foo

Frances, are EW playing 5cM or 4cM? (If EW are playing 5cM, E seems unlikely to hold ♥J87 given the bidding and caliber of the opponents.)

N's hand looks more two suited than any other shape to me, so if I'm sitting N the likely auction is 1S-2N!;4D-?? Now S has a hand evaluation problem that should result in them being excited about Our slam chances. ...4N= 1430 will tell S We have 2 Keycards + the SQ, which should be enough for S to put Us in 6S. ...5S!= Please bid 6S if you have good trumps will also will work.

Justin's post on Restricted Choice should be pinned. Nice job Justin.

do you read what you write? Yep. Those advocating the play for drop against the expert but the play for split honors vs a non expert are basically saying that the expert is predictable enough that you should =trust an expert to always Falsecard=. I've been saying all along that one should not trust an opponent to have Falsecarded without additional evidence to back it up. The numbers involved are single digits of percentages that are very easily tipped in either direction. I've been saying all along that Table Feel is a more reliable indicator of whether a Falsecard has taken place than just this math unless this math is backed by more confirmatory evidence. As an aside, let's say random expert notices that all his opponents automatically play him to Falsecard 100% of the time when a Falsecard situation exists. So he tweaks things so he plays a completely random card from the "mandatory falsecard" holding every time the the situation comes up. Now when the card that hits the table is one that =could= be a Falsecard, the opponents can not so easily assume that the expert has Falsecarded. After all, sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn't... Since this strategy rates to work more often than either never Falsecarding or always Falsecarding, it would seem clear that an expert's defense will indeed evolve in this direction.

Let's try this again. "All the math in the world is not worth an opponent's hitch telling you what they have." IME, Table Feel matters more than math in deciphering what to do vs these potential mandatory Falsecard situations ATT. IOW, I disagree with you that the math generates significant enough numbers that you should be assuming the opponents have Falsecarded unless you have additional evidence to support that hypothesis.

One of the more interesting ideas I saw for this sort of hand was to have 1m-1foo;2m show a min or med hand and 1m-1foo;3m show a Max. This is a variation of the ideas ArtK78 posted of having 3m be Forcing, and appears to have its roots in KS or KS derived systems. The price here is that the widening of the range for the 2m rebid makes it necessary to add some form of range finding checkback after 2m on many hands, which may increase the odds of Us bidding to the 3 level when We might not want to or of playing a low level Moysian rather than NT. The most common such checkbacks I've seen are 1C-1foo;2C-2D! and (taken directly from KS) the use of 1D-1foo;2C! as an artificial bid which may contain a medium or non-maximum 6+D hand as well as other hand types. (1D-1foo;2D shows a minimum when using this method.) If these gadgets are in place, one can rebid 3C confidently on this hand.

North deals and opens 1C ♠AJ74 ♥AJT8 ♦54 ♣A74 + ♠QT965 ♥65 ♦32 ♣QJ92 1C-(1D)-1S-(3D!);3S-(4D)-pa-pa;4S I like Frances' play analysis. I think I feel even more strongly than she does that the bidding here is ludicrous. 1= By traditional standards, S as Responder does not have the strength to bid 1S after 1C-(1D). S's soft values are badly placed given E's (1D) overcall. Every possible hook rates to be wrong. S also has the "death holding" of 2 small ♦'s. Particularly at IMPs, S's hand looks like pass or a Neg X followed by a ♠ bid here. But whatever S does, it should limit their hand and show how weak they are. 2= Given that Responder did bid 1S, traditional standards say Opener is also guilty of overbidding when they bid 3S over (3D!). Yes, N has 4 card ♠ support, but it's in an 8 loser hand with low ODR, badly placed values, and (once again) the "death holding" of 2 small ♦'s. The 3S call by N here puts NS =at IMPs= in an at best 50% 3S contract with only 19 HCP when ~23 HCP is usually needed for a 3 level suit contract to be odds on. 3= The (4D) should be X'd on the actual bidding, but should not be X'd on the actual NS cards. Another risk caused by Responder overbidding their hand on the 1st round. 4= 4S is simply not Bridge. EW should X this so fast that the 4S bidder's head should spin. Unless S can create a play plan that involves repeatedly endplaying E into giving up tricks, NS rates to do very badly in 4SX and will bring back a score to teammates that will be hard (as in "impossible") to justify. If NS do get lucky and make this, they should realize they were just that- lucky, not good, to make 4S. The defense plan should be for EW to put W in whenever they can and then have W put ♠'s, ♥'s, or ♣'s thru N and into S. Something along the lines of (depending on the actual EW hands here) 1= W leads a ♣, E wins or gets a trick set up (if ♣'s split 1:5 and E was allowed to win, E can now give W a ruff) 2= if E is allowed to win and the unlikely ♣ ruff is not possible, E leads a small ♦ for W to win. 3= W now returns a ♥ Etc. If the (1D) bidder has their bid, 4SX should be painful for Declarer if defended correctly.

Unless I am playing rank novices, I always assume an opponent is =capable= of falsecarding. What I don't assume is that the chance of said falsecard is so high that I should automatically change my plans based on that possibility. Probability, not possibility, should dictate the best plan for playing the hand unless some non mathematical factor weighs in. As Dorothy Truscott once said "all the math in the world is not worth an opponent's hitch telling you what they have." So many players "grow up" these days without playing much money bridge that it seems the value of Table Feel and Partnership Management is not nearly as appreciated as it used to be. IME, Table Feel matters more than math in deciphering what to do vs these potential mandatory Falsecard situations ATT. Unfortunately, I do not seem to be making that point as clearly as I wish to.

If you open ♠AQ8642 ♥T9862 ♦9 ♣J you are basically committing yourself to not let Them play the hand below the six (maybe the seven...) level. 5H. In tempo.

I would not say defending with a void is "bad". That's far too rigid for something that is so situation dependent. I'd say defending with a void is often more difficult that defending w/o one, and therefore one should tend to lean away from defense and towards play when you have what could be a good void for play and a bad void for defense. The point I was trying to make is that successful defense, like successful Declarer play, is often hampered if there are communication problems between the two hands. I wish there was a simple rule here, but there isn't.

I disagree. Your club suit is not solit. It's semi-solid. Bidding like this shows 7 solid clubs and although you have 8... they're not solid. My holding in every other suit leads me to believe that whatever is led against 3NT is going to break the contract when I find the ♣K offsides. All that said I don't think that 3N is terrible. But this hand looks more like clubs to me. And I agree with Justin that with opponents passing that 3♣-float seems impossible. The rule I learned long ago for the sequence 1m-1foo;3N was that you should have a hand that rates to take 7.5 - 9.5 tricks containing a suit that rates to play for no more than 1 loser opposite a small stiff, and that you should have a way to get back to your hand if the suit was not solid (duh...). By those standards, Jx/A/Ax/AQJT9xxx qualifies nicely. Albeit at the top of the expected range. YMMV. As for the opponents competing after 1m-foo;3m here, =with what=? If they had long or biddable ♠'s, They would have been in the auction already. Ditto having much in the way of shape and values in any other way. GOP rates to have Major suit length and values on this auction. IMHO, if we rebid 3m and CHO passes, We rate to have missed a game.

I am pretty sure a Acol 3NT opening is a solid minor without a side card value, at least from 1960 onwards. With kind regards Marlowe I thought the primary difference in definition between Gambling 3N and Acol 3N was the presence or absence of side suit stoppers (Gambling having none and Acol having some)? Also, as I was taught Acol 3N, it didn't matter whether the long running suit was a Major or a minor. The goal was to have 8.5 - 9.5 tricks in hand with some side suit stoppers. Am I out of touch with modern definitions here?

If the opps haven't looked up/discussed defenses to NT overcalls, that's not my responsibility unless it's made to be by the regulating authority (for example, certain ACBL midchart conventions). Why should I have to tell them a defense to all natural bidding over their NT, for example? I never said users have to hand out defenses. Especially to common conventions. But if you are using something not well known or not reasonably expected to be well known (and "natural" certainly should be), you have an ethical obligation to make sure there is a good defense available. The average player does not know Raptor or Suction or ... vs NT. Unfamiliarity should not be the reason those conventions score well. Using them more skillfully than the opponents use the reasonable defenses to them should be.

Transfer preempts are midchart legal although they aren't the most intelligent call ever devised. And transfer openings at the one level are inherently "destructive" Bah Humbug. Transfer openings are less "destructive" than "natural" openings are. They use less space and are easier to defend against. Unless or until pass is a transfer to 1C and 1S is a fert, the ACBL C&CC's position on this makes no sense.

In SA or 2/1 GF as documented in places like Truscott's _Bidding Dictionary_ and as usually taught, the sequence 1m-foo;3m shows a hand of medium opening strength. Say 15-17 HCP or 16-18 Playing points. Jx/A/Ax/AQJT9xxx evaluates to ~20 Playing points. Your hand is too strong for 1m-foo;3m according to standard sources. (for one thing, 1m-foo;3m is nf. How are you going to feel if CHO passes 3m?) The "book" bids holding this hand are A= open Acol 3N with it (you have 9.5 tricks in hand.) (This of course assumes you play Acol 3N) or B= open 1C and rebid 3N (your C suit is certainly good enough.) or C= open 1C and rebid 4C (I dislike this one because it bypasses 3N) Some poorly informed players might open this hand a strong artificial and nigh unto GF 2C *shudder*. As a tribute to Paul Soloway, I repeat his old advice that a single suited SA or 2/1 GF 2C opener should have more Quick Tricks than losers. The given hand has 3.5 QT and 4 losers. Therefore it is not strong enough to open a SA or 2/1 GF 2C.

IMO* the best advice on opening lead in general is to be aggressive and try to set up your tricks, for if you wait are too passive declarer will have the advantage in tempo and setting up his suits, and your tricks will vanish before they are ever set up and taken. *You note when I make a statement of opinion, I note this is my opinion, I don't state it as a fact no matter how certain of its truth I am. You state opinions as though they are facts several times per post. I mean, you are telling a FAR more accomplished player than you what the best lead is on a hand as though it was a fact, despite the facts that - It's not really provable, and even if it were you certainly didn't prove it. - His lead worked excellently - His opinion, which obviously differs from yours, has many more bridge credentials to back it up. If you didn't state your opinions with such certainty, then you wouldn't be constantly involved in these little battles with people all the time. That I can promise you. ...and IME most players tend to be too aggressive and give up tricks or blow up suits on opening lead far more than they give up tempo by being too passive. I've done statistical analysis using tools like Bridge Browser on this as well as compared notes with experts and Bridge teachers. What's the basis for your PoV or for claiming I'm only presenting my uninformed opinion? YMMV, and that's fine, but I'm not going to stop giving people the best advice I can just because you and a few others disagree or have decided you like giving me sh*t. Some people are here to learn. Myself included. Others, like evidently yourself and hrothgar and a few others, are here to argue with and "bad mouth" anyone who disagrees with your PoV. If you want to argue Bridge merits based on logic and evidence, I'm more than happy to. If you want to flame me just because you don't like what I post, Please don't bother. Life is too short and I have far too little time as it is.

I have never understood the logic behind banning transfers in any bidding situation. On bridge grounds, there simply is no reason to advocate banning them. As far as the change in NT defense regulations that started this thread, that is also overdue IMHO. The important issue there is that defenders have an ethical obligation to see to it that the other side has access to truly adequate defenses vs their methods.

As usual, Frances makes excellent sense. FWIW, my preferred leads are Rusinow leads vs suit contracts and 4th best with an attitude twist (2nd highest from xxx, Hxx, broken HHx, xxxx, or Txxx). There are leading and signaling systems that I consider theoretically superior to any of the more standard approaches, but they all have downsides in terms of ATT complexity or illegality or both.

7NT, IMPs, vul. Partner's lead was 9 from J972. Dummy: K865. Me: Q3. Declarer: A104. Declarer needed four tricks from that suit to make the grand. No other options for him. I was so pleased. ...and results like this are why I advocate leading the 2nd highest from xxxx or Txxx vs NT contracts to all my partners and students. I also lead 2nd highest from xxx, Hxx, or HHx (assuming broken honors) vs NT if I decide to lead that suit. I lead the lowest from xxx or Hxx vs a suit. Defending vs NT is different than defending vs suit contracts. Establishing long suits vs a suit contract is usually not nearly as useful as it is vs NT contracts. Just about every expert I know has only underled a A vs a suit contract a handful or less number of times over decades of play. Underleading A's vs suit contracts is VERY dangerous for the defense. If you adopt the philosophy to simply never do it unless They have shown you their hands, you'll probably be better off. In stark contrast, underleading any other honor vs a suit contract, K's included, is no where near as likely to blow up a defensive trick as underleading an A. CASCADE: The best lead vs your 2S example from the E hand is a ♠. If W was on lead, the natural (and in this case best) lead from W's hand is a ♥ honor. In general, the first and best advice about leads is "do your best not to blow up a trick." Most people tend to be too active on opening lead.

An easy pass unless We have a systemic bid to show this hand.

♠xx ♥Axxx ♦xx ♣KTxxx + ♠AKQ9xx ♥x ♦AKx ♣Q9x You are in 6S with these cards and the DQ is led. Unlike the abstract suit combination of xx+AKQ9xx being discussed in another thread, here you have a concrete situation to deal with. To make 6S, you have to play ♣'s for 4 tricks (~42% rounded up) and you can't lose any ♠'s (~64% rounded up). (Making this an ~26% contract.) You want to ruff a ♦ in dummy (you need the trick and the transportation), so your play in ♠'s is forced: you are playing for them to break nicely or for you to use some other technique to force RHO to give you what you need when they hold Txxx. We have 3S's + 1H + 2D's + D ruff= 7 tricks off the top. We need 5 more. So, DA, DK, D ruff Cx -> closed hand A= If RHO rises with the A we play small from hand (planning to play CQ and the CK next time we play C's) B= if RHO does not rise with the CA, play the CQ, and it holds (planning to run the C9 next time we play C's) C= If RHO does not rise with the CA, play the CQ and it is taken by the CA (planning to run the C9 next time we play C's) Then run 2 rounds of trumps if either opponent shows out on 2nd or 3 rounds of trumps if both opponents follow to 2 rounds of trumps. Then finish our plan in ♣'s There might be a better plan, but that's the best I can come up with in time comparable to being ATT.

Any void is a potential communication problem. Given that the defense usually has fewer values than Declarer to provide communication, additional communication problems can make the Defense's task much more difficult. Yes, being able to get a ruff is nice. But the Defense's goal is not to take one trick, the goal is to take enough tricks to set the contract.

With no other information to go on; the percentage action in this situation to believe the J is an honest card and therefore to pursue plan B, to take the finesse. It does not matter whether LHO is a stark novice or Paul Soloway. If you make the decision to play for the drop here, line A, without any further information, you are not making that decision based on any form of probability or card logic. You are making that decision based on non mathematical factors like table feel or some other psychological factor. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is not the technically correct play and no amount of noise to the contrary by people attempting to misuse math attempting to make it the technically correct play is going to make it so. Deciding to play LHO to have Falsecarded here is simply not a decision based on technical grounds.

1= agree with the 2♥ bid 2= a= If playing Support X's, then Opener very likely has raised on 4 card support, giving Us a 10 card ♥ fit. b= Defending with a void is often not fun (see Mike Lawrence and others on this topic). c= You have a 7 loser hand opposite a sound opening bid and at least a 9 card, likely a 10 card, card trump fit. The percentage action seems to be to Bid 4♥. (if They bid "5 over 4", X Them. You rate to have at least 4 defensive tricks between you. -1 X'd is not better than your game. -2 X'd is.)

That is also known as the principle of de-responsabilization. I.e. "I need a reasonable excuse if my bid turns out bad." Pard has already asked you to take a part in the discussion when he doubled. I'm not saying that you should take action on this particular hand (I also wouldn't). Just that one needs to realize one is not just supposed to "bid your hand". One is also supposed to make decisions when the time is right. Your partner asked you to bid your hand's shape and values as accurately as possible. If you do that, you will not need any excuses for your part of the auction.