data from a dealer script (scroll to the end) that might help you. The total number of hands produced were ~96,000, and since it's pretty close to 1,00,000, you can add the frequency data to get an approximate % of relative frequencies. For example, the 1D opener (south) will hold frequently hold 3-4 ♠, but responder holds exactly 5♠ < 20% of the time. South spades: 3.16151 North spades: 3.78056 Frequency south spades: 0 249 1 3644 2 16655 3 35228 4 40189 Frequency north spades: 0 310 1 3062 2 12484 3 24922 4 27643 5 18195 6 7283 7 1802 8 231 High 33 South clubs: 3.68685 North clubs: 3.52671 Frequency south clubs: 0 78 1 1810 2 10746 3 26452 4 33244 5 23635 Frequency north clubs: 0 569 1 4764 2 15748 3 27060 4 26119 5 15126 6 5319 7 1110 8 139 High 11 South diamonds: 3.68518 North diamonds: 3.53636 Frequency South diamonds: 0 98 1 1864 2 10673 3 26521 4 33170 5 23639 Frequency north diamonds: 0 594 1 4750 2 15678 3 26725 4 26215 5 15250 6 5471 7 1114 8 160 High 8 Generated 10000000 hands Produced 95965 hands Initial random seed 1455572041 Time needed 14.00 sec Dealer script follows: #Some convenient definitions for our openings #This doesn't need changing LimitedOpening = hcp(south) >=10 && hcp(south) <= 15 NoFiveCardMajor=spades(south) < 5 && hearts(south) < 5 BalancedHand=shape(south, any 4432+any 5332+ any 4333) WeakNTNoMajor=hcp(south) >= 11 && hcp(south) <= 13 && BalancedHand && NoFiveCardMajor 1DUnbalanced=LimitedOpening && !BalancedHand && NoFiveCardMajor && diamonds(south) < 6 && clubs(south) < 6 #Actual definitions for our openings #This doesn't need changing TwoDiamondOpening=LimitedOpening && NoFiveCardMajor && diamonds(south) >= 6 TwoClubOpening=LimitedOpening && NoFiveCardMajor && clubs(south) >= 6 && !TwoDiamondOpening FirstNTOpening=hcp(south) >= 14 && hcp(south) <= 16 && BalancedHand ThirdNTOpening=hcp(south) >= 15 && hcp(south) <= 17 && BalancedHand OneSpadeOpening=LimitedOpening && spades(south) >= 5 OneHeartOpening=LimitedOpening && hearts(south) >= 5 OneDiamondOpening=WeakNTNoMajor || 1DUnbalanced StrongClub=hcp(south) >= 16 && !FirstNTOpening #Some definitions to allow biasing of overcalls #This can be changed by addding additional entries HeartsWest=hcp(west) >= 8 && hearts(west) >= 5 && spades(west) < 5 SpadesWest=hcp(west) >= 8 && spades(west) >= 5 && hearts(west) <=4 ClubsWest=hcp(west) >= 10 && clubs(west) >= 6 DiamondsWest=hcp(west) >= 10 && diamonds(west) >= 6 HeartsEast=hcp(east) >= 8 && hearts(east) >= 5 && spades(east) < 5 SpadesEast=hcp(east) >= 8 && spades(east) >= 5 && hearts(east) <=4 ClubsEast=hcp(east) >= 10 && clubs(east) >= 6 DiamondsEast=hcp(east) >= 10 && diamonds(east) >= 6 WeakHeartsWest=hcp(west) >= 6 && hcp(west) <= 10 && hearts(west) >= 6 && spades(west) < 5 #Change condition to control the hands that are generated #Examples: #Strong club hands: condition StrongClub #Strong club hands with LHO interference: condition StrongClub && (SpadesWest || HeartsWest || ClubsWest || DiamondsWest) #Strong club hands with LHO OR RHO interference: condition StrongClub && ((SpadesWest || HeartsWest || ClubsWest || DiamondsWest) || (SpadesEast || HeartsEast || DiamondsEast || ClubsEast)) condition OneDiamondOpening && WeakHeartsWest && hcp(north) >= 8 && spades(south) < 5 && hearts(south) < 5 && clubs(south) < 6 && diamonds(south) < 6 produce 100000 dealer south action average "South spades" spades(south), average "North spades" spades(north), frequency "south spades" (spades(south), 0, 4), frequency "north spades" (spades(north), 0, 8), average "South clubs" clubs(south), average "North clubs" clubs(north), frequency "south clubs" (clubs(south), 0, 5), frequency "north clubs" (clubs(north), 0, 8), average "South diamonds" diamonds(south), average "North diamonds" diamonds(north), frequency "South diamonds" (diamonds(south), 0, 5), frequency "north diamonds" (diamonds(north), 0, 8)

Try to set it :D. A♥ was led at the table and as long as declarer makes the reasonable assumption that the a ruffing finesse against the ♠AQ exists (after initially ruffing a couple of small ♠s and seeing T9 fall), it's impossible to set.

For those wondering why this made to the Interesting Bridge Hands forum, this is one where the card gods can hand you a royal fix :ph34r:: [hv=pc=n&s=skj852hdk74cakq96&w=saq7643hq7daq3cjt&n=shj952dj62c875432&e=st9hakt8643dt985c&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=4hdp5cppdppp]399|300[/hv] 5♣-X is untouchable on the layout. At the other table, EW got to play in 4♥ after P (!!!!) - 1♠ - P - P - 4♥ (!!!) - AP, making +1 or +2 depending on the opening lead.

IMPs, white vs. red, partner opens 4H (7-card suit possible and 3N would have shown a better preempt in either major). What's your call? [hv=pc=n&w=saq7643hq7daq3cjt&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=4hdp5cpp]133|200[/hv]

Do any of you play suit preference instead of Smith echo? If so, what are the exact mechanics? Specifically, how does either partner express interest in continuing the suit (vs. a switch) and how does it work when third hand may have deliberately ducked at T1 to preserve communication, or may have been forced to cover dummy's card, etc.?

As I see it, in the 1♠ - (3♥) case, the possibilities are: X: Either strong ♠ with slam interest / strong flexible hand 3♠: Simple ♠ raise 3N: TP 4♠: TP IMO, 7-card suits that want to stop at the 4-level shouldn't be an prominent consideration in deciding between the weak and the strong form of the X. My feeling is that 4m should just be natural and forcing. Perhaps, one option afforded by the weak version is that over the forced 3♠ responder can bid 3N to express doubt of strain.

I don't know if the ability to stop on a dime in 4m is a good target for either the immediate bid or the relay X. It's true that playing the weak version might allow such a scenario, but how likely are we have a 7+ card minor? Note that the original suggestion was speculating on what if Woolsey's method were to be inverted at the 3-level, i.e., 3-level bids in response to the original X are like NFBs and X shows a strong flexible hand. Specifically, from the example in the article, after (2♥) - X - (3♥), 3♠ by responder would be competitive, and X would show the strong flexible hand. Maybe this treatment isn't that different from standard methods, but knowing that responder is strong with a flexible hand might open up other possibilities. None of this has been thought out particularly well, but it's food for thought...

I looked the B2SYM model for Moscito and as per it, the 3♦ relay assumes that opener knows the solid suit. 3♥ / 3♠ show 8xxx / 7xxx shapes (presumed 7(321)), ostensibly with zoom for extra QPs. For the uninitiated, the now defunct B2SYM was an excellent tool for practicing and modelling relay systems (message me for details).

Sorry if this doesn't belong to this forum. Can you please elaborate on the full agreements? My guess is that if third hand can't beat dummy (or deliberately ducks), give attitude if dummy plays Q or higher, or count on J or lower from dummy, right? In the event of a deliberate duck on the play of a small card, does the subsequent Smith echo clarify the attitude towards the opening lead, or does count specifically apply to the J winning scenario?