nigel_k

Even assuming both opponents have a void, partner is not introducing a suit of AK9xxx in this auction. It's very clear that it's a lead director or maybe a psyche. No way am I bidding ever. If I did have this hand and got accused of fielding or an undisclosed agreement or something, I really hope some of the commenters in this thread would not be on the committee.

I'm not sure what you mean about the heart ten. If it appears from East, then Q10x tripleton is likely. If it appears from West I can throw East in if he has KQ of clubs. 1. If East played ♥10, I'm just going to play him for Q10x 2. If West played heart ten I'll cash spades, discarding a club and a diamond then cross with ♦A. If East has the two top clubs his last four cards will have to be Qx of hearts and KQ of clubs so I throw him in. It is possible that West may falsecard with ♥10 from 10xx and East then reduce to stiff Q. I'll have to congratulate them on their defence in that case. 3. If no heart ten I can still make if West has long hearts and 1097x of clubs. The full layout after one more spade might be: [hv=n=shk9da9cj86&w=sh108d108c1097&e=s7hqdq6ckq5&s=s83hd75ca43]399|300|[/hv] Now I play a spade pitching a diamond, West can afford one club and East the ♥Q. On the next spade West has to keep two clubs else I lead to the jack and have a finesse position against East. So West unguards diamonds. Now I play a diamond to the Ace, ♥K discarding a club then another heart for West to win and just keep whatever suit East discards. If East has the long hearts but no ten drops I don't think there is a line. UPDATE: Actually I can play East for a stiff club honour - don't know why I ruled that out. If West appears in no pain on the fifth spade and/or no ♣9 or 10 appears I probably should just pitch ♥9 and cash ♣A.

Not very promising and will need good things to happen. If the queen of diamonds is singleton this will be very helpful because it gives us three diamond tricks as well as an extra entry so we can make any time East has both major queens. Otherwise I'm just going to rely on dropping the ♠Q. It it does drop, I'll cross with a spade and take the heart finesse and cash the ace. If the ten of hearts appears from West, I'll play East for both top clubs so I can throw him in to give me a heart at the end. Or if East plays an honour on the second heart I'll make if he has Q10x. Otherwise just run spades and maybe West will get into difficulty, e.g. if he has 10xxx of hearts and 1097x of clubs he'll have to abandon diamonds. Then I cross with ♦A, cash ♥K and concede a heart to West, squeezing East in the minors. I thought there might be a guard squeeze involving the ♦9 but I couldn't make it work. Anyway squeezing someone with a loser should be sufficiently unusual to be the answer to an inquiry problem. There are ways to make by taking the spade finesse plus finding doubleton KQ of clubs or stiff honour in East but then you also need to win the first diamond in dummy which gives up too many other chances.

Of course there are many hands where your expectation from playing 2NT is higher than from playing 3NT. But the issue there is whether there are many hands where where your expectation from playing 2NT is higher than from playing either 3NT or 3♣. I think maybe there aren't that many but I could be wrong. A forcing 2NT will be useful on a lot of hands and if responder wants to stop they can still bid 3♣.

Answer hidden:

Yeah I'm sure that's true but I still say it's no more than a 3.0. Basically I unilaterally (and without thinking about it until now) assumed a logarithmic scale not a straight line so out of the total bridge playing population maybe: 1.0 40% would get it right 2.0 8% would get it right 3.0 1.6% would get it right 4.0 0.32% would get it right 5.0 0.064% would get it right I would use the term 'expert' to describe less than 1% of bridge players (so not in the BBO sense of 'expert').

Lol what? You really think you have to use a mixed strategy with this exact hand so that you're not too predictable? How about bidding 5H with this hand as well as x xxxxx xxxx xxx, as well as --- AQxxx Axxx, xxxx, etc etc. It's not like this is the only hand you would ever bid 5H with, and even if it was it's not like you could ever be exploited anyways in reality. If you always bid 5♥ on a hand that is willing to go to 5♥ over 4♠, then when you don't bid 5♥ they know you don't have that hand type and can therefore infer something about their partner's heart holding at least. I've seen a few times on these forums where the bidding has gone something like 2♠-X-3♠-? and the poster will say something like 'we know opponents have nine spades therefore ...'. This kind of reasoning is unsound and ought not to work, but I want to make sure it doesn't work by actually varying how much I bid sometimes. Also on some hands I might not start out intending to go to 5♥ but at the end I decide to do so based on their auction and how confident they seem. I don't want them to know for sure I have a marginal 5♥ bid when that happens. Maybe the fact that it's matchpoints causes me to sort of subconsciously assume that messing with opponents is more likely to work, because in (my) real life that is more true of people I play at matchpoints than at IMPs.

Most people here open 1NT with a five card major so they would always have a maximum of 14 for a 1NT rebid. Anyway your example is too good for a 15-17 1NT opening and is enough to open 1♥ and rebid 2NT over 1♠. But lots of people don't open 1NT with a five card major which creates a real problem if the hand was a bit weaker than your example, e.g. ♠xx ♥KQJxx ♦AQx ♣KJx 'Standard' bidding doesn't really have an answer to this. But more than a 4 point range for 1NT is not really playable so I think this hand cannot rebid 1NT after 1 ♠ response and has to try 2♣ instead, then guess what to do next if partner gives preference to 2♥. Either way, you should assume partner has no more than 14 HCP so passing is best.

We have 'question time' in Parliament in New Zealand. It is not real debate or discussion, instead the opposition ask leading questions of the PM and Cabinet designed to make them look bad and the answers are as brief and useless as the Speaker allows them to get away with. I think if you don't notify the questions in advance, it's much too hard to get a good answer and too easy to design a question to make someone look bad or incompetent when they can't answer. On the other hand, if you do notify the question in advance, why not just do the whole thing in writing and reduce the opportunity for demagoguery as they now won't get to appear on TV?

I pretty much agree with the 5♥ bidders against good opponents. But you don't want to be too predictable here, so against people who I expect to face many times I would try pass or 4♥ sometimes as well just to add variation.

On some of these I am going to need an option that says '2.0 if I analyzed the hand correctly and 4.0 if not'.

If you're giving up a natural 2NT you may as well play transfers so 3♦ is a good raise. It doesn't leave space for a further try but has plenty of other benefits.

I voted 3.0. It may depend on their preempting style to some extent but it looks right to play opener for ♣K almost always. Also, I doubt you are going to keep ahead of Justin by taking the time to write posts like this when he can just respond with a one liner.

trump

I always respond the higher suit the first time in this situation. Since partner has shown length in the majors you're in a similar position to having two five card suits when partner has not shown major length. 'Bid four cards suits upwards' is not applicable here, especially since partner will not bid a four card spade suit over your one heart anyway.

Aren't b and c the same? The only way they can be different is if the the hand is exactly average, which for me anyway is almost never the case. But it may depend on how you evaluate. Maybe there is way to answer this mathematically or using simulation but nothing obvious springs to mind. Count me for b (or c). The desire to avoid playing 2NT means that you might lean towards accepting slightly more than half the time, but still I really doubt it can be optimal to accept with any non-minimum (whatever that means). I'd guess the optimal strategy would lead to accepting on more than 50% of hands and less than 60% of hands.

Maybe too easy. Hidden:

I don't remember the hands where my choice worked, only the ones where it failed. So I expect to feel like I always get it wrong. It becomes a normal state of mind after a while. And somehow the current problem is always a little different from those earlier ones anyway.

1. 4♥. I think this is percentage though 3NT could work on some hands. 2. 3♥. I might bid 3♠ if I could be certain he would pass but prefer 3♥ as it's less encouraging and he may have 6 hearts sometimes. I wouldn't consider passing either one but then I haven't been reading these forums as long as some others.

This is great advice. Some specific things you can do: 1. Read books (and lots of them). Read these forums too. 2. Watch vugraph. 3. Analyze hands double dummy to understand how cards take tricks 4. Develop your bidding judgment, eg by using computer generated hands As far as Zar points are concerned, the important thing to understand is that they represent a (fairly accurate) assessment of the hand's *average* trick taking potential. But the actual tricks taken will also depend on whether you play in your suit, your shortage, or NT or somewhere else, and many other factors. If the hand is a misfit you may not make much even with plenty of Zars in both hands. IMO 4321 is fine for NT bidding with no fit and you make adjustments otherwise. But you don't know whether to make those adjustments at the point where you open the bidding. So it's better to start with 4321 and upgrade later.

It's much too good to pass initially and not nearly good enough to reverse. The only real decision is whether to pass 1NT or rebid 2♦. I would prefer to rebid 2♦ and don't consider it particularly close but plenty of good players would pass.

I'd bid 4♦. I don't have reasons other than the obvious ones for preferring this to 3NT. It just feels right. If you have the agreement that partner will not bid 4♥ over the double unless he has five of them then maybe you can double and convert 4♣ to 4♦. But I wouldn't do it without that specific agreement.

5♠. Good problem. Maybe both contracts are one down but a poor score could be unavoidable in that case anyway as they appear to have made the right decision and other pairs with their cards may not. It certainly looks like 5♠ will be right any time either side can make 11 tricks and that will occur fairly often. I would actually like to sit if partner doubles and bid if he passes but unfortunately don't have that option.

I agree with the 1♥ response and bid 3♦ now. If given the option with the benefit of hindsight, I would not choose to take 1♥ back as game could easily make. Partner would have bid 1♠ on many of the hands where it doesn't. In this sequence I'd prefer not to play 2NT as conventional showing any weak hand. Why risk wrongsiding 3NT when opener's range is defined fairly closely so we don't need to use the space to find out more about strength?

It would be good to know the vulnerability and form of scoring for this. I tend to agree with your partner more than you. Doubling with a five card suit is fine and I would do it on many hands. I wouldn't do it very often with a 5-5 two suiter but your partner has an awkward problem as his spade quality is poor and it doesn't look right to pass either. Sometime the best percentage action is to make a takeout double with a small doubleton and hope that partner doesn't bid that suit, or if he does there is no better spot. So I think double is ok on your partner's hand.