irg20

I do not understand why in the auction 1D p 1S p, 1NT p ? responder should do anything other than pass. Bidding 3D (even assuming that this didn't show INV+ values) just lets the cat out of the bag as far at the initial psyche is concerned and an initial 3D bid would have been much more effective. As indicated this lousy result could have been avoided by partnership agreements. Rider: As tactical efforts I am all in favour of psychic bids. People, however, should appreciate the nature of the great service provided by bridgebase. Though this should not be the case in a quality event (which this final presumably was) there will be many unpractised partnership of a variety of experience levels. Good players who would usually believe in relatively frequent psyching (a practice that as far as I am aware is not prevalent among top quality players) should possibly tone down their tendencies in environments where they meet many unpractised partnerships. If they do not then we are in a situation akin to shooting fish in a barrel with unusual destructive 2 level openings and we will scare people away. By all means strive to be a big fish in a big pond but don't forget that big fish in small ponds just drown. (Aside: as far as I am aware using methods to control psychic bidding is against the Laws of the game, what ethical/legal considerations are there for people playing Policlub and other slightly artificial systems when it comes to psyching) Ian

Thanks for the simulation results Luis. Please do post the conditions used. I shall assume that the simulations used some double dummy engine. I would like to make a couple of observations. If we admit that opener might only hold 3 card support in a hand of 14-15 points then we presumably want to offer a choice of games via some invitational sequence. No sequence is perfect and some of the time when game is available we won't reach it and some of the time we will reach the wrong game. Furthermore the percentage of around 36% for vul game bidding at IMPs assumes that when we are in a game that doesn't make we are playing undoubled and we do not suffer multi-trick sets. In this auction both players are heavily limited (responder by his initial pass and opener by his failure to bid more than 2H) and games that do not make will suffer multi-tricks sets more frequently and these sets will be doubled more often than they otherwise might be. These factors skew the percentages required to bid game to a significant extent. As an aside I note that Bridge World reports seem to increasingly mention the 'game on every hand' mentality that some world-class players adopt. The success or otherwise of this pressure-cooker style of bridge for both top-level declarers and defenders seems to be a great bridge imponderable. At top levels of competition is the gap between the standard of declarer play and defence greater or less than the gap found at lower levels. My feeling is that the gap should be less and so the 'game on every hand' mentality is more effective in the expert game only to the extent that the gap between opening leads and declarer play may be fairly constant over a variety of levels of bridge. As I say, all rather imponderable, and as I am far from even considering my any sort of expert it would be interesting to hear what the expert community has to say. So, anyone with consistent last 16 team experience in NABC nationals, (selected) international representative honours in zonal events and of course world champions please speak up! Best wishes to all, Ian

Thanks for posting this interesting problem. First up I will assume that, if I were an unpassed hand then partner would be entitled to raise 1H to 2H with only 3 card support. I appreciate that this might not be everone's cup of tea but will carry on regardless. The fact that I am a passed hand significantly alters the conditions of the auction as, with a minimum hand that is uninterested in game opposite a passed partner and 3 or 4 card H support then opener could have passed. Cases where opener only has 3 card support seem to be limited to hands where opener is 1345, 1336 and 3316 (or possibly 4315 with a spade suit partner didn't want to mention) and has about 14-15 points. Thus opener will deliver 4 card support more often than when I am an unpassed hand. In spite of all this talking up of openers hand I would tend to pass: My trump suit is of poor quality and I only have 4 trumps (possessing a 5th trump would make invitational action significantly safer I think). I have a small singleton in parters suit (and though he might be relatively short in C he is still more likely to have values there than elsewhere). Assuming we have a relatively aggressive style of inviting, partner has already passed up the opportunity to bid an invitational 3D or 3H, so he cannot have such a great hand. This suggest that the hand is a relatively poor 9 count. For this reason I too would bid 1D initially as I don't really want partner raising 1H with three card support and feel that the uncontested auction p - 1C - 1D - 1H - 2H is a better description of what I have than p - 1C - 1H - 2H - any bid).

If I am 2-4-0-6 and we end up in an unplayable spot I will claim a misdeal. If the spot is playable then the opponents will claim a misdeal I imagine. The remaining problem that needs to be addressed by your methods is how to show a club one suiter with short diamonds. I would like to be able to bid 6C with this handtype. I do not want to have to double and hope partner doesn't pass it. I think fit non jumps are all very well in situations originally advocated by R&S, namely when I am a passed hand and so logically cannot possess a one-suited hand (as I would have preempted earlier on in the auction). At this high level I do not see to have that luxury. I'l try a concrete suggestion: Ian's scheme 5NT = two places to play (pd bids lowest acceptable suit). Over this there is some luxury as if pd bid 6C (which he will a lot of the time I guess) I can bid 5D or 5H which can be used to distinguish either shape or strength with support for both majors). 6C = C one suiter If pd has solid spades then he is still entitled to bid them. In such situations whether I have two small or a void is going to be of no little relevance. 6D = ? (can only really be based on spades or hearts and spades) Ben's Scheme 5NT = GSF 6C = C+S. Here we seem to be arguing that a partial spade fit is sufficient. R&S in the auction p p 1H 2S, 3C suggest that x3y5 is pretty much the minimum typical S and C length. I'm not convinced that now we're at the 6 level (for a club bid) we should let in 2 card S suits in on our definition of what is acceptable tolerance. 6D =? (we agree here!?)

Sorry to reiterate this point but 5NT=choice of slams seems to cover hands that want to offer partner a choice of spades or clubs at the 6 level and is consistent with the notion that a choice of strains is more important than a choice of levels in these situations. Perhaps this issue of 5NT and bids of opponents suits at the 6 level would make a fruitful seperate posting. (If pass is forcing the of course you have all these delayed 5NT and cuebid auctions aswell). Ian

At high levels it seems that double can do double can do one of to things: Encourage partner to bid on with a normal hand in the context of the auction, or Encourage partner to pass with a normal hand in the context of the auction. These definitions are vague, as they must be. There is not enough room to bid hands scientifically and judgement (and luck) will play a large part. To my mind at this level card showing and penalty double are more or less the the same things if by card showing we mean optional (or any of a number of other potentially confusing terms). I believe that the issue of whether pass should be forcing or not is seperate. (Related to this issue is that of whether pass and pull partner's double is strong or weak). This sets up six possible situations: Pass nonforcing: x=TO or x=pen (R&S suggests 1st situation is preferable) Pass forcing: x=TO (pass and pull strong or weak) or x=pen (pass and pull strong or weak) - I believe that R&S suggest that any of these methods is reasonable though I don't have the book to hand. To my mind bidding 6C never guarantees spade tolerance. If I have spade tolerance then I bid either double (if it encourages partner to bid on), 5S (no other suit worth mentioning), 5NT (choice of slam, could be any two of three suits I guess) or 6D (?). I think these last two bids probably need defining more closely in terms of what they show and deny (any suggestions!). In the problem at hand I bid 6C (unless I'm a forcing pass with pass and pull weak man, in which case I pass and pull to 6C).

Irrespective of rdbl showing 10+ points I think that good, shapely hands should start by bidding suits. Using methods in which 2 level bids are NF you are forced to rdbl with INV+ and either one or both minors (unless 3m = INV with long minor). This situation is slightly different as INV+ spade one or two-suiters can start by bidding spades. As for the auction at hand the 5161 hand poses certain problems. Bid 1S (F1) and hear partner bid 2C, risk overbidding the hand to get diamonds in or alternatively bid 2D (NF) and potentially miss something when partner passes it. I would go with 1S as this seem to keep most options open, pd can raise with 3 card support to 2S, bid 1NT (now 2D=NF) or as pointed out bid the worst-case 2C. Thus bids 1H, 1S and 2D all seem reasonable. After 2D I would tend to play: 2S = NF 2NT = 5S, bal, INV 3C = FSF 3D = INV, NF 3H = 3H, 5S, INV 3S = 6+S, INV 3NT = 5S, 2-H, NF 4C = splinter, D support 4D = F (not sure of this one though seems a bit much to play as just INV with no interest in 3NT) In this framework it seems that the 5161 hand needs to decide whether to bid 3D, 4C, 4D or 5D. 3D is a bit of a misdescription (sounds like 5S and 4D only) and I think 4C and 4D show stronger hands (if these hands are excluded from an initial rdbl). This leaves 5D as my bid of choice - with three As and the K of pds first bid suit opener might find a raise to 6D. My preferred auction: 1H x 1S p 2D p 5D p 6D In the original auction over 4D by responder I certainly think opener is worth a cue bid of 4S (4H being NF), after that slam shouldn't be a problem. Transfers over 1Mx are indeed a preferrable method but if natural methods are to be employed then playing as without the double below 2M seems reasonable (1x and 2x = F1) as there is no pressure to bid with weakish misfitting hands.