foo

Truer words were never spoken.

A 3♥ invitational bid? Who said 3♥ was invitational? It is a balancing call. Sure, it shows some values, but partner knows that the 3♥ call is a balance, so it could be based on very minimal values - certainly far less than a 3♥ call in direct seat. If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts, partner is not a bridge player. So what is Balancer to do with a full, yet minimum, opening bid? Bid 4H all by themselves?! X and then bid ♥'s ?! Of course not. They bid 3H. It is the oldest adage in Bridge that an opening bid opposite an opening bid belongs in game. If direct seat Advancer has a full opening bid, they are supposed to bid a game if we bid 3H: =3N with 4+S containing a stop & only 2 H's. =4H with 3+H =4H with only 2 H's but no ♠ stop (xxx or xxxx of ♠'s means We may be playing with a 3 suited deck from our PoV. The nasty is if Advancer has wasted ♠ values but not a stop.) But Advancer certainly should not be passing 3H while holding a full opening bid under most conditions.

I do. Such thinking is what led Vanderbilt to create the scoring table he did when he created modern bridge. Perhaps we need another such tune up.

It's at least a king more than a minimum, has excellent shape, has spades that will play for one loser opposite a small singleton, has a better than average heart holding, and may have an unshown sixth spade. Whether that's enough to justify a move depends on what each partner has shown already. Why would he bid 2N with 5-5 in the reds? AKT9xx_Qx_x_KQxx Is a 4 control, IOW "average" controls, albeit shapely 14 count. An average 14 count is "at least a king more than a minimum"? You routinely open all 11 counts? Is not the more usual minimum range for an opening bid in SA or 2/1 GF ~12-14 or 15? When you bid ♠'s 2x, then bid ♣'s, you showed your 64 shape (even if you play a style where 1S-2H;2S could be 5). You have no more shape extras to show. At every opportunity, Responder has been saying "I have a minimum 2/1 GF and I am not excited about your suits". If they had even 2 ♠'s, you would have gotten a raise rather than 3N. With 4+C and extras, they would have raised ♣'s rather than bid 3N. If they had 6+H, they would have rebid them. Instead, they are bidding NT at every opportunity to throw cold water on the auction. Your hand is not getting better as this auction progresses. It is getting worse. Responder's most likely shapes are =1543 and =1552. But they chose not to bid their 2nd suit even though they could have done it below 3N: 1S-2H;2S-3D That they bid NT instead implies how little they like their 2nd suit or their hand in general for play in a suit. Responder rates to have a very minimal 2/1 GF.

Frances, Tim: I only =started= my analysis on HCP grounds. I also included the CoC, the ODR of the given hand, and the likely shape and value location implications of the auction so far in my analysis. It's more than a bit unsporting to claim my only focus was on HCP. There are problems doing objective sims of contested auctions that are realistic, but I'll see what can be done on that front. FTR, I do not like passing. I just hate it less than either =making such an off shape takeout X (unless you play X is Penalty here) or =making a 3H invitational bid when We do not rate to have 3+ level safety. I certainly do not want to end up in 4H if Advancer has the expected flat boring 12 count with something like 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s. It's not that I think pass in the best call. It's that I think pass is the least bad call. But I'm willing to be convinced. Let's see some objective sample hands and the odds of them for Advancer that makes 3H better than pass. EDIT: BTW, Frances- if in 2/3 of the scenarios you think you should X, you should want to X instead of bidding 3H?

Wow. This thread is =still= going on and =still= mostly going in circles. Wow. 1= The whole bridge world outside the ACBL routinely plays and successfully defends against things like the multi-2D. It =hurts= the development of high level bridge expertise in the ACBL for players to not have decent exposure to methods common round the rest of the bridge world. 2= Clearly the ACBL C&C has and is being ineffective in striking a balance that keeps the ACBL in step with most of the rest of the Bridge world. 3= Equally clearly, said development is not going to be helped if we do not teach adequate defenses along with these methods. The defensive DB is a good idea =IF= implemented and administered properly. 4= There =DO= need to be better records kept of the proceedings of ACBL commitees. All of them. And they need to be publicly available. All of them. The ACBL is a membership organization. Volunteer or paid, if you are working for the ACBL, you are working for us the members. The membership is, always will, and always should be, your ultimate boss. 5= The clear flaws present do not change the fact that the folks working on the commitee are =volunteers= who have much more fruitful / rewarding things to do with their time. Whether the rest of us like the decisions being made or not, they deserve the utmost respect for doing a dirty, mostly thankless, job. 6= Nonetheless, if a commitee member, on any commitee, is using their position to pursue a personal agenda, or for personal gain, or is allowing their personal prejudices to outweigh their professionalism, they are doing something wrong. It is the duty of those serving to do what is in the best interest of all those being served. 7= The extreme "anything goes" crowd needs to read the above as well. Commitees can not and should not cater to the minority at the expense of the majority unless there is a =very= good reason for doing so (like making sure ACBL continues to develop talent who can take on the Poles and those playing common methods like the multi-2D) 8= Using the letter of the process to abuse the spirit of the process is a violation of the duties of a commitee member. The evidence is that exact thing has happened with regards to the process for approving new conventions visa-vie the defense DB. 9= Ditto using things like "if you want to play this method, we are going to punish you in unrelated ways". Like telling people who play HUMs that they lose their seating rights. Like telling those who want to play the KNT that they can't use Stayman or any other usual methods over a 1N opening. This sort of thing smacks of being small minded and mean spirited. In the programming field, such stuff like this or the aforementioned abuse of the defense DB are examples of a phenomenon called "programming by side effect". it's a BAD thing that even 1st year CS students are taught to avoid. 10= With all of the above muddying the process, it is nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the proper way to legislate HUMs. IMHO, they and Destructive methods like them are not good bridge; but that is beside the point. The real point is that as of now, the investigation and approval process is so cocked up that it is nearly impossible to give HUMs the fair trial they deserve. They are nearly 100% to be found "guilty" and not be allowable at most levels of play on pure bridge merits. That does not change the fact that they deserve a fair trail under objective conditions.

Yell all you want. That does not refute the logic I presented above. If you disagree, then address the bridge issues I brought up.

Yup this shows about 6214 with Hx in hearts and extra values. Why wouldn't you bid that? Because AKT9xx_Qx_x_KQxx does not have much if any extra values in this auction? 1S-2H;2S-2N;3C-3N;?? What about your hand have you not yet told? Doesn't responder's sequence sound like a minimum GF w/ 5 H's? Possibly 55 in the Reds? Do you have a trump suit that will play well opposite "x"? Do you really want to ruff with Qx in a possibly 52 fit playing 4H? I pass 3N

If 2S promises 5-10 HCP, call it 7-8 on average, and we have 9 HCP; pard rates to have (40- 16 or 17)/2= ~12 HCP We do not rate to have a game or even enough HCP to belong at the 3 level. This is IMPs, not MPs. Being pushy about partscores is not what IMPs is about. In addition, our long suit has horrible suit quality, and 8/9 of our values are A's in our short suits. Despite the 6 card H suit, this looks like a defensive hand in this auction. Finally, our hand combined with the auction implies pard has S length. Pass.

SJ, return a ♠ will leave dummy with 1. Not 2. Dummy started with 4 and 2 rounds have been drawn. Your proposed S7 return would be the 3rd round.

I posted earlier that pard had to have the ♥Q. The location of the ♦K is a bit mysterious to me for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The proper lead from KQx, which is what it looks like pard should have when the ♦Q is not covered by Declarer, is the K. Not the Q. If Declarer started with ♦98*mumble*, then pard's DK is the only thing keeping D's from being established so Declarer can toss some or all of dummy's losing ♥'s under good ♦'s. If Declarer has ♦K98*mumble*, then Declarer's ♦'s are already established for this purpose. Of course, dummy already has good ♣'s to discard declarer's losing ♥'s under. Like you, I'm having a hard time picturing a layout where We can set this, but it looks like the only chance We have is to try and get our 4th trick ASAP. After ruffing with the ♠J for Our 3rd Trick =A ♣ is passive; and helps Declarer discard ♥'s =we have no more ♦'s =The ♠7 is also passive. By process of elimination, that leaves a ♥ return. The question is which one. The book play in ♥'s for Declarer is to play for split honors. we know that the book is right on this board. It would seem Our best shot is to try and trick Declarer into thinking pard has both ♥K + ♥Q and led ♦'s instead because they were a better suit. I'm not happy about Our chances, and I'm still not sure I have a proper view of the layout here, but it looks like returning a ♥x is Our best shot.

So I went and found Suitplay. Then I added the probabilities it gave for each defensive holding. 25.9565% of the time you will lose 2 tricks regardless of whether you start with the T or the Q. 2.8261% of the time you will win 5 tricks if you start with the T. Suitplay calls this "line A" 71.2174% of the time you will win 4 tricks regardless of whether you start with the T or the Q. Quick check: 25.9565 + 2.8261 + 71.2174= 100. Suitplay gives max tricks as 3.7404. By following "line A"- start with the T. IOW, regardless of whether you start with the T or the Q, you will win exactly 4 tricks ~71% of the time. If you start with the T you will win at least 4 tricks ~74% of the time. There are only 3 holdings where your choice of line matters. Each has a probability of 2.8261% Jxxx+K line A takes 4 tricks. Line B takes 3. K+Jxxx line A takes 5 tricks. Line B takes 4. Kxxx+J line A takes 3 tricks. Line B takes 4. Another quick check: 65.5652 + 5.6522 + 2.8261= 74.0435 Now, gentlemen. Where exactly is this mistake you keep referring to?

Right. Wrong. Neither statement is wrong. If you start with the T, you will take 4 tricks ~71% of the time and 5 tricks ~3% of the time. Therefore, you will take at least 4 tricks ~74% of the time if you start with the T. Starting with the Q nets you exactly 4 tricks ~71% of the time because it only take 4 tricks instead of 5 against the ~3% holding that the other line can play for 5 tricks. Therefore, starting with the Q gets you exactly 4 tricks ~71% of the time. This means that the line that start with the T is the one to play for max tricks and that max tricks is ~3.74 I'm sure Suit Play or other such tools say exactly this.

OK, I fixed my earlier post. If Declarer is ♠KQ96♥x(x)♦K98632♣J(x) , you have zero chance of setting this. Therefore, let's pretend Declarer is no more shapely than KQ96_??_K986x_Jx If Declarer has the ♥Q, you have zero chance of setting this. Therefore you must play for pard to have the ♥Q and for Declarer to have at least 2 ♥'s. Ruff pard's ♦ honor with the ♠J and underlead the ♥K. If Declarer has the ♥Q, it does not matter. If pard's got it, and Dummy inserts the ♥J... [edit] that's not good enough. Dummy can simply rise with the ♥A and then discard Declarer's ♥ losers under high ♣'s. Why did we fly 2nd hand high with the ♣A at the 1st opportunity? Hmmm. Ruffing with the ♠J and underleading the ♥K is still the best shot I see for setting this.

I'm having a heck of a time picturing the board and play here. Evidently, W is Dummy and we are _S_: ♠ A832 ♥ AJ3 ♦ A4 ♣ KQT2 ..........♠J754♥K6♦75♣A9864 D7 DA DT D3 SA ST S6 S4 S2 H8 SK S5 CJ CA C2 C5 D5 D4 DJ D6 DQ D8 ? We led D7 -> DA, DT from pard, D3 Then Dummy played the SA -> ST from pard, S6, S4 from us S2 from dummy -> H8 from pard, SK, S5 from us. CJ from declarer -> we play 2nd hand high with the CA?, C2, C5 from pard D5 from us -> D4, DJ from pard, D6 DQ from pard -> D8 from Declarer? OK, so pard started with QJT or KQJT of ♦'s If D's are QJT+A4+75, Declarer started with K98xxx of D's. In which case, why did Declarer not insert the DK on T5 or now? But if pard started with ♦ KQJT(x), they should be down to KQ(x) now and their lead should be the DK, not the DQ. Something Smells. Is Declarer =4261 or =4162 with ♠KQ96 & ♦K98632 & ♣J(x)? If so, a= They are playing a style where responder bypasses even 6 ♦'s to show a 4cM That usually implies a minimum. b= Declarer does not rate to have much more in values. Pard rates to have ♥Qxxxxx(x) , the ♦'s we've seen and nothing else.

I agree with Frances. Opener's JS established a GF. Why not tell him we have all these ♠'s before supporting ♣'s? That's even more important if 3C could be artificial.

Let's see. If you start with the T to maintain your chances of possibly taking 5 tricks, you take =at least= 4 tricks in 2/3 of the holdings that matter. As you noted, there are only 3 holdings that matter. K+Jxxx, you take 5 tricks. Jxxx+K, you take 4 tricks. Kxxx+J, you take 3 tricks. If you start with the Q, you take =exactly= 4 tricks in 2/3 of the holdings that matter. K+Jxxx, you take 4 tricks. Jxxx+K, you take 3 tricks. Kxxx+J, you take 4 tricks. Crunching the numbers, your Suitplay program should give an expected and Max tricks of 3.74 if you follow the line that starts with the T. IOW, you have a 74% chance of taking =at least= 4 tricks if you start with the T.

There are two lines. The critical holdings that differentiate them are K+Jxxx vs Kxxx+J Obviously, they have the same apriori odds of occurring. ~3% The big difference is that if you play for K+Jxxx and you are right, you get 5 tricks. OTOH, if you play for that and the situation is actually Kxxx+J, you will only get 3 tricks. Therefore, if you want to maximize your chances of taking 4 tricks, you sacrifice any chance of taking 5. The line that does that starts with Q -> A72, running it unless it is covered. If the Q is covered by 2nd hand but both opponents follow, you are guaranteed 4 tricks. (if the suit is 5-0 you were always only getting 3 tricks.) Whether the Q wins or loses to the K, your next play in this suit is T -> A7; again intending to run it unless it is covered. odds are ~74% that you will take 4 tricks on this line.

The proper percentage play is x -> KQTxxx planning to insert the T unless 2nd hand plays high (obviously, you cover the J and duck the A) You've got a bit less than a 60% chance of bringing the suit home for no more than 2 losers. Do not play a high honor 3rd hand unless 2nd hand has inserted the J. Changing the long suit to KQT9xx changes both the odds and the proper play. The proper play here is dependent on whether you want to play for 5 tricks or 4. For a ~26% shot at 5 tricks, you play as above. For the maximum chance at 4 tricks, you plan to take the safety play of hooking the K rather than the T on T1. This makes the odds of taking 4 tricks just a bit less than 88%.

That's an absolutely beautiful analysis Frances. :)

I do not like making splinters with a wide open side suit. If Responder has 2 good cards, We have five level safety. If they have 3, We belong in slam. I'm going to pattern out my hand. 1S-2S;3C-any;4C-any;4H or 5H -?? Is my initial plan.

I agree with the "subsequent" part, but here are my reasons for T2: I wanted to ruff some hearts but didn't want to alert the defense to that fact. I was thinking this: If I lead a heart, they will pounce on the trumps and by the time I can get back to dummy I won't have a spade left in my hand. And so I opted to throw them a knuckle ball: make it look as if I'm trying to draw trumps myself. I'm going down, but hell if they figure out what I'm trying to do. Next thing I know I'm staring at 10 cold tricks. The problem with your idea on T2 is that a= They should know that they have the balance of power +and+ good side suits they want to tap you with. b= That dummy screams that you want to establish H's. But your only likely entries to those H's are trumps. Both points argue for stripping you of trumps ASAP. I can well imagine that many W's will have a hard time being as passive as ducking the SK (or SQ) on the 1st round of trumps; but it is just as effective to win the SA and return the SJ. ...and let's not forget the possiblity of the S9 being a winner if you don't pull it. In short, if you pull trumps @ T2, They should do whatever they can to decrease the odds of you getting a ruff in the short hand. Winning the SA and beating on D's is just as good because it starts the process of tapping your long hand before you've started the process of establishing H's. In that case, They have gained a tempo on you. But as I said, the whole situation is mind boggling.

That's like saying the New Orleans levee system "wasn't quite optimal" when Katrina hit... AFAICT, the only person ATT who was not a novice was Declarer. DD best on this board is 6C EW. There is no sane reason this auction should die at 2SX. Most pairs, even those not explicitly playing Unusual over Unusual vs Michaels, will get to at least 5C because W will cue bid in response to E's Negative X. Even if for some insane reason W passes at their 1st opportunity to respond to E's Negative X, East is good enough to make a subsequent cue bid themselves. Then there is the "defense". Underleading AQxxxx against a suit contract? Please. If the opening lead is CA, or any D, H, or S (yes one can underlead the =SA= with impunity here.), 2SX is -3 ...and even the horrible leads of CQ or Cx should result in 2SX-2 In fact, even after the small C lead, DD Declarer must play a =H= at T2 if they want to stay at 2SX-2. The actual ATT play of a Sx brings Declarer back to being minus 3 doubled. (W can win the SA and put the SJ or a D on the felt. Or They can even go completely passive and hold up) Playing a H @ T2 is also the best legitimate chance declarer has of inducing a defensive error to bring the outcome to 2SX-1. The actual T2 and subsequent is an awe inspiring desecration of the deck.

...and just how much do you think hands like ♠QTxxx♥KJxx♦Axxx♣- are worth? a) if We have an 8 card fit in a major? :) if We have a 9 card fit in a major or two 8 card fits in both Majors? c) if We have two 9 card fits in both Majors? Modify a, b, or c above by varying degrees of purity or shapeliness and re-ask the question. Very rarely do hands with a void in them evaluate out to their HCP equivalents in playing stength. Degree of fit and value location can vary the ATT playing strength of such hands by enormous amounts. Take another look at Richard's example hand and auction. What hands must Opener have to justify pa-(pa)-1H-(4D);pa-(pa)-X-(pa);?? ...and what do you think this sequence implies about the playing strength of ♠QTxxx♥KJxx♦Axxx♣- here? After all, if We had "just" an 8 card ♥ fit, every novice in the USA would add +5 for the void and evaluate this hand as 15 Dummy points in support of ♥'s. It MUST be better than that in the presence of a 9+ card ♥ fit. Even more if We are talking about a double 9+ card ♥ plus 8+ card ♠ fit. ...and that doesn't even take into account that for Opener to be bidding this way, they have a "moose" over there with 4+S, 5+H, most likely 1-D, and VALUES (like 18+). Construct some 18+ count, 5- loser hands for Opener that fit the above description and see on how many such boards We have an odds on slam. Then tell me what Richard's example hand should be valued at in the context of his 2nd auction.

Disagree. True, the auction 1N-3N;6N exists theoretically but there is no bridge hand consistent with both the 1NT and 6NT calls. Clearly it was this what Richard was asking about and in my opinion, there is no hand that first passes, then passes over 4D and then jumps to 5S. ...and I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. :) (The jump in question is to 5S, not 4. I've edited your response appropriately.) Give Responder an Invitational hand, particularly a flat one, and especially a flat one with D cards, and they have NO reason to take action over (4D) but every reason to do so if Opener keeps the auction alive despite Responder passing twice. After all, Opener could very well have a minimum. Responder unilaterally deciding We have enough to make game when the auction so far only gives them Invitational values is not partnership bridge. But if Opener keeps the auction live despite 2 passes by responder, they likely have a maximum with 5- losers in it for such a course. And if that action uncovers a double fit, there is even more good news. In such a case, Responder's originally unexceptional Invitational hand may indeed "grow up" to be worth far more than it looks in isolation or after the first round of bidding. Richard's 10 count becoming an ~20+ count in terms of playing strength under such circumstances is such an example. So YES, it may be rare; but IMHO there are hands where pa-(pa)-1H-(4D);pa-(pa)-X-(pa);5S Could make perfect sense.