foo

Also, playing 2/1 GF with a Forcing NT (not a Semi-Forcing one), if pard opens 1M and I have 3 card support in a GF flat hand w/o a decent 2/1 suit, I can always use 1M-1N;foo-4M to describe my hand.

Excuse me, but you're not entirely correct here. If you sit down and do a proper analysis of IMP games, I'm pretty sure you'll find out that those teams that consistently do best at the partscore level are those teams who overall do well. It's true you can't compare MP and IMP here. But if you consistently manage to go plus on the partscore deals, you're going to be a huge winner overall. Dont' care if your score is +90, +110, +120 or whatever, +50 is also a good score compared to -110. If you can score +110 in a 3m contract you don't care at all if +120 or +140 is possible. If your teammates have a plus score, you win the board with 4-6 IMPs. Because of frequency, you'll add up enough IMPs at the partscore level to be able to stand missing a very tough slam. Almost anyone can bid the games you should reach at IMPs, and most of the slams. The OP hand is mainly about competing for the partscore. Game is just possible, but not a big issue when deciding to open the hand or pass. If you consider JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx a "normal" opening bid in 1st or 2nd as many advocate around here, your pard rates to have real garbage in their hand when they pass in 1st or 2nd, and therefore opening 8 loser 4333 12 counts in 4th rates to go minus often enough and by large enough margins that the overall long term expectation is negative. That makes it bad IMPs strategy to open the OP hand under such circumstances. The OP board had a single dummy expectation of ~6.9 tricks with ♥'s as trump. IOW, you did not rate to make even 2♥ The OP went down in 1N. I'm fairly sure that if you play an initial action style as aggressive as that many around here advocate and consider 8+ loser 4333 12 counts in 4th normal openings your long term IMP expectation is negative. I am trying to put together some math + a sim to prove it.

To increase the chances that LHO will fail to unblock the ♣K when they have it, can we change the timing on this line to play the ♣A earlier? If we wait until T6 to play ♣A, the caliber of opponents Fred is likely to have will have a complete count on the hand and are quite capable of tossing the ♣K under the ♣A. Something like DA, CA, SQ, DK, ruff D, HQ, HA, SK, SA pitching ♣, ruff ♠, exit Cx scoring ♥ KT "en passant" might be better if following this line.

I think I like this line better than the one I first posted. Nice loser on loser play. :)

1S (2C) 2S (2N) 4S all pass ♠T63 ♥A63 ♦K8732 ♣72 + ♠KJ97542 ♥QJ4 ♦ ♣AJ3 ♣K led Standard Duck. LHO shifts to the ♥2, ♥3, ♥9, ♥Q. ♣A, ruff ♣, run ♠T. If ♠ AQx or AQ is onside, you pick up ♠'s for 1 loser and lose 1S + 1H (you use the HA to get back to dummy for the 2nd hook) + 1C if ♠Ax is onside and the ♠Q is with LHO, they are endplayed when they win the ♠Q and you lose 2S + 1C

josh, han, etc This is =IMPs= folks, not MPs. You can not both tell people that it is normal to open hands like JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx in 1st or 2nd and at the same time tell them it is "wtp" to open in 4th with hands like the OP Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx and in good conscience call it good Bridge advice. If GOP's initial pass denies hands as weak as JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx WTH do you think they rate to have over there? IMPs is not about "playing the odds" to play partscores. That's =MPs=. IMPs is about long term expectations and about not missing games or slams. There is just about zero chance that a pair playing the sort of Light Initial Action you folks advocate as "normal" is going to miss a game or slam by passing out Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx in 4th. OTOH, there is a fairly decent chance that a 1♦ opening could get you into trouble. IOW, I disagree with Trinidad's expectation analysis. I'm trying to put together some decent results to shed some more objective light on the topic. As for the Ad Hominem stuff, this is not a popularity contest. I really do not give a darn about the mutual admiration society in some cliques around here. I care about giving developing players good advice and learning things myself. All anyone is going to learn from advice as aggressive as what I'm objecting to is how to get bad results in IMP events and how to lose a lot of $$$ when playing for stakes. As I said, stiffen up the requirements for 1st and 2nd openings by enough and I have no problem with calling the OP hand a 4th seat opening playing NA Standard or 2/1 GF. But not for the style that is being advocated as mainstream around here by many.

blast to Game with hands that have more distribution for their playing strength. such as this one. do something else with hands that get more of their playing strength from hard values.

Gentlemen, this is a teaching site. Telling people that 8 loser 4333 12 counts are "wtp" 4th seat opener's playing IMPs opposite the average aggression now standard in 2nd seat playing NA Standard or 2/1 GF is simply not good Bridge advice. ...and if the pair is enamoured with Light Initial Action as in the Rule of 20, it rates to be a mine waiting to explode. The Roth Stoners can consider the likes of Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx a "wtp" 4th seat opener playing IMPs. That's because they systemically pass just about every 13 count in 2nd seat. Maybe the old style Goren folks as well since they systemically would pass many 13 counts. But any pair more aggressive than that in 1st or 2nd should be more cautious about opening this. Anyone who considers JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx or the like a "normal" 1st or 2nd seat opening had best be passing out the board when holding the OP hand ASAP. The more aggressive your action is systemically in 1st or 2nd, the more sound it has to be in 3rd or 4th. Especially playing IMPs. I'll fire up Dealmaster Pro and see if I remember enough of what my friends have taught me to get and post some pertinent results. Or perhaps you folks should be forced to open all of these opposite standard aggression and then play or defend the resulting contracts XX. If that doesn't drive the point home perhaps you should be forced to put a month's wages at risk while doing it.

4th hand at IMPs playing a mainstream style you consider Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx a "wtp opener"? Ah, the days of being a Junior...

You are not still understanding the situation here. pa-pa-pa-?? and you hold Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx What is pard's most likely hand? They are limited to 11- or a very bad 12. Their expected number of ♠'s is 10/3. ♥'s 10/3. ♦'s 9/3. ♣'s 10/3. IOW, a flat hand like yours. Their expected number of honors in ♠'s is 1, 2/3 it is an A or K. ♥'s 1, 1/3 it is an A or K. ♦'s 2/3, 1/3 it is the K. ♣'s 4/3, 2/3 it is an A or K. IOW, GOP rates to have 3-4 honors and the suit that rates the highest to have A's or K's is ♣'s. Where they do you little good. We usually need an 8+ card fit and 7+ controls to make a game. You have 4 controls. We need 3 from GOP. GOP rates to have 2 controls. IOW, an A =or= 2 K's. IOW, that perfect hand you constructed is optimistic in the extreme. ATT passed hand pard had Kxx=Jxxxx=Jxx=Kx 4th hand got unlucky mirror distribution in ♠'s but lucky that GOP had a 5th ♥. IOW, just about what the odds say you should expect. The actual hands found ATT rate to take 7 tricks, but are not 100% to do so.

The OP hand for clarity Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx If you expect your passed hand pard to have such a perfect fitting hand as your example whenever you hold the OP hand, you are not playing odds on Bridge. ...and let Us note that your Opponents on this board you have constructed have a double fit in the Pointeds and a profitable "4 over 4" at any vulnerability. So, the =real= question is: if you open this, how often do you think you and your pard will make the correct X, pass, or bid 5 over 4 decision? You better be right considerably more than 50% of the time, or you will have a difficult time getting and keeping teammates.

JT QJxxx KJxx Kx Is not a mainstream opener either. It is not even a Rule of 20 Opener. One of Bergen's _points schmoints_ books (IIRC #2) will even tell you not count JT as a HCP so that such hands evaluate to 19, not 20, using the Rule of 20. Such hands are simply not 1st or 2nd chair openings playing any middle of the road or mainstream style. I also agree with mikeh that any R holding ♠AK98x ♥ATx ♦xx ♣AQx after CHO opens is going to get real excited. You may get lucky and avoid slam, but I suspect you are going to have a very hard time shutting R up before We are at the 5 level. 5♥ on the OP board is no more than 50%... On the OP board slam is no better than 25%. That's "hopeless" in my book if your goal is to play winning Bridge.

♠AK98x ♥ATx ♦xx ♣AQx + ♠JT ♥KQJxx ♦KJxx ♣xx Does anyone want to be in slam on these cards? You have 1.5 losers in ♦'s and .5 losers in ♣'s 6H is ~1/4. 5H is ~1/2. I'll be quite happy to play no more than 4H with these cards, thanks.

I would most certainly not touch this suit for as long as possible. Which book should I read to get this right more often? The encyclopedia? It happened to be your trump suit in a small slam. In those circumstances, you do not really have the option to avoid touching it for very long at all. Well, that constrains the problem in ways that things like SuitPlay can not yet take into account. If you are in a good 6<mumble> with this as your trump suit, then you should have no problems in any other suits and plenty of communication. 4 tricks with this suit is just a smidge over 50%. 3 tricks is a virtual certainty. You can't handle 50 breaks and the safety play for 3 tricks picks up KJxx+x You start by playing the A. None of the above lines is the play for Max tricks. Sometimes one has to play for Max tricks rather than to make one's contract when playing MP instead of IMPs or Total Points. (For instance if this slam is one that =everyone= rates to be in. Yeah right. That much Field Protection is rare.) The Max Tricks lines begin by playing small to the T or small to the Q. Kx+Jxx argues for small to the T. xx+KJx argues for small to the Q. Max tricks is ~3 2/5= ~3.4 Good luck figuring out which layout to play for opposite silent opponents.

Unless you are playing Constructive Raises, the standard response with xxx, xx, KQx, Jxxxx to 1S-?? is ...2S. Not 1N. Then Opener can make whatever Game Try System allows for here. I agree with others that this is not a board where I would expect to find game or would feel bad if We did not.

Folks, Mikeh is right that ♠JT, ♥KQJxx. ♦KJxx, ♣xx is not a mainstream 1st or 2nd seat opener. It does not have 2 defense tricks. Worse, hands with no A's are supposed to be downgraded. In fact, because of the wasted ♠J, it is not likely to be an opener even by Rule of 20 standards. This is not "a good 11 count". It is more like a 10 count. I also agree with his other comments, but that stuff is secondary if you are opening hands like this. If your openings can be anything from this to a shapely 21 count or so, pard is going to have a hopeless time fielding your openings.

I hesitated between passing and opening 1♦, but that is a good reason to open 1♦ :P Partner did bid 1♠ showing ♥ and I did bid 1NT. Partner had: Kxx=Jxxxx=Jxx=Kx Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx 1N did go -1 I agree w/ justin that you should not play Kaplan Inversion opposite a passed hand. Also, looking at your pard's hand you have answered your own question. Whether you open this hand or not depends on how "heavy" your pard will pass in 2nd seat. Roth-Stoner's must open such 12 count 4333's in 4th lest they risk missing a game. Rule of 20 Bergenites should pass the hand out quickly. etc. In short, there is no universal correct answer to your OP question.

So you are very eager to quarrel with me about how stupid the methods, that I already declared as stupid, really are? You are an artist of some kind or what? No, I am not eager to argue. OTOH, I =am= having a hard time understanding your pard's thought process. Was bidding 4H really his best option given your agreements? So I'm asking questions.

hear hear. Especially since the vast majority of ACBL members are retirees living off investment incomes... ...when ATM the USA's largest financial firms are in the midst of the largest crisis in confidence since The Great Depression.

I agree, but when you still define that as a FP situation then you should act according to your agreements no matter how stupid they might be. OK. Then the questions become 1= Why make an agreement that is so different from standard practice w/o extensive prior discussion? 2= If this is a FP situation, is R supposed to always pull a penalty X by O whenever they hold a "bar bid 4M" kind of hand? You know the ones where We bid 4M not because of values but mostly because of shape? ...and if the opponents bid "5 over 5" after that, =then= what? ...and just out of curiousity, in your agreed upon system what hands are shown by 1H-(2S)-X? 1H-(2S)-3m? 1H-(2S)-3S!?

Agree with others who say this is not supposed to be a FP situation. Your CHO bid 4♥ on this?! At Unfavorable?!! He best be willing to pull any double you make... ...and accept the consequences gracefully if it does not work out well.

Pass. You do not have a hand good enough to open 1♣ (need fewer losers or more Quick Tricks) nor do you have a hand with high enough offense/defense ratio to open 3♣ "Normal" with this hand is "pass". So pass.

*shrug* He'll explain if he wants to. Back on topic, What do you think of my proposal Han?

?? "must be a comp geek" ?? I was not aware I was using "comp geek" jargon? The goal was to tightly define the hand types and sequences involved. I used language that was as clear and concise as I could. If it was not understandable, or if someone has a better way to communicate the information, I'm "all ears"? The kind of detail I'm showing here is often seen in the System notes of expert partnerships.

I don't quite get this, it would seem more intuitively correct to spend less energy sorting as compared to the amount of brain power needed to visualize. My habit is that I memorise the key features of my hand (like hcp, distribution, impt spot cards etc.) so that I don't really look at my hand during bidding. Would you call this visualisation? IMHO when one is just beginning as a player, one has so much to learn that anything that simplifies things w/o teaching bad habits is worth doing. In that context, issues like trying to play w/o sorting ones cards is of lower priority than everything else a beginner has on their plate. Once the more basic stuff is automatic, then it would seem to make sense to put more effort into being able to better approximate double dummy play ATT. and that is exactly where visualization skills come in. If one can visualize one's own hand well enough to not have to look at it more than once ATT, then one can in theory more accurately imagine the other hands ATT as well. So yes, however you do it, if you know your own hand well enough to not have to refer to it after you have placed it in your mind, you are praticing the kind of visualization I believe these experts were telling me was worth developing.