Poky

Neither a slow 3NT suggests 28 HCP, nor bidding is "suggested" when you know your partner's got 28 HCP. They just got lucky.

Clear 3♦ cuebid. 2♠ with the 4th trump and no ♦ wastage is pretty bad.

Zia leads an unprotected honor quite often, at least compared to how other experts lead in similar spots.

1NT-2M-2NT is a 4-carder raise for the same reason why 1M-2NT is a 4-carder raise - to save room. Although I don't know why is this important. If the sequence: 1NT 2M 2NT pass happens, opener knows responder doesn't have 5M - because it is obvious, not because of something you call CPU. My question is - which bid "controls" the psyche here and what does it mean exactly? Because I see only two players trying to make the best bid on every round, with their independent thought processes. Since psyches are legal, such regulative would be clearly illegal.

4♣, invitational to 5♣.

If 2♠ is defined as a "sign-off", 2♠ isn't even a psyche. You are allowed to play 2-3 fits legitimately, if you think such maneuver will have a good expectation.

I still don't understand this "systemic psyche" concept. Let's say I play: 1NT (9-11) - 2M (to play, mostly with 5+M) 2NT (any 4M raise) Is 2NT "controlling a psyche" in the very rare cases when responder bids 2M with 2-3 cards in M?

Let's say the opponents play a specific system, with your RHO opening: 1♥ = 5+♥, 11-22 .... 3♦ = exactly 3 hearts, invitational 3♠ = Asking bid: "Do you have a shortness?" .... 3NT = "I do have an unspecified singleton, but not a void" 6♥ You are on the lead with: ♠Jxxx ♥xxx ♦Axx ♣Qxx What would you lead here and why? Think a bit about it before reading further. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The board that made me think about this lead problem was the following declarer problem: ♠x ♥J9x ♦KQT9x ♣Kxxx ♠ATx ♥AKQ8x ♦xx ♣AJT Same bidding, 6♥ contract, ♣Q lead. My reasoning was: since nowadays in practice the ♣Q lead is almost exclusively a singleton (meaning: LHO is trying to find RHO with the ♣A, which suggests he doesn't hold the ♦A), I would take trumps and finesse the ♦J right away, hoping for two discards on diamonds. If LHO started with something similar to: ♠Qxxxx ♥xxx ♦Jxxx ♣Q this line is going to win. This pointed out the following eventual flaw - declarer can always exploit leads of that kind if the range of such "Q without J" leads is composed exclusively (or close) of singleton queens. That fact suggests the defender could have a better expectation if he used a mixed strategy instead: n% - singleton queen, (1-n)% - non singleton queen when choosing to lead from an unsupported queen. Now the big question arises - in this same scenario, can LHO afford to have such high (1-n) frequency of leading non-singleton queens to make declarer indifferent between the: - finesse ♦J, and - ruff spades using club as entry lines, minimizing that way declarer's expectation of winning the contract? Let's return to the main lead problem. When the leader looks at: ♠Jxxx ♥xxx ♦Axx ♣Qxx he can make some sound conclusions from the bidding: - declarer didn't ask 4NT because he's got aces. - declarer doesn't have ♦KQx+ or ♦Kxx+ because a singleton in diamond in dummy would be a bad feature for jumping to 6♥ and he wouldn't do that with these holdings, - declarer holds similar holdings in both spades and clubs, which are suitable both when a singleton or some values are across. From that we can deduce his hand should be something like: - 3613 with both black aces, or - 4612/2614 with both black aces, or - 5S(332) with both black aces and nothing in diamonds (rarely). Since the dummy might hold ♦KQx+ (providing two discards via Morton's fork coup when declarer is singleton), it appears like the leader has to attack the weak opponent's fragment to cash a trick while retaining the ♦A. Since the leader holds the Q in clubs but just the J in spades, this fragment will more often be in clubs (if anywhere). Therefore, declarer will lead clubs hoping to score a club trick (when partner has the ♣K) and the ♦A. Once he decides to lead clubs, he might as well lead the Q from ♣Qxx since: - that might make declarer misplay when partner holds the ♣J (important when clubs are 3-3), - that might win against some "laydown" boards like this one that I presented (when leader's partner held nothing but a piece of trash like ♠KQxxx♥xx♦Jxx♣xxx). Of course, since the ♣Q lead might occasionally give the contract away, we should know the exact frequencies, equities and expected values to be sure if such mixed strategy is the game-theory optimal play in some specific spots (like this one, for instance), but we can hardly do that without having a perfect single-dummy robot who could analyze spots and play appropriately. Until that we can only base our thoughts on experience and intuition. However, that doesn't prevent me to ask the question - what is your feeling? If we had a super-robot (say, a sophisticated neural network) which both plays optimally and calculates optimally (taking with proper weight in consideration all the possible information - mostly opponents' ranges and all the Bayesian inferences available), would such machine pick here the unprotected queen of clubs as the best lead, or would the danger of such lead nevertheless outweigh the eventual profits arising from the mixed strategy consideration, neglecting the possibility such plays might be ever a part of the GTO strategy - making such creativity in leading generally avoidable?

There are laydown slams and thin slams. Since thin slams are more frequent and valuable, you need more room to bid the proper ones. Knowing that, how can be better to have: 2NT 4m as a general slam-try instead of 2NT 3R and superaccept available with such hands, trying to gain one whole level for exploration purposes? Furthermore, if you bid, as you say: 2NT 3R with hands containing 6M, being just a bit below a genuine slam-try, does that make your sequence: 2NT 3R 3M 4M ? forcing, when opener holds the hidden superaccept with 4 trumps? Say: ♠Axxx ♥AQx ♦AQJx ♣Kx ♠Kxxxxx ♥xxx ♦x ♣Axx

5♣ Bidding the only game I think I can make. I don't want to play 4♥ with a singleton across and ♣K is a big card in this spot. Going for slam with 3 cards in spades and a singleton in clubs is obviously very bad.

1♣ - frequency 8.2% (79% strong, 21% weak) - 17+ any - 10-12 balanced with 5♠ 1♦ - frequency 11.6% - 14-16 any - 5+M OK, 4M only if balanced 1♥ - frequency 9.2% - 4♥, 10-16 - 11-13 if balanced - frequent canape 1♠ - frequency 6.9% - 4♠, 10-16 - 11-13 if balanced - never 4♠4♥ - frequent canape 1NT - frequency 7.9% - 10-13 balanced, no 4M - 5♥(332) OK 2♣ - frequency 1.6% - 6+♣ or 5♣ with shortness, 10-13 - usually without 4M 2♦ - frequency 1.9% - 6+♦ or 5♦ with shortness, 10-13 - usually without 4M 2♥ - frequency 2.8% - 6+♥ or 5♥ with shortness, 10-13 - no 4♠ 2♠ - frequency 2.8% - 6+♠ or 5♠ with shortness, 10-13 - no 4♥ 2NT - frequency 0.6% - 5♠5♥ / 6♠4♥ / 4♠6♥, 10-13 What do you think? It seems like a well balanced and fairly aggressive system. It opens 53.4% of hands on the 1st and 2nd level. Is the 1♦ opening a big leak?

01) 4S 02) 4S 03) Pass 04) Dbl 05) Pass 06) Dbl 07) 5D 08) Dbl 09) Dbl 10) 4S 11) Pass 12) 4S 13) Pass 14) Pass 15) 4S 16) Pass 17) 4S 18) Pass 19) Dbl 20) 4S 21) Dbl 22) 4S 23) Dbl

With ♥xxx and a passed partner, this is an auto-pass. If I'm not capable of passing in tempo, then I double (correcting 3!C to 3!D). The only bid that is really horrible is 3!D.

South 100%. 4♥ leads nowhere. This hand is an auto RKCB. A minimal North didn't know what was going on so he opted for a careful pass (not that a raise would have been an error).

When opponents bid a thin game like this one, one of them is usually short in diamonds. I would lead a spade, but certainly would never bid like that. Slow in, slower out! Wtf!?!