BillPatch

akwoo made the observation that 3H was forcing and a choice of games. 4H was still "the best bid." The fact that the robot failed to make the proper simulation to determine the merit of 3H when 3NT will never make on a fit-less sub minimum and still made "the best bid" is a credit to the programmers.

While I appear to have the minimum values to bid♣ now, the fifth round stopper in spades as the only card outside of clubs suggests that I show less of a hand outside of clubs, so I show a one suiter in clubs by bidding 2♣ on the first round over the spade overcall. Otherwise, even if partner does have a pure strong NT, we could be forced to declare at too high a level without adequate direction.

Ran another sim. on Jack5. Instead of attempting to use British Acol with weak NT, the wrong range for opening the 5 card major I set the system to 2/1 with correct range to rebid one no trump over the response of 1 ♠ to 1♥. Opening one heart using these more standard methods produced disaster. 30 negative scores and 20 positive, and only three heart games. Jack attempted over a dozen 3NT contracts without success. The warts seem worse in Standard, K/S or 2/1.

Ran a sim using Jack5. sample size 50. of South hand from original post. 30 plus and 20 minus scores resulted from letting Jack bid hands with a fourth hand opening of 1 ♥. 9 successful heart games were made. Opponents made 2 games and found 2 500 point penalties. Perhaps the hand is a fourth hand reopener despite the warts.

ceteris paribus we prefer the major over the minor for the scoring bonus normally only when the major/ minor bot scores the contract with the same number of tricks. In the specific case of the hand posted there is usually a handling charge to ruff in the opener's short major if that be possible. Also the ruff will be in the stronger hand, where it is less likely to be needed. On the contrary if we play in a 4 3 diamond fit we know that the club doubleton can often enable us to set up a ruffing trick. If opener preferences back to spades it is unlikely a heart ruff will be useful, The reason I did not make the 11 hcp 2 NT try with the given hand was that I expect partner to accept with 13.00 hcp, so that the light invitation was as stated odds against compared to the 2 diamond leave-in.

I agree with those that I have a fair hand, but not quite a game invitation on the first round opposisite a yulnerable WNT. Because I am short in clubs, I can use stayman to explore a fit. Since I have both majors, there is roughly 52% chance that an 8 card major fit exists, and I would in that case invite. Otherwise, 2/3 of openener's 2 diamond rebids are real suitsand even if that fails my hnd will often have a natural trump ruffing trick in diamonds. I plan to pass 2 diamonds. If I had a similar hand with the minors reversed. I would have bid staymen, but if made the slightly marginal game invitation with that hand. With a weaker hand with the minors reversed I would rebid the popular 2 hearts non-forcing treatment.

Bird Anthias in their opus on leading against suit contracts divides leads against suit slams into two divisions, those where the opponents were able to investigate whether an AK off the top might be available an auctions that the opponents might lack inclination to determine this. Responder forced to slam after suit agreement at two level. So, unless responder is a neophyte, he could have cuebid if there were two quick diamond losers. The safest lead is a low trump(spade) stands out.

Since the proposed line of play requires a lead out of turn we should not accept it, by Ockham's rule we can assume it did not happen that way. Even if one doesn't see that advancer was on lead in 4 hearts; the coloring in the heading over his hand indicates that he is on play.

I'll rebid 3♦. Game must at least be percentage at this vulnerability, and this shows my general strength and let's partner suggest a contract.

3♥, right strength

In American bidding responder has virtually denied spades. 90% because they actively use the Smolen convention to describe that hand, and the other 10% who also eschew a transfer with such hand but would show the longer major on the second round after Stayman. Are the opponents in this match assumed to be immune from such Americanisms?

4♠

no comment

Kaplan and Sheinwold were not exaggerating when they decreed that the range of the 1NT response to one of a minor is 5 to 8 points to avoid the problem posed by the OP in Kaplan-Seinwold.

The bidding rules for both SAYC and BWS say opener always rebids the major: SAYC has no checkback convention, BWS New Minor Forcing. Kantar preaches the NT rebid, whether or not a conventional check back is present.

IMHO this is good procedure at matchpoints. "Matchpoints. An interesting game. Sometimes it's even like bridge." Robert Wolff.

I am a bridge player and not a resulted. Woolsey says that the right play is the one that works on hat particular deal, but even he would say that a better bridge player tries to find the correct bridge play, the one that produces the highest expected value according to the scoring method in use. At Matchpoints the safe low heart is a stand out, Playing IMPs I would expect two other options to score almost as highly. The 8 of hearts lead also attacks the long suit, but invites partner to try to return into my other suit with strength. The Q of spades may allow us to run the suit when partner has Kxxx(x)(x). It may give up a trick, but sets up partner's long suit. My expected ratings at IMPs are fourth best heart 10, 8 hearts 8, Q spades 7, third best heart 6. Of course if the SOTM requires a home run the Q of spades sticks out as clearly best.

Look, I don't like the probable 5-2 club fit, but at least we're not doubled. If partner may feel that 8 high cards with one probably wasted in spades and a q-fifth suit are enough to jump in clubs, why go up a level? Even if he is a sound bidder, why go up a level on a misfit hand? That lesson suitable for beginners, though the off-shape double all of us here have approved probably is not a suitable example hand there.

I don't understand why we should make the assumption that only lho can guard the diamonds. LHO led the ♦After the first trick we can eliminate 6-0 breaks in either direction. With a 3-3 break neither defender defends diamonds, so we also eliminate that. A lead of a singleton against a NT slam may be rare enough to be disregarded. 4-2 splits are another matter. While one generally prefers to lead from length from a weak holding against a NT slam, one usually wants to conceal non-establishable honors. Since the ten from ten-x would drop on the next round, and it gives count info, it would always be led from this holding if this suit is led. From Txxx a spot card would always be let. From T9xx and JTxx a low spot also is mandatory. From T98x against lower contracts it would be apropos to lead high and normally an honest T, to give more info to partner, and to prepare for a possible unblock to prevent a throw-in. Since a high card lead will more likely come from three it is less likely usable info for him than declarer, who can usually count his potential tricks easily and know which tricks matter. At a NT slam it is less likely that a throw-in on a ten high suit matters. From the JT9x and JT8x a low lead may give up a trick to a low card, and the ten false card is frequent. Even among the most random false carders, restricted choice limits T98x and JT9x leaders to 1/3, and JT8x to 1/2 of the high honor leads. A priori there are 4 possible holdings of the T and one lower card, from which we would expect a ten lead 100%. 4*46.88/30 = 6.25% There are 2 possible holdings of from T98x, 1 possible JT98, 2 JT9X, and 2 JT8X. 7 possible but restricted choice lowers the relative chance of the 10 leads to 2.58 cases. 2.25*46.88/30 = 4.03% There are 4 possible 5-1 holdings 2 JT98x 1 JT9xx 1 JT8xx but restricted choice reduces this to 1.33 5-1 cases. 1.33*18.75/12= 2.08% A priori given a Ten lead and non-J from 3rd hand 6.25/6.11 1.023/1 in favor of RHO being the stopper in diamonds Since the sequence leads are more attractive relative to T-x leads we do not believe that the actual odds are close to the a priori odds, so we know that LHO probably holds the stopper by odds of 2 or 3 to 1. I doubt that adopting the squeeze technique optimized for RHO never holding the stopper will be optimal for the actual case.

I am not certain I should trust my partner. Perhaps with his heart void he has figured the hearts will run(the finesse would have been onside if necessary)and wonder if a double would only drive the opponents to a making 6NT. Perhaps I should signal high on the heart lead. I don't want to make the position obvious if declarer still has a losing play when there isn't a heart ruff. Since opener has 3 rather than 0 key cards, and the key card held by responder is usually in his long trump suit; I expect 95% of the time it will be obvious to partner which non-trump A I might have.

In one version of 2/1 GF(presumably Max Hardy's)this is true. In Bridge World Standard, which is consensus based on polling, this is not true. A purist might say that BWS, which provides that 2/1 is not a gf with a minor rebid and that 2 clubs over one diamond does not promise more than a rebid, is not 2/1 GF. But unless someone else comes out with a cleaner or more recent poll, I think the BWS polls are our best indication of how the general population of 2/1 GFers treat this auction and should be in BBO's and Bridge Winner's default systems. Comments?

At matchpoints the answer is easy. I attempt to cash the A of diamonds. Otherwise, declare may draw trump and discard diamonds on the long heart suit to make the overtrick. Will try a low heart at imps, may work on declarer's communications.

Another good 6 point hand with a good, though directional stopper in spades. because it is harder to bid constructively after responding at the 2 level showing 0-bad 10, the normal range of the 1NT response on this auction is 6-10 hcp according to Lawrence. I think this partially shown advancer's hand qualifies, but it is close. I would insist on 13 cards in the hand.

It may be way off, but at least it's a better idea than showing the fit at the three level and tentatively giving partner the captaincy over the club save by limiting my hand byraising to the three level on a hand where it appears the opening side may be headed for game. Maybe I'm resulting horribly, but nobody has said that favorable was a bad vulnerability for a save. For me, your example hand is an WTP 1NT response, not that it matters. Partner has shown a possible Yarborough hand and denied good spades and a fair 6+ hcp with a good stopper in spades with a balanced hand by choosing 2 clubs rather than 1 NT. Since he has length in clubs, it is likely he has some of his strength there.

Bergen himself offers at least one exception to using Bergen points for game evaluation. When you have a minimum opener, and partner shows a limit raise in your major, and you have a singleton or void, always bid the game, as hrothgar says.