BillPatch

kgr Your statements about my research are accurate except for your final conclusion. The hands that you provide in your OP were that were superior in overall strength to the average strenght of 12 hcp hands; they each contain 2 1/2 quick tricks. Only about 15% of 12 hcp bridge contain 2 1/2 or 3 QT. A wide majority of the weaker 12 hcp with doublton spades will provide negative returns at both MPs and IMPS if opened in 4th hand. Normally, the rule of 15 works well with most borderline hands. Thus, your intial hypothesis that reopening in general on any 12 hcp hand with a doubleton spade is false, while my study of the example hands you provided show that the subset of 12 hcp hands with a doubleton spade with 2 1/2 QT should be reopened. Edit: My estimate of QT for 12 hcp hands was much too low. 53 1/3% new estimate. 1133est,3/13/ 2014

mike777 maximum passes for Jack versus the J2 432 AQT32 KQ2 fourth hand opener. Q4 AJ76 KJ94 T65 1ST SEAT AT7 KJ65 974 K87 3RD K43 AQT98 J5 J95 2ND QT98 JT KJ75 A94 2ND AK763 K86 9 8763 1ST KQ875 J98 9 A875 1ST A943 AT6 K654 54 2ND In summarry I believe that Jack will open on any hand with 12 HCP including a K.

Ran a double dummy simulation on Jack to clarify optimal passout strategy including the first two hands from OP. Jack set for IMPS. Since a sample of 20 showed that hand 1 was clearly IMP and MP positive I weakened it by replacing the diamond 10 with a 3 to produce a hand as close to breakeven as possible. New hand J2 432 AQ32 KQ32 Opening bid set at 1 diamond versus pass. null hypothesis = no positive effect 51 positive scores/110. MP average 46.4%. net -15imps average -.136imps per board hand 1 x's filled with lowest possible spots J2 432 AQT2 KQ32 30 POSITIVE SCORES/50. MP average 60.0%. net 43 imps gives a positive .86imps per board hand 2 J2 432 AQT32 KQ2 26 positive scores/50. MP average 52.0%. net 15 imps gives a positive .30 imps per board I let Jack make all the bridge decisions in all simulations except the choice of opening bid. Opposite hand 2 Jack made 3 negative doubles, made opener bid the three card heart suit and was raised to three--down one 2 diamonds would make 2 each time, would have made results more positive.

The Rule of 15 was originally 14, as usually in the earlier point count era openers in 2nd seat were sounder. Source ACBL Encclopedia of Bridge, 7th edition.

Par on this hand (and most hands W would have for leaping michaels versus this E hand) would be 6 ♠.

The first two hands contain 3 flaws--fails rule of 15, doubleton J, and only 5 cards in majors, so I pass. Other two hands have only one flaw, so I open. With J tripleton in hearts instead of J doubleton ♠, I open.

I like: s w n e p p 1nt p 2♦p 2♥ p 3nt ppp E will lead 10 of ♠, standard leads. Even at World champ level Jack will not find the double dummy play of the q♣ return that would set contract 2 tricks. expected single dummy result +460 nvul game 3nt N.

Bid 2♣. Bid game if partner shows 3 card limit raise or bids 2NT. Pass 2♦, 2♥ or 3♣ rebids. Over the unusual 2S, bid NT game. With 3.5 QT this is quite an excellent minimum 4=5=2=2.

Perhaps Jimmy Cayne is so well known that everyone else didn't need to google jec for his team? But who are the Yellows?

With most reasonable ten HCP counts with a singleton or void in hearts I make the first-round takeout double over 1♥.

David Lawrence, in his work on overcalls, stressed safe suits and dangerous suits to enter the auction, and he repeated it in the classic work The Complete Book on Balancing. In this auction responder has denied a ♠ suit and did not raise. Therefore it is probable he has at least eight cards in the minors. Therefore to N ♠ is safe and ♣ is dangerous. A balance in a safe suit with 4 cards is much safer than the next higher level with 5. So you should bid 2♠ on a sane day.

Traditionally, South's double in the second round would be for penalties as it is a direct double not at his first chance to double the suit, so I disagree about the second round double. On this auction, though trapping may be out of style, takeout on the second round is more dangerous than first, so I would keep the old agreement.

Not that anybody asked, with either opening I pass with the S hand.

Since poster could have colored the diagram to show all other vulnerability combinations I will assume he meant to indicate all white to indicate both NV, which is the most favorable case for bidding. If we can make the same number of tricks declaring as defending we will win the hand each time we make 6 tricks -50 1nt versus -80 their 1♠. 7 tricks +90 versus +50, 8 tricks +120 versus +100, 9 tricks(unlikely) a tie at +150. If wee have adopted the balancing style of Mike Lawrence a 1 NT balance of the ♠ opener shows a good 11 to a 16, 1NT is the proper strength bid for this 17 with the dual defects of the singleton honor in the worst possible suit, and the long 3 spade suit which will often produce fewer than one trick if opener fails to broach the suit. A double begging partner to bid at the two level will too often lead to a negative score.

So we are to refrain from doubling unless slam is 70% on a random hand; I thought the norm was the HCP of a strong NT. I am assume that if you have the cards for a strong try, you will usually be able to defend for approx. the same level of score, only a slam will produce sizable gains over 70%. Or a double game swing. I also disagree that the statistical analysis of the model is a correct approximation of the real world problem. If we pass preemptor's partner has a good knowledge of the opening bid, will often bid the good slams. The imp value of 5 ♦making 6 is about the same as bidding and making slam. For those hands, no negative imo ev for our double. Also, if we pass balancer will frequently be able to make a double, producing no positive imp ev for our bid, as the contract will still be the same. I think adding the analysis of decision rules for these two actions will provide a better estimate of the imp ev of the double for the given hand. I think that the modeling these two effects would produce Once we know whether this hand is + imp ev, we can test similar hands to refine a model of minimum +ev hands with similar offensive values, so partner can accurate know what his expectations of bidding over the double. Finally we will test the model by comparing auctions comparing our new ranges versus the assumed standard ranges bidding random hands after the given 5 ♦ opener.

If partner believes that you will only double with the current standard for a double of a four level or five of minor double(the HCP of a strong NT opener), he will overbid. If he knows that your minimum is that of the OP(2 QT, 10 hcp outside of diamonds, at least 3 cards in each major) partner will probably be able to bid more good games overall at the 5 level than using the old agreement due to greater frequency of minimum doubles. With a fair 5 card major partner would be able to bid game on a semi-balanced hand with 20 hcp, with the same major and a small singleton 13 hcp outside of diamonds, with a void in diamonds approx. 11 hcp outside of diamonds. I base the 13 hcp outside od diamonds on Sam Stayman's dictate in "Do You Play Stayman? c. 1963 book that with 23 hcp between the other three suits an a singleton wth sufficient trumps you should have a good play for holding the trick loss outside of the singleton suit to one trick. Assuming another trick lost in the simgleton, 5 of a major is gin.

A more substantial clue is that partner failed to double the 2♥ bid. Would double demand a ♥ lead, or as suggested by Kantar, Bergen and Lawrence in 5 card major land, ask for another lead?. A heart is presumably a poorer lead if a double would suggest a heart lead.

I presume they noticed that their inferior client partners were playing the contract. and adjusted for that. The typical poster on BBO has more trust in their normal partners.

Are we to assume "systems off" and the 2 ♥ response implied 4♠, or transfers so that it implied 5? Are these OPP good enough to make a decision to play NT with 4-4 ♠ fit? Anyway, I will lead partner's suit.

While 2♦ may be "far better" than 2♠, it is insufficient, so the director might disapprove.

I lead a low heart per agreement. Per David Bird, most Europeans prefer 2nd best from 4 small, most Americans 4th best. Partner is much more likely to have more spades than hearts and thus a spade lead will slightly more likely give up the location of his potential spade Q. So, a spade lead is riskier. Still not active.

The ♠10 is the clear choice in all four auctions at IMPs, total points, rubber, BAM, as well as MPs.

Wrong guess. The percentage play for the diamond ruff is to lead toward the Jx in dummy immediately. Unless W plays A, continue playing a high honor the next round of diamonds. The third round lead a low diamond for a ruff. If W fails to follow this round win by ruff or overruff. Otherwise, the percentage play is to ruff low, which wins when ♦ split 3-4 or 4-3(62 % a priori), and loses when diamonds split 5w-2e, 1/2 of 30.5%, loses 20%. Ruffing high loses when trumps split 4-1, 28%.

While I agree that a balanced 8 hcp does not equal a raise of a 15-17 hcp strong NT. West's hand is better than a normal 8hcp. It has a 5 card suit headed by 2 honors and a nine, plus 1 and 1/2 quick tricks for entries. The field auction was 1NT (p) 2NT ppp. edit: the knr rating for west's hand is 7.20. The field (and I) also failed to downgrade this hand, too.

At 12.45 knr points, Kaplan would say that that hand was borderline enough that it was not worth one of his vulnerable "weak NT openers." minimum 12.5 knr points in Kaplan's estimation in first and second seat.