BillPatch

Double. Since a normalish 2/1 implies a strong NT it is unlikely we are in the range where we can bid 3NT on power. If we fit spades, our shortness in clubs and partner's red suit shortage may provide several fit points towards game, plus if partner is unbalanced he is more likely to have the high cards for the jump in spades which would mean a playable, profitable game. As normal at IMPs, game prospects are more important than part-scores.

I agree for this problem. Still it is not an easy IMPs problem. My head still hurts. As to MPs being Bridge, I like this quote from Bridge World, "Interesting game, matchpoints. Sometimes it is almost like bridge."

Also if partner rebids 2 of a red suit, rebidding 2 NT shows something like this. Note that since you are playing 2/1, your 2 club rebid would often be a 3 card suit.

I would lead the SQ. Perko90's reasons apply to choosing a spade. The honor lead can work when declarer's side has all three outstanding honors but the ten lies in a hand with a doubleton. Bird-Anthias report extensively on similar hands where only one of the two hands rates to be shorter than 4 in the suit. and the honor leads work better. In the current auction it is probable that both opponents are relatively short in ♠, the odds are even better that the honor from the two honor sequence wins.

Yes, the double dummy analyzer often selects A's without K's for leads against 3NT, and often partner's signal and the sight of dummy still provide nearly as difficult a problem single dummy at trick two as the initial lead problem. Leading the A of ♦ allows the opening leader the chance to attack either long suit on next round at the cost of possibly establishing possible strength in the opening NT bidder's probable diamond suit. The A of ♥ also allows opening leader to chose the best continuation according to dummy and signal, but it gives up a tempo in establishing dummy's known long suit, so it rates to be weaker than the ♦ A. Since, assuming a rational bidder, dummy does not rate to have a 4 card ♠ because he avoided Stayman, and opener might prefer to open with one of a suit to show his spades at the one level even with the balanced hand(the tendency would be more pronounced with less balanced distributions.) If the opponents bid as badly as the actual opponents your superior talent will beat them over 95% of the time without changing your tactics as long as you avoid unforced errors. Assuming that partner, who made a TO double emphasizing the three unbid suits, has instead the super strong hand, after the opponents show great strength by bidding to 3NT, is surely an unforced error. That client had better have a big wallet!

I simulated the hand 200 times setting the leading hand as J732 A2 A732 Q32, the opener hand as balanced or semi-balanced with suit lengths from 2 to 5 and 16 to 17 hcp, the responder as 0-3 spades. 5 hearts. and 0-4 in the minors. no limits on the other defending hand. J dealing out the hands to a pbn file. Lead Captain was used to analyze the leads double dummy using Hoagland's Double Dummy Analyzer and gather stats. Results: S 2,3 sets 10.5% defensive tricks 3.19 S 7 sets 10.5% defensive tricks 3.18 S J sets 8.5% defensive tricks 3.07 D A sets 8.0% defensive tricks 3.05 H A sets 6.5% defensive tricks 3.04 D 2,3 sets 6.0% defensive tricks 3.05 D 7 sets 6.0% defensive tricks 3.04 H 2 sets 6.0% defensive tricks 2.83 C 2,3 sets 5.5% defensive tricks 2.84 C Q sets 5.5% defensive tricks 2.80 Analysis: Low spade best at both IMPS sets contract most often, and at MPs has the greatest average defensive tricks. Next are J of S and A of D at IMPS. The other cards bunch at 6.5% to 5.5% sets at iMPS with the low H and all C lagging at MPS.

Edited; The best line. I miscalculated.

Sorry, the General chart in the ACBL only allows NT overcalls that show multiple suits below 4NT if at least one of the suits is specified. Of course ACBL regs only apply to Anglo-North America and Mexico.

Yes, and getting the opponents to the three level is ten times as important as directing the lead.

I don't know which is sillier: Advertising on a public forum for the bridge world to look up your games with experienced partners made a real blooper in a post mortem, or suggesting that an advanced bridge player would suggest a minor contract with 3♦. A good player might fear playing with you more than with Mrs. Bennett after the Bennett murder. Ridicule is more to be feared than death.

I'll restate that, "A simple query for an explanation would not be UI, since under the alert process, it is authorized as expected and protected speech."

4♠ rates to be a better contract than the better minor at the 5 level. Even if we play the Lawrence treatment that 4 ♠ is not uncommon, and partner does have 4♠, 4♠ still might be the better contract.

The ♦10 is only useful if partner has abnormal length or a combination of high cards associated with abnormal length. Since the mode for the length of the opener's diamond suit is 4, it is very likely that the diamond T is wasted. Since the mode for opener's spade length is 3, and that T is in a longer suit, it is more likely that the ♠10 is better.

If 2NT were alertable, queries about it would not be UI. Since no bids were marked alertable, we may presume that everything is natural, although partner's double suggests that the 3♠ cue bid might be psychic.

From the lack of a "transfer" note, we can presume that when we check the convention card it will say 3♥ is natural. Wit my 3 and opener's normal minimum of 2 there are 8 unknown ♠, presumably partner has some good ones.

1 ♠. About 65% that we have an 8 card ♠ fit. We also may find a fit if partner has 10 hcp and 5 card non-pointed suit. Only a slight underdog if partner plays it in 1 NT.

Another plausibility is that responder has a wjs in ♠, a hopefully obsolete treatment from the original system book on Kaplan-Sheinwold, 1964. Partner could then have a TO double of ♠. KS uses strong jump shifts.

Bad bridge is a pass or double with a break in tempo(fast or slow), taking into account the delay due to the skip bid warning(made or implied). Equally bad is to obviously look at watch, or for opponents to skip the warning then claim damage when you try to keep your delay in tempo. I am not assuming "True Confessions."

I simulated the hand for 100 sample sets of the auction to advancer's bid-choice of 3 nt or 4 ♦. I let Jack choose the bids of the preemptor, his partner, and the takeout doubler. The preempts were standard, almost all 7 card in ♥ with a few 8's. 5 to 9 hcp with multiple honors in trumps. The minimum takeout doubles were weak, one 11 hcp, about 6 12 hcp, with the preponderance of the others 13 to 15 hcp. 3 NT was makeable slightly over 50%, but 2 of three times doubler asked for aces and bid the NT and bid 6 NT it went down. Another making slam was bid in ♠. The results were 3NT 51.5%, 4♦ 49.5%, still too close to call.

Let's start by assuming we only know about the ♦ suit. Assuming standard leads, mud, and 2nd best from 4 cards W possible diamonds holdings are kt5432, k95432, kt543, kt542, k9543, k9542, kt54, k954, kt4, k94, k54 with k onside and 9432, t54, 943, 942, 543, 542, 43, 42 and 4 with k offside. 3 6/1 splits 2 on 1 off * 7%/14 6 5/2 splits 4 on 2 off * 17%/56 11 4/3 splits 5 on 6 off * 62%/70 1.00% 0.50% 1.26 0.63 4.43 5.31 __________ 6.69% 6,44% 6.69+6.44= 13.13 6.69/13.13= 51.0%/49.0% in favor of finesse. 51/49=1.04 But we also know that W didn't choose a spade so we reduce our probabilities due to restricted choice. If W had Hxxx or Hxx in both Spades and diamonds he would choose either suit only 50%, similarly if he had only low cards in both suits he would choose either suit 50%. Assuming the spades split 4-4 and only counting akqj as honors there are 32 cases has a 2 or more card sequence, 20 cases of a A with no K, 17 cases of Hxxx or other HHxx, and one txxx. Since W led the 4 of ♦ we deduce that he did not have a spade sequence, we must reduce the diamond % of Hxxx and Hxx leads by 50% * percentage of spade Hxx(x)(x), and the diamond % of x(x)(x)(x) by 50% the percentage of possible spade xxxx leads, It is presumed that the opponents would overcall if they had 5 cards or more with 10 hcps. 6.69% *( 1- 1/2 (17/50))= 5.55% 6.44% * (1- 1/2 (1/50)= 6.38% finesse now on 5.55/11.93= 46.5+ or 47% So we would not take it. odds 46.5/ 53.5 = .87 Next we can compare the a priori odds based on the cards with our knowledge of our customers. If we know W is a good student of US Bridge World, we can deduce that he prefers Kxx(x)(x) lead to quack xx(x)(x) leads. If they are European we will go with the odds that they would follow Bird-Anthias, and avoid higher Hxx(x)(x) leads. Otherwise, we will weigh our bets based on probability the a priori case that he will not care.

A preliminary sim of 10 on Jack of the 4 choices revealed that 3 NT outperformed the penalty pass 7 to 3, tied 4♦ 5 to 5, led 3♠ 5 to 4. So it seems that this is a real problem at MPs. Will Perform main sim of 3NT vs 4♦ since they are the co-leaders,

According to the ACBL Official Encyclopedia 1984 Benjamin has 2 ♣ for the 8+ trick hand and 2 ♦ for the strong two hand. The original poster makes no reference to Benjamin, Benji, or reverse Benjamin, so I think we can presume he is playing an older version of the strong, artificial, strong two common to SA, Acol, and several continental European systems. Playing Benjamin, although two clubs is not an overbid, it is probably a mistake to treat this as a suit hand.,

if partner likes a red suit, not only will I superaccept, I'll wag my tail.

FWIW Kaplan-Rubens 9(knr) rates this as 21.60. The less complex Danny Kleinman count is a bad 22. Figures from the Goldsmith site.

I also play a 20-21 2NT. If partner transfers to ♠ he is not even getting a superaccept.