WesleyC

I redid the sim, giving South a hand more consistent with a conservative 5D bid. If South holds only an 8c Diamond suit, they always have a void in a side suit. Holding a 9c diamond suit there is no shape restriction. South always has at least 12 HCP. I maintained the condition that partner holds 11 or less HCP (in order to exclude many of the cases where they will be able to act). In this scenario, the opponents averaged 10.6 tricks in diamonds and we averaged 9.7 tricks in hearts. This significantly INCREASED the value of bidding 5H. Tricks in Hearts 2 -2300 2 3 -2000 1 4 -1700 2 5 -1400 12 6 -1100 53 7 -800 241 8 -500 636 9 -300 1168 10 -50 1345 11 450 1042 12 480 431 13 510 67 Tricks in Diamonds 7 400 9 8 300 157 9 200 518 10 100 1523 11 -600 1770 12 -620 987 13 -640 36 The total point expectancy of bidding 5H compared to defending 5D is +217. Converting to IMPs gives an expectancy of +3.5 IMPs/board. And finally i've uploaded a sample of 100 deals to eyeball. 100 Sample Deals

Cheers Mike. I can understand your skepticism, and you raise many valid points. The fact that i've presented the results as a summary is definitely a limitation because much of the value comes from being able to eyeball a bunch of deals which are consistent with the scenario to get an insight into the kinds of hand shapes and point distributions that are most likely. Trying to decide what constitutes a 5D bid is really difficult, because players styles vary so widely. At these colours my 5D bid would usually be an 84 or a 9 card suit. Even holding a strong 8221 with solid diamonds and outside values, I'd prefer to keep 3NT in the picture. However against opponents that always take saves and don't double enough, I might widen my range considerably. At the end of the day, glancing over a sample of the hands, most looked reasonable for a 5D bid. Finally, i'm pretty sure that increasing the playing strength of the 5D bidder would actually make it MORE likely for bidding to be the winning action. I'll mess around with the conditions a bit and get back to you on this. Defining the hands on which partner will choose to act also depends heavily on your style and agreements. As a counterpoint, i'm guessing that most people play partner's double in this spot as 'values' with a penalty orientation. Given you're always planning to pull the double, this might cause you to reach 5H when you were better off to defending, and not reach 5H when it was the right but partner didn't have enough defense to double. Again glancing over a sample of the hands from part 2 of the sim (where partner holds a maximum of 11 HCP), i'd guess that at least 80% are clear cut passes. However, I think you're missing the main point of the exercise, which is simply to apply some amount of concrete analysis to a decision that would otherwise be purely based on hand-waving arguments.

In the case where Partner holds 11 or fewer HCP, our side makes on average 9.85 tricks in hearts and they make 10.18 tricks in diamonds. Partner average length in hearts is 4.68. East playing Hearts Tricks - Frequency 4 2 5 9 6 48 7 211 8 560 9 1071 10 1403 11 1143 12 466 13 87 South playing Diamonds Tricks - Frequency 6 2 7 23 8 216 9 1047 10 1820 11 1322 12 565 13 5

This is just insane... :(

It feels like a good line to me. Assuming that you decide at trick one to trust the opening lead and go up with the ace, then i think declarer played the best line.

Assuming North's 2H shows values and support, I don't think passing with the South hand is a logical alternative. If anything 3H is an underbid.

My first instinct was the choice between pass/5H is pretty close, but at the colours I would lean towards bidding. However, I was interested enough to run a (very rough) simulation using Thomas Andrew's Deal. Coming up with precise criteria for the various calls was tricky. I removed North hands that wouldn't pass fairly conservatively. I removed East hands that wouldn't respond 1H based on the wrong shape (5/5 majors etc), but didn't add any restriction based on HCP. I gave South 8+ diamonds to at least the KQT but didn't add any other criteria. In order to compare passing vs bidding I took the double dummy result and converted to total points using the following tables: East's tricks in hearts 8 = -500 9 = -300 10 = -50 11 = 450 12 = 480 13 = 510 South's Tricks in diamonds 8 = 300 9 = 200 10 = 100 11 = -600 12 = -620 13 = -640 The tables are deliberately skewed in favour of passing. For example, bidding 5H never gets our our side to slam (looking at the hands 6C was often a safer contract than 5H) and we always gets doubled when going down, but never when making. Both sides also defend with double dummy accuracy which real life results tend to (slightly) favour the declarer. Over 10000 hands, I compared our score defending 5D vs playing 5H. In the first 5000 hands, I didn't limit partner's HCPs at all (and made the assumption they would never reopen). In this case our side did on average 152 Total point better by playing 5H rather than defending 5D. In the next 5000 hands, I limited partner to a maximum of 11 HCP (which very roughly approximate hands that might not reopen). In this case our side did 111 Total points better by playing 5H rather than defending 5D. I wouldn't put much faith in the actual numbers, but the exercise was enough to convince me that bidding 5H is definitely the winning action on this hand.

I'd start with the AK of spades. If trumps break 3/2 (68%), i'll try to ruff a club high. This line fails when the opponent with the remaining trump can ruff the first or second club (a total of 2.9%). If trumps break 4/1 (28%), draw them all (crossing back in hearts) and ruff a diamond before crossing back to dummy with a heart. This fails when the diamonds are 4/1 unless the hand with 4+D also has 4+C (a total of 5.6%). If trumps break 5/0 (4%) then don't buy a lottery ticket. If my calculations are right, this line makes slam about 87.5%

It doesn't directly relate to this discussion, but the idea that advancing a takeout double with a cuebid is 'forcing to suit agreement' isn't really a logical one, especially when 2M is such a desirable contract, and you rarely want to stop in 3M. If you consider a simpler auction like: (1C) X (P) 2C rather than making the cuebid 'forcing to suit agreement' you can play it as 10+ HCP and forcing for one round. With a minimum hand the takeout doubler bids a non forcing new suit at the 2 level. With a minimum cuebid responder can either pass or offer another non forcing new suit at the 2 level. If either partner has extras and wants to force they can either jump, or cuebid opener's suit again at the 3 level.

Admittedly over a short 1C (or a precision 1D) there is sense to sometimes being able to play in the opponents suit. However, giving up on the minor fit and playing in NT instead is often a fine alternative, and there is a lot of value in having simple and unambiguous agreements about the suit that constitutes a cuebid. Certainly in the context of an Intermediate/Advanced discussion, using an advance into the suit that has been takeout doubled ALWAYS be a cuebid feels like the best practical agreement.

When partner makes a 'take-out' double showing shortness in a suit, I don't see much value in having that suit available for advancer to bid naturally.

I've switched to responsive doubles (at the 1 & 2 levels) a couple of years ago based on the advice of international players with far more experienced than myself. They offered 2 main reasons: 1) Psyches in low level auctions like this aren't very damaging to the opponents, but are dangerous and as a result they're extremely rare. With the 2H bid already available to suggest hearts and expose the psyche, you don't also need to use double to show the same hands. 2) Takeout doubles (especially of a 1C/1D openings) have become mandatory on most hands with 13+ HCP and support for the majors. Unusual hand-shapes like 3433 or 4423 that are now being included within the range of doubling hands, can be tricky to untangle using standard methods so it's advantageous to use an advance in a new minor as promising at least a 5c suit and to use a responsive double to take up some of the slack. Obviously once to get to the 3 level and above, these ideas start to break down. Partner's double of a high level opening bid is more likely to have textbook shape and an opponent with a known big fit has more scope to mess around with a new suit psyche. In these circumstances it's definitely more valuable to play the double as 'penalty'. The ideas of using transfer jump responses to advance a t/o double is certainly worth considering, however natural bids by responder do have the advantage of keeping the opening hand on lead so i'm not completely convinced.

As usual there isn't a right or wrong answer and given the variety of suggestions this is clearly an auction worth more discussion! My thoughts on the standard meanings of each advance are: X = Either a) showing hearts or b) responsive depending on your agreements. (I prefer responsive at the 1 & 2 level, showing the suit at 3 level and higher). 1S = 4+S, doesn't promise much in terms of values. 2C = Cuebid, any invitational or better hand without clear direction. 2D = (4)5+D, although a decent suit if only 4D, competitive values. 2H = Natural, showing a good 5+ card heart suit. 2S/3D = Natural, usually a 5+c suit and some values, but less than a serious invitation. Vulnerable at IMPs i'm not stopping short of game on this hand. This makes 2C the only sensible choice, planning to raise partner to game if partner shows 4S and otherwise offer 3NT as an alternative.

NV at IMPs, 3C feels plenty high enough, you have a lot of work to do in 4M.

On the actual hand, I think overcalling 3S on the North cards is suicidal. With only a weak 5c suit (sitting under the strong hand) and length in diamonds, there is a huge risk that you go for a number on a partscore board or end up too high in an unmakeable game. If our side IS making a game, partner needs either diamond shortage or lots of HCP and either way they will stretch to act and get you there. Note also that the north hand isn't a good fit for the South hand at all. Something like [QJTxx QJx xxxx x] which is far weaker (but a much nicer fit) makes game in a major practically 100% while the opponents' 3NT is ALSO 100%.

Playing the method's as described you don't know if partner has real clubs, so you haven't got much choice except to bid a very ugly 3C. Flaws like this in the forcing 1NT structure made me switch to a wide ranging but not 100% forcing 1NT response (passable only on 11-13 Bal). In order to make this work, you need to open 1NT on all semi-balanced 14-16 HCP hands with a 5c major and have an alternative way to deal with invitational single suiters and 3 card limit raises, but I really think that it is a significant improvement. This is especially true if you play matchpoints where giving up the chance to play 1NT is a huge downside.

I would definitely act here and I don't think it's close. As Frances pointed out, at these colours RHO could hold any number of hands to bid 3NT and holding extreme diamond shortage, multiple Aces and good support for both majors it must be us that acts. Players often bias their decisions at unfavorable towards passing because they fear going for 500/800. However holding a strong unbalanced hand like this one, the REAL risk is passing and coming back with +150 or even -430 when our side is cold for +620/650. Finally, even if RHO does have the most scary possible holding (a big balanced hand with mild diamond fit) there's still a decent chance that Diamonds break unfavourably and partner will be able to pass 3NT for penalties. Opposite as little as [Qxx Qxx KJxx xxx] we're probably beating 3NT by a couple of tricks.

agree with mikeh

I don't agree with your analysis of the missed game here. Over 2H, South pretty much has 2 options: a) Treat his hand as a simple overcall and start with 2S. b) Start with a double planning to rebid 3S over 2NT to show a hand too good for a simple overcall. With 18 sharp HCP and a good 5c suit, I would be afraid of missing game opposite 5-7 HCP if I started with a simple overcall, so I'd lean towards plan b. South's choice when the deal was played of starting with double and then accepting the puppet with 3C ISN'T a logical sequence.

As others have mentioned, you might consider adding the Smith Echo to your partnership agreements. Regarding this hand, what is the rush to win the ♠A? Looks better to play the ♠J and at least gather an extra round of information before being on lead.

Although you didn't mention it in your original post, I think you need a suit quality requirement for the 3H bid on the first hand. Assuming you promise decent hearts, then 4H looks automatic.

1. For me, 2S & 3S are both possible and I think it's important to balance your range a bit in this position. I would choose between them based on the opponents. 2. This is a slightly unusual auction because West's 4H bid has taken away partner's ability show a fit below the 5 level. However, the other side of the coin is that we haven't got any extra shape, the minor kings will often be poorly placed and if partner did hold a hand like [Kxxxx xx x Kxxxx] where 5m is a chance to make, they probably would've stretched to bid over 4H themselves. So overall, pass looks clear.

I agree with nige. West's overcall makes them a huge favourite to hold the Ac, so the main advantage is picking it up if it's singleton.

I've messed around with this kind of thing quite a bit and my conclusion is that it's not a crazy idea if you're looking to generate a swing, but the cost of missing your fit if partner has a shapely hand is significant. I would be more likely to do it holding Hearts than holding Spades, and I also don't think that the suit quality matters much. For example, holding Jx AKQTxx Jx Kxx, it's easy to imagine plenty of 9-11 counts for partner where 3NT makes but 4H is down.

You didn't mention the form of scoring in your post. Assuming match-points then passing 1NT on those kind of hands will often be you best chance for a good board, even if it doesn't get you to the technically best contract. Even opposite a weak NT, I think there is a lot of value in playing 4-suit transfers. The main advantages come when you have constructive hands, specifically being able to show a 5M and a second suit or being able to transfer to a minor and show a shortage. I personally play 2C as 'garbage' stayman (with new suits at the 3-level as G/F and 1NT 2C 2M 3oM as G/F with support) and i don't really see the shortcomings. Can someone point out the benefits of 2-way stayman?