nigel_k

Based on a sample of 5852 hands and assuming the 5422 hand is declarer in spades or hearts and the 2344 hand is declarer in NT, I get the following percentage chances of making each contract: 1H 97.64 1S 97.47 1N 93.68 2H 82.57 2S 82.38 2N 69.51 3H 45.27 3S 44.84 3N 28.52 4S 11.12 4H 11.06 The expected tricks as a % are: Notrump 4 0.05 5 0.65 6 5.62 7 24.16 8 40.99 9 22.76 10 5.52 11 0.22 12 0.02 Spades 5 0.14 6 2.39 7 15.09 8 37.54 9 33.71 10 10.51 11 0.60 12 0.02 Hearts 5 0.26 6 2.10 7 15.07 8 37.30 9 34.21 10 9.98 11 1.03 12 0.05 An overall average of 7.970 tricks in NT, 8.363 in spades and 8.374 in hearts. If you have a teams match where one side always plays 2NT and the other always plays 3H, the side playing 2NT will average a gain of 1.28 IMPS per board which is a lot on a partscore hand. At pairs it is closer though. The percentage of each denomination being the highest scoring is: NT 44.69 S 42.02 H 42.26 It adds up to more than 100% because hearts and spades may tie or they all make an equal number of undertricks. This does assume you always stop at a makeable level though. The real best denomination will probably be the lowest one your system enables you to actually play in. The usual caveats abut double dummy analysis apply. Declarer'a advantage is greater in NT than in a suit. I suspect DD favours a 4-3 over a 5-2 as well because you can draw trumps when they break and not when they don't. The following is the raw data. The columns are: #tricks in NT #tricks in spades #tricks in hearts #frequency So you can load this into a spreadsheet and play with it if you want. 8,8,8,595 8,9,9,590 7,8,8,494 9,9,9,426 8,9,8,264 8,8,9,242 7,7,7,195 9,10,10,152 8,7,8,151 9,8,9,147 7,8,7,144 9,9,8,137 7,9,9,136 9,8,8,131 8,7,7,130 8,8,7,121 10,10,10,116 7,7,8,115 7,8,9,110 9,10,9,110 6,8,8,93 8,9,10,87 6,7,7,85 9,9,10,83 7,9,8,74 8,10,10,59 8,10,9,51 10,10,9,50 10,9,9,47 7,6,7,36 6,8,7,32 6,7,8,29 9,7,8,28 7,7,6,26 10,9,10,26 9,7,7,22 9,8,7,22 8,6,7,21 7,9,10,20 9,10,11,19 10,9,8,18 7,6,6,17 5,7,7,16 6,7,6,16 6,9,9,16 8,10,11,16 9,7,9,16 6,6,6,13 8,7,6,13 6,8,9,12 8,9,7,12 10,8,9,12 6,6,7,10 6,9,8,10 8,6,6,10 9,9,7,10 8,7,9,9 10,10,11,9 7,10,9,8 9,11,10,8 10,8,8,8 7,9,7,7 7,10,10,7 8,6,8,7 7,7,9,6 10,11,10,6 5,6,6,5 5,8,7,5 7,8,6,5 8,8,10,5 8,10,8,5 10,10,8,5 10,11,11,5 7,8,10,4 8,8,6,4 10,7,9,4 11,11,11,4 5,7,6,3 6,7,5,3 9,6,7,3 9,6,8,3 9,9,11,3 9,11,11,3 10,7,8,3 10,8,10,3 11,10,10,3 5,6,5,2 5,7,8,2 5,8,8,2 6,6,5,2 6,6,8,2 6,8,6,2 7,5,7,2 7,6,8,2 7,7,5,2 7,10,8,2 9,7,6,2 10,7,7,2 10,8,7,2 10,11,9,2 10,11,12,2 11,9,9,2 11,11,10,2 4,6,5,1 4,7,7,1 4,7,8,1 5,5,5,1 5,8,6,1 5,9,10,1 6,5,5,1 6,7,9,1 6,9,7,1 6,9,10,1 7,5,6,1 7,6,5,1 8,5,6,1 8,5,7,1 8,6,5,1 8,6,9,1 8,7,5,1 8,9,11,1 8,11,9,1 9,5,6,1 9,6,6,1 9,7,10,1 9,8,6,1 9,10,7,1 9,10,8,1 9,11,9,1 10,6,6,1 10,6,8,1 10,9,7,1 11,11,9,1 11,12,12,1 12,10,9,1

5♥. Give them the last guess. Slam is possible but I think it is unlikely and 4♠ is too encouraging and will lead to partner bidding six when we should be defending 5♠.

I agree with jdonn though I prefer 4♦ as pass or correct. In addition to protecting tenaces, it makes the unknown hand declarer, denies LHO a second chance to call and can be used if you happen to have a hand that wants to play either 4♦ or 5♣. On the actual hand, you wouldn't expect to make and the likelihood of them making 4♥ is not great enough that you feel happy passing and conceding a number of 50s. Though 4♦ probably won't make either. If it was IMPs I would pass nonvul and might consider passing all vul as well.

I would definitely play penalty doubles if they open a weak NT in third seat and wouldn't differentiate between their 1st and 2nd seat weak NT because those two situations aren't noticeably different. At matchpoints I like Lionel, DONT or other non-penalty doubles because you really want to compete and it's hard to get a good result defending 1NT undoubled unless they are vulnerable and you beat them two tricks. Playing penalty doubles when they are vul and Lionel when they are not could be an option though. However you are giving up more than just doubling them for penalties by doing this. You also make it harder to bid constructively with a good hand. Against a weak NT you have a game often enough that this is a problem. Therefore at IMPS I prefer a penalty double. Incidentally I learned Lionel from Lionel Wright himself back in 1989 and not long after he invented it.

North 100%. South should usually raise with four but 1NT is OK with better than minimum and a good heart stop. North should pull to 2♦. It looks wrong to rebid a five card suit but surely it's the percentage action here. Of course partner could be 3325 but much more often he'll have diamond support and there will be a club problem. I doubt you can reach 5♦ though.

A. Double. You have to act with shortness in the opponents suit and you have close to a classic takeout double. It could be right to play spades when partner has only three but I doubt it and the double caters better to other possibilities. B. Double. This is a choice between double and 3NT. Since you only have Kx in hearts, RHO can knock out your stopper while retaining an entry even if LHO has only a doubleton. And your tricks are slow. If partner has something like Ax xx Axx AKJxxx you want to be in 3NT but I'd rather double to make sure we reach a 4-4 (or 5-4) spade fit. If partner doesn't have spades and 5 of a minor fails, maybe 3NT will fail as well.

I think it's highly unlikely that E/W will bid as high as 5♥. As the non-offending side they do get the benefit of the doubt but you also expect that after seeing all four hands anything they say will be completely self-serving. I think it is normal to lead a trump against 5♥ so it would be down one. If giving a weighted score I wouldn't give them more than a 20% chance of bidding 5♥ over 4♠. So 20% of the matchpoints they'd get for -200 and 80% of what they got for -620.

1. 4♥. I'd like to do more but there are too many possible losers to go beyond game. The most likely way game fails is if they get ruffs, therefore 4♥ instead of 4♠ as we are likely to have more of them. 2. 6♥. Agree with the people who said keycard over 3N. It would have to be very clearcut for me to show a king when I only have the queen and here it's not. 3. 4♠. I think they make the same number more often than clubs plays two tricks better. 4. 2♦. We are better placed if there is further bidding and it may play better than 1N even if they pass. 5. 4NT. May be wrong but I just hate being pushed around. 6. 3♣. I'm curious about what choice was made at the table leading to this hand being here.

<rant> If you want teams that can play in WBF events with long matches and win them then it makes sense that your players have as much experience as possible with methods that they and their opponents can use in those matches. It would also be good to be consistent with what is played in Europe. So I'd allow brown sticker systems all the time. Two level openings such as Wilkosz are hard enough to play against without deliberately depriving your players of the opportunity to face them. It's unfortunate that the definition of HUM includes some things that are relatively harmless as well as some that require genuine preparation. You could probably ban HUMs as hardly anyone plays them now anyway but it really should be ok to play a strong club with transfer openings and 1S as a catchall, similar to a precision 1D. </rant> To answer your actual question, you need to decide whether you care about things that are 'destructive' or things that are 'confusing' because they're not the same. Probably you are referring to things that require preparation because there is no obvious and near-optimal defence if undiscussed. There aren't that many opening bids because the known suit rule means you can just double for takeout, though there can be problems when their suit may be only 4 cards and you want to bid it naturally. Anything above three spades is unregulated so eg 3NT showing a preempt in 4 of either minor, can be awkward if it catches people unprepared. There a different variations on this. Actions other than opening bids in this category are too numerous to mention, eg what is redouble of a support double or double of a mini-splinter?

12-14 in first and second and 15-17 in third and fourth is pretty good. You get doubled for penalties more when opening 1NT weak in third, and you also lose the benefit of the 1NT-3NT sequence which forces opponents to lead blind.

Great problem. I think we want to play (at least) game in partner's longest minor and 5♦ if equal. If we bid 5♦ his minors could be 3-5 and if we bid 4NT he'll usually choose clubs with 4-4. Double and remove 4♣ to 4♦ suggests red suits. I think double and remove 4♣ to 4NT is the best plan. I hope partner will interpret this as clubs with better diamonds. With primary club support we would bid 4♠ or 5♣.

It's not obvious to me that the 4♠ bidder would make a responsive double with only four spades. They might play that you bid spades with four and double suggests less than four spades and probably both minors. The director would need to ask about that. However it would be hard to persuade me that pass is a logical alternative. On the issue of whether pass is suggested by hesitation, I still have no idea what is the correct approach in a situation where a hesitation may suggest either a minimum or maximum or possibly something else. This thread and the other similar one have not made it any clearer. My instinct is to not adjust in these situations. It's fairly common that people choose actions I consider unusual, especially in competitive bidding situations, when there is clearly no UI. So I'd be reluctant to conclude that UI must have been a factor if the given hand chose a pass here. If they chose to bid, I can't imagine adjusting back to 4S.

Why? Partner can have a decent hand without great spades when he bids 2♠ over 2♥ so there could be ample values for game even though you couldn't open and/or 2♠ may be a terrible spot. Eg QJ10xx Kxx Axx Ax opposite x xxx Kxx KQxxxx and both hands could be better than that.

3♥. Double now would not be penalty but I still don't like it with three spades and five hearts. 3♥ suggests a hand pretty close to what I have. I would also play the double of 2♦ as takeout.

I would have bid 2♣ not 4♣ over 1♥. 4♣ is a preempt and suggests a weaker hand than what you have. If you preempt with AQx of opponent's suit plus a void it will always be difficult for partner to make the right choices. Your double is for penalties but, assuming you have a more normal 4♣ bid, it is only a suggestion as you shouldn't preempt in the first place with a good defensive hand. On the actual hand, your double is ok. Partner certainly should not expect the contract to go down but might consider passing in case they can make six - conceding 1050 instead of 1430. However I would bid 6♣ with your partner's hand after the double.

It seems to me this falls into the category of regulating psyches, rather than simply regulating agreements. You just don't want people opening a strong artificial 2♣ (whether Benji or Std) on weak hands because it is too easy for them to avoid subequent problems and too hard for the opponents to deal with. If so, wouldn't it be simpler to just say it is illegal to open 2♣ without meeting the stated requirements, regardless of partnership agreement? It would also be much easier to police and would catch the fairly common case of people who decide to take advantage of their one or two chances to open a weak hand before it becomes an implicit agreement.

Ok maybe I wasn't clear the first time. Of course partner can have a singleton or four trumps but he will then have fewer high cards. Obviously it won't be anything like 10 HCP with four card support and a singleton - the playing strength should be roughly equal to a 7-10 HCP 4432 hand. I could come up with a set of realistic rules for what constitutes a constructive raise, but it would be much more complicated, would not significantly affect the overall number of tricks we expect to take, and no doubt people would still find fault with it. The possible 1.35 IMPs per board vul is not 'partner using their judgment'. It is partner choosing the best double dummy action - assuming he knows all the opponents cards. All I'm suggesting is that the location of the missing 26 cards will have a bigger effect on how many tricks we take than the holding partner has in the suit where me make our game try. I do agree with Cherdanno's point that you won't necessarily get to play 2♠ when that is all you can make. Of course you may get doubled when you bid a no play 4♠ as well. It's hard to say how much these factors affects the result. Unless you have a way to assess the costs and benefits of a game try over all the hands partner might hold, instead of just writing down a couple of suitable ones, I think you should be more open to using simulations in this kind of situation.

I ran a simulation based on the following assumptions: 1. partner has three card support and 7-10 HCP 2. partner has 4333, 4432 or 5332 shape 3. partner will accept an invite with 9-10 HCP and signoff with 7-8 HCP (see below) 4. they pass throughout 5. we make the double dummy number of tricks 6. the other table plays in 2S The results are as follows: 976 times partner is minimum and you make less than 8 tricks (lose 3 vul or 2 non vul) 2658 times partner is minimum and you make exactly 8 tricks (lose 6 vul or 5 non vul) 3066 times partner is minimum and you make exactly 9 tricks (break even) 1234 times partner is minimum and you make 10 or more tricks (break even) 236 times partner is maximum and you make less than 8 tricks (lose 5 vul or 3 non vul) 1316 times partner is maximum and you make exactly 8 tricks (lose 7 vul or 5 non vul) 3097 times partner is maximum and you make exactly 9 tricks (lose 6 vul or 5 non vul) 3260 times partner is maximum and you make 10 or more tricks (gain 10 vul or 6 non vul) Total of 15843 hands This works out to an expected loss of 0.96 IMPs per board vulnerable and 1.16 not vulnerable. Now obviously the third assumption is unrealistic because partner will decide better than that based on our choice of game try. Suppose we assume partner always decides correctly, i.e. bids game whenever there are 10 tricks and signs off otherwise. Then we have an expected gain of 1.35 IMPs per board vulnerable and 0.55 IMPs per board non vul. But I think this assumption is (much) less realistic than my one. Making a specific game try rather than a general try would normally be a fairly small improvement - not enough to turn around a loss of this size. There may be small change by varying the other assumptions as well, but I doubt it would pay to make a game try vulnerable and am almost certain you should pass if not vulnerable.

We need more information. 1. Tricks won under what conditions? 2. What do you mean by 'succeeds 1/3 as 21 and 1/2 as 23'

The playing strength is fine but you would really like to have more defence. If partner has to make a decision about passing, doubling, or bidding on, he is quite likely to get it wrong when you have this hand. If you can open at the two level showing a 2 suiter that would definitely be the best choice. If you pass, you can bid Michaels next time but it's always good to get in first. I would probably open 1♠ but don't like it much.

Health care is a scarce resource. There is no country where people get all the health care they want, whether it is provided by the private sector or by a state monopoly. This is all about how we decide who gets care, how much they get, and who pays. I never said anything about no rules and regulations. Political power corrupts more severely than money, and does not allow a choice as there is only one government at a time and it is funded by force. It is the socialists who fail to account for human nature as has been tragically seen all around the world. As for ideology, it is a matter of sad reality for me as I live in a country with a state monopoly provider. If I need an operation I will wait months or even years for it. If my cat needs an operation she can have it next week since veterinarians are run privately.

Let's go back to basics here. There are two (non-violent) ways to apportion scare resources: pricing and rationing. With pricing, the goods and services that cost the most to produce will have the highest prices. Each individual consumer decides what they do and do not wish to buy, essentially using a cost/benefit analysis. They can make choices that reflect their personal preferences - one consumer may choose to forgo health care and take a big overseas trip instead, and another may economise on just about everything in order to pay for a comprehensive health care package. With rationing, a central decision maker, not the consumer, decides how much each person gets and how much they pay. The decision maker may be a politician or bureaucrat or a combination of employer and insurer as exists to some extent in the present system. If a politician is the decision maker, they will decide in a way that avoids negative media coverage that could hurt their chances of reelection. If a company decides, they will do so in a way calculated to maximise their profits. I do not trust politicans or corporations anywhere near enough to support a rationing approach. If people object to the pricing approach on the grounds that some people are too poor to afford healthcare, then the solution is a direct cash transfer from rich to poor, not a government takeover of the health system. But any successful solution must involve people receiving different levels of care depending on their individual choices and priorities. That is the only way to ensure that resources are put into providing services that people want, and not wasted on providing services that people would prefer to do without if the costs were taken into account.

Just about all experts play a reverse as forcing so there's no need to jump reverse with a strong hand. But I think bidding 3♦ with 19 is just old-fashioned, not flatout wrong as some have suggested. The real problem is South's 3NT bid. Either 3♥ or 3♠ fourth suit forcing is much better. North should bid 4♥ next in either case.

Obviously it's fine to make the bid tactically but I don't think a 13 count with a stiff king is within the range that opponents are reasonably entitled to expect if partner just says 'weak jump overcall', so if he knows you sometimes do this he needs to offer a more complete description. If he said 5-12 and you had 13 with a stiff king that would be fine. Or he could just say 'wider range on both ends' as Justin suggested.

Would partner lead his highest or second-highest from small cards?