foo

Thanks mikeh for illustrating my point so well. Nice hand BTW! B)

Hmm, how about me then :) ? I make around 30 mistakes / 20 boards, what is my ranking :)? 7+: newbie <_< Not sure why we select you to represent Denmark <_< Roland Don't know why either, Roland. But seriously, IMO is bridge a game of oodles of mistakes. Part of the problem is that the definition of "mistake" is dependent on the expected caliber of player. The novice forgets the meanings of bids, but sometimes so does the expert if it's a very rarely used convention. (But the expert will never forget an auction during the play.) The novice doesn't signal correctly. Sometimes so does the expert, but the bad signal is far more subtle in the case of the expert's mistake. The novice doesn't play a card combination correctly. The expert takes a line of play that turns out to be based on a logic mistake in assuming the layout of the board. The novice doesn't play 2nd hand low or 3rd hand high. The expert makes a mistake and doesn't play 2nd high high or 3rd hand low when the situation called for it. Etc. It isn't just how =many= mistake you make that determines your skill level, it's what =kind= of mistakes you make. I suspect most of the mistakes made by players representing their countries are subtle enough that the vast majority of players could not figure out they were mistakes it they were kibbing ATT ITRW (rather than Vugraph where everything is usually double dummy.) Side note: A pet peeve of mine is "analysts" who think that because something is obvious double dummy on Vugraph it should be obvious single dummy ATT. Even worse are the "analysts" who Get It Wrong even though they are looking at it Double Dummy. *sigh*

GOP's 4C preempt should show one of 8C221, 8C311, or 8C320 It's a safe assumption you have no ♣ losers and that GOP has hard values outside of ♣'s. Pard also rates to have 2-3 Cover cards and at least one stiff or void. Especially having preempted 4C at Unfavorable opposite an unpassed hand. Now let's see how the hands could fit together: AJT_Kxx_KJTx is essentially Cxx_Cxx_Cxxx in the other 3 suits where "C" denotes a Cover card and "x" is a likely loser. Cxx_Cxx_Cxxx : (xx_xx_x, xx_x_xx, x_xx_xx, etc) => only 2 losers IOW, if GOP has =nothing= outside ♣'s We rate to make 5C ...and pard rates highly to have 2 cover cards. Bid 6C.

UDCA stands for "Upside Down Count and Attitude" It is only for count and attitude situations. It does not apply to discarding situations. Agreements about discarding methods are properly s separate discussion.

I think 2♠ rates to be better ESPECIALLY opposite a singleton spade. That gives you several more tricks than your hand was supplying in notrump. I agree with josh's reasoning here. 2S. Your hand is much better for ♠'s than NT. ...and Opener should not raise unless they have significant extras. All of: 1= 3 card support 2= a ruffing value. Strongly preferred to be a stiff or void. and 3= 14 excellent or 15 reasonable HCP.

Emphasis on this. 1D-(2H)-X -(pa); 3C-(pa)-3H!-(pa); 3S-(pass)-?? S will play N to be =3154 or =3244 w/o a ♥ stop on this auction. Holding GF values, and given a= the known ruffing value in the N hand and b= that there are very few wasted values in ♥'s between NS, S can now bid the Moysian 4S game with reasonable chances that it will make. Best of all, the overcaller is on lead in a board where their partner rates to be nearly busted: ♠9xx ♥xx ♦AKQx ♣QJxx (Declarer) + ♠KQJT ♥Jxx ♦Txx ♣AKx (Dummy) It's a reasonable bet that the vast majority, if not all, of the SA, HA, HK, and HQ are in E's hand. Even a good start for the defense such as HA, HK, SA, Sx does not look like it rates to set 4S. The defence starting off by playing more than 2 rounds of ♥'s does not help them much because Declarer can ruff ♥'s in the short hand.

What she said. In general, I dislike distorting my shape with hands that have slam interest. I have a lot of respect for the space saving argument, but I've found that it's usually easier to make GOP understand what is in my hand if I keep things as simple and as accurate as possible. (unless playing in a =very= mature expert partnership with extensive system notes and excellent ATT memory. The are obviously not the norm.)

IMHO both Josh and Ken are making valid points here about the value of shape and point location here. But the important issue is "what is your expected score for each choice?" Ken's point about values being more useful behind the 1N bidder holds for defense as well. It is obviously easier most of the time to take 6 tricks rather than 9. The other thing I do not buy is that Responder will not X you. This is the safest partscore auction in Bridge for Responder to X you on. Responder knows Their side's assets better after a 1N opening than in any other auction. If they suspect We are in a misfit or that We have less than 23 playing points between Us, they are far more likely to penalty X here than any other partscore auction. At any form of scoring. I'll see if I can make a chart for the expected outcomes and their odds. If someone more mathematically inclined could do so, I'd appreciate it?

Since we are talking about 1N response structures: 2C= Stayman 2D+ H Xfer 2H+ S Xfer 2S! 55 D+C =either interested in slam or weak= (Opener bids their better minor or 2N if they can't choose. If Opener bids a minor, Responder passes with a weak hand or bids Major suit fragment with a strong hand. Else if Opener bids 2N, Responder chooses a minor with a weak hand or bids Major suit fragment with a strong hand.) This response can also be used with a slam interested 64 or 46 in D+C. 2N= Natural 3m= To Play 3M= GF 4cM; 1-OM; 44, 53, or 54 in D+C 3N= To Play 4C+ South African Texas Xfer =to ♥'s= 4D+ South African Texas Xfer =to ♠'s= 4M= To Play The above works reasonably well over either a Strong or a Weak NT.

I can only tell you what the normal agreement is in all my partnerships: In a 2/1 auction, Opener has enough extras to bid his shape naturally or make the stronger NT rebid if they have enough extras that they can expect Us to have 5 level safety. Playing Inv+ 2/1's, that's a 5- loser hand or 18+ balanced. Playng GF 2/1's, that's a 6- loser hand or ~16+ balanced. All hands weaker than this can a= bid their shape naturally as long as they do not reverse or go past 2N, or b= rebid their suit, or c= rebid NT in the agreed weakest way.

Danny Kleinman wrote an excellent book called _The NT Zone_. In it there is a good discussion on what hands to downgrade into or below your 1N opening range. It mirrored my thoughts and experiences very well on this. Yes, there are definitely hands I downgrade to below my 1N range as well as hands that have more HCP than my 1N range that I downgrade into 1N openings. (There are also hands I upgrade into or out of my 1N range.) This applies whether I am playing a strong or weak NT. It does not apply to the Kamikaze AKA "mini" NT. Hands with higher than expected loser count for their HCP; or lower than expected Quick Tricks / Controls for the HCP; or that have flawed holdings like K, QJ, Qx, Jxx; or that have too many points in short suits rather than long suits (AK_xxxxxx_QJx_QJx) simply do not rate to be as useful for declaring as their HCP would usually imply.

Over 1N= 12-14, there actually is a fairly strong majority belief that transfers are nowhere near as useful as they are opposite a strong 1N opening. The only time they have greater utility than say, Double Barrelled (AKA "Two Way") Stayman, is when 1N= 12-14 is opened in 3rd or 4th. As for uses for the 2N response to 1N, Grant Baze, Mike Lawrence, Bob Hamman, and a few others of that caliber have all said that the natural invitation, while rare, is useful and better than playing a structure where responder is using Stayman on all invites. Giving information away for free about the closed hand can't be good. Especially when Responder doesn't care as much about the information as the defense (eg- when Responder does not have a 4cM but must use Stayman to Invite).

The goal of Bridge is to score well. To do that, you have to play the odds and either try to declare or try to defend based on which is more likely to get you a better score. This hand is a flawed 9 loser 12 count that may be worth as little as a 9 count if neither the DQ nor the DJ can take a trick. Robson and Segel would say this hand has a low ODR. IOW, it's a =defensive= hand. I'd pass this in 1st or 2nd playing any natural system with either a weak or strong NT. Or even playing Precision. Nor is this a good hand to open in 3rd or 4th as explained by all the reasons already mentioned by Frances.

The hand in question reprinted for convenience ♠AKJ7 ♥AQ875 ♦Q8 ♣84 My humble opinions: A= ML knows more about high level Bridge than 99.99+% of players B= switch the ♦'s and ♣'s, and I understand ML's POV more C= (The important one) I think it depends on whether you are playing 2/1 GF or not. Playing 2/1 GF, the given hand has significant enough extras that a slam is far more possible than it would be playing Standard. IMHO, if it is likely you have 5 level safety, you have enough extras to bid your shape naturally. Since a Standard 2/1 is going to tend to have 8- losers, Opener needs 5-losers to have such safety playing Standard. OTOH, playing 2/1 GF a 2/1 is going to tend to have 7- losers, which means opener only needs 6- losers to have likely 5 level safety. The points here are that 1= "significant extras" is context dependent 2= the theme of "significant extras" for a 2/1 auction is slam exploration.

Another way, 1D-1H;2S-3C;4D-4S;5D-6D Yes, I know Opener's JS into KQx will not be to everyone's liking. But it does solve the problem if playing standard methods.

1C-1S;2H-3D!;4C-4D;4H-etc I don't know it I'll get to 7C, but I'll certainly get to 6C.

The important point here is that after 1C-1S;2H-2N , We don't have 20 opposite 6 working HCP. ♠A76 ♥AKQ8 ♦K ♣KJ973 Responder is showing 7- HCP and has not shown any reason for you to think your DK is working. You essentially have 17 working HCP, not 20.

Here's the fundamental trade-off: If you use 4SF for Inv+ hands when you have enough room, your game bidding will be more accurate but slam bidding will suffer. The opposite is true if all 4SF bids as GF. You get to use the sequences less, but when you do it conserves space for slam exploration. An example of the potentially bad sequences are 1H-1S;2C-2D! vs 1H-1S;2C-2N If the 1st is GF, then an Inv responder must use the 2nd whether they have 4??? or 5???. Which means when opener passes with a minimum We may play 2N with a 3:5 ♠ fit. OTOH, if the 1st sequences is Inv+, We will more often get to our ♠ fit, and more ofen bid games based on that fit, but opener must jump rebid 3N with extras (...and what does opener do with a Max w/o support or stops in the 4th suit for NT?). This potentially cramps slam exploration auctions. Particularly playing MPs instead of IMPs, better game bidding at the expense of slam bidding is worth it because MPs is a frequency game rather than a expected pay-off game. (exploration of the implications of the other sequences left as an exercise for the reader. :) )

Since you know as soon as RHO opens that you are only going to get one shot at communicating with partner and that it is unlikely you are going to want to play anywhere except ♥'s or NT, save yourself from later problems by overcalling 1H on the first round: (1C)-1H-?? Your hand is now off your chest.

You don't think W having 12 playing points rather than 9-11 and 7 losers rather than 8 should be considered extras here? Particularly given that W passed and then cue bid on a hand that you and others would directly overcall with at the first legal opportunity? Are you saying if west had the king of clubs less it would still be worth a cuebid? And the fact that some would have overcalled before isn't relevant, it just means the hand has a good suit not that the hand is some super maximum pass. If east is a very sound overcaller, maybe I can buy west should bid again. Opposite everyone I play with and against though, it would be suicide. 1= No. Just that there are some 9 HCP hands that are worth a cue bid. 2= W has 12 Dummy points, not 10-11. W has 7 losers, not 8. IOW, W has a game =force= opposite a sound overcaller. Even opposite a mainstream style overcaller, IMHO W has significant enough extras on this auction that E deserves to know about them. Some form of game try / invite is the way to let E in on the news. E may or may not bid game. They do not have to. That's what "invite" means after all. Make E's DK be the DA and you always want to be in game. Move the DK into just about any other suit or have the DA be on-side and you always want to be in game. It is literally that close. If we are not making game tries when We have 24 HCP, 14 losers, and a 9 card fit between Us, we are not bidding aggressively enough.

For those that think Responder should upgrade their 7 count to a Limit Raise because of the 5th trump despite the 5422 shape, 1= Check out _I Fought The Law_ . The theory there is solid. 2= Do you raise to 4M with a 6- HCP 5M332 or 5M422 as a matter of course? How have your results been when you do? The point here is that there is a reason most upgrades or preemptive raises require a side stiff or void rather than a doubleton as their shortness.

You don't think W having 12 playing points rather than 9-11 and 7 losers rather than 8 should be considered extras here? Particularly given that W passed and then cue bid on a hand that you and others would directly overcall with at the first legal opportunity?

Ken makes an excellent point. As Fred has noted in other places previously, sometimes one uses the Game Try structure to make "advance slam tries". That opener was looking for slam rather than simply game usually becomes apparent when opener ignores responder's sign off.

I actually caught someone slotting once. I believe in Innocent Until Proven Guilty so I set a trap in a long match for a player who had an unproven rep for it. I on purpose sorted my cards one way until I was fairly sure they had seen the pattern and then switched the sort on a hand were I knew it would make a major difference if the accused was actually basing their play on slotting. He fell for it, and I submitted the evidence to the local bridge authorities. He was given a justly earned "vacation" from tournament bridge. People =should= be considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty. I even suggested that investigations were irrevocably tainted by bias, and therefore the charges should be dropped, when that principle was violated. But "proof" at something like cheating at cards sometimes has to be based on statistical evidence or singular incidents because, unlike murder or robbery, the crime is essentially empheral in nature: Unless every nuance of a session ATT is properly and permanently recorded, there is no solid lasting evidence like a body or marked bills or ...

I happen to think R&S did not cheat. However, I assure you this is a =minority= opinion among experts and regulating authorities. Alan Truscott and Dorothy (Hayden) Truscott pretty much hammered at Reese and Schapiro's reputations for their entire lives. Long after neither Terrence nor Boris would make any comment, the Truscott's were happy to give their opinion on the issue. When only one side of a confilict is doing all the talking... (This is particularly "amusing" given that the reason the 1960's pair of Dorothy and BJ Becker stopped was that they were told to never play as partners ever again due to some "irregularities" in that partnership, yet public awareness of that cheating case is almost nil.) (Nor is that the only cheating case that most of the world does not know enough of. Victor Mitchell has probably spun in his grave on more than one occasion due to the antics of a particular one of his proteg'e's when said proteg'e was younger...) As for skill levels of Reese and Shapiro; Reese was definitely the theorist, but Boris Schapiro was one of the best money bridge players in the world at one point. Both Boris's ATT card sense and his table feel were legends. And yes, I definitely know of sessions Boris played in his 90's with partners or opponents good enough to know what was going on ATT where Boris executed Stepping Stones and other high level defensive or play techniques at speeds comparable to Rodwell or Helgamo. I know some of the people who were ATT on some of those occasions.