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!?!

Bidding anything in this spot with three small hearts is very bad. Whoever thinks 3♦ is better than pass is far from being an expert. What is the plan? Partner passes, the "expert" bids 3♦ and feels unlucky when the dummy tables: 4324, or 4315, or 3316, or 4216, or anything similar? Come on. I mean - even putting an 8-carder fit on the 3rd level would be bad. But this is pure randomizing, since the diamond fit may easily be 7-carder or even 6-carder. As to the BIT, I think there's a bigger probability it was caused with some 13-15 4216 hand than a 12-14 4135/3136 hand. The latter would double 2♥ easily, knowing partner will never pass it out. But that is pretty much player depending. I could understand if director disallows a successful 3♦ balancing.

1 3 4 5 2

If you were North I have to congratulate you. You bid in perfect accordance to your nick. Well done. I mean - 3♠!?! Come on. Drke drke džo bridge all around. In constructive auctions level three is best used for patterning out (with the possibility of using 3M as advanced cuebid, if such player afterwards pulls out 3NT to 4m - but this is a treatment I wouldn't suggest since it can create more problems than benefits). Here, North's shape was pretty well defined with 3♣ (4144, maybe 4054), therefore, there's no need to use the confusing (because it cannot carry pattern-out connotations anymore) 3♠ bid which could and should hardly be read as a pure slammish cue. The vital question for South is, how strong North's hand is. North indeed has a fairly good hand which fits perfectly into partners forward going 3♦. To avoid any misunderstanding, North should bid a clear and robust 4♣ over 3♦: showing direction, showing cue, probably denying 4054 (4♥ with that?) on the way. Afterwards not finding 6♦ is almost impossible, whatever you do.

Responder's raise doesn't promise values, I never said that, it promises a healthy bidding idea. Essentially there are two types of hands with whom you should raise to 3♥: 1) Competitive hands - you have enough fit/values to think it is possible our side could make 3♥ where they have 2♠; 2) Mediocre preemptive hands - your have enough fit/weakness to think you will obstruct them in their game/slem bidding without exposing yourself to a risk of a big loss. Important thing to know is - the hands which are (mostly) not included in the simple raise are: I) Weak fitting hands with high ODR - they raise to 4♥; II) Mediocre passive hands with values - they pass, because we are not sure neither if 3♥ would make nor if they can make 2♠. It is a matter of statistics that case 1) is much more frequent than case 2). This is why we should adjust our bidding methods. With a forcing 4♦ you won't achieve much anyway, because: a) You will rarely have a decent slammish hand in this spot (and even if you will, you can find other methods to find a profitable sequence); b) You can double if you have 2♠ and 6+♦ and you want to find the proper game. I just wanted to point out that responder's range isn't continuous in this spot, because I've got a feeling many players overlooked this essential fact.

Do you play: 1♣ pass 1NT pass pass 2♣ as clubs?

When partner overcalls 1♠ he may have as little as 8 HCP. Therefore, for bidding a new suit on the 3rd level (...and avoid an unnecessary disaster...) we should hold some constructive hand - say, 10 HCP with 6-carder suit. If partner has (minimum) 8, RHO (minimum) 6, we have 10, this leaves 16 for opener. Saying that opener with the 11-16 range is unlimited is very strange, especially if we know that half of times he will be in the 12-13 range. However, what really matters are not the constraints of some specific hand but the combined range of both opponents' hands which are pretty much well defined after two opponents' bids. If opponents are decent they cannot have any hand for raising 2♥-(2♠) to 3♥. What will our advancing 4m bid mean should be a function of opponents' range and not of a nebulous believing that this sequence is analogous to (2♥) 2♠ (pass) 3m, or (3♥) 3♠ (pass) 4m where it is obvious that playing 3m/4m as forcing is sound and probably the best option.

And what is the standard for 3♦ in: (1♥)-1♠-(2♥)-3♦?

Yes, this is the expert forum; it is safe to assume correct ranges, frequencies and strategies then. What does responder hold for 2♥-(2♠)-3♥? Most often he will have a hand with 3♥ strong enough to compete and rarely a pile of crap wanting to obstruct our game/slam bidding (I say rarely because with most obstructive hands he will have a hand good enough to blast a more obstructive 4♥ with it). Against this range (which is most profitable for our opponents and that's why we should assume it) how on Earth is it even possible to think a forcing 4m is the best treatment to declare it - standard?!? If you want to wait 100 hands to get a slammish minor suited hand in this spot - do it, but keep in mind you will be forced to many fishy bids and outcomes when you'll get some hand like: ♠xx ♥x ♦KQT9xxx ♣KJx which will unfortunately happen quite often (at least in comparison to bombastic slammish hands which you think you can start to bid accurately on the 4th level) if opponents aren't absurd.

(1) No. You have a 2♦ bid. (2) Pass.

Anything but 3♦ is absurd.