dellache

[hv=d=w&v=e&e=skjthj65dkqjcaq82&s=sa92ha73da85ckt54]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] West hand was : [hv=d=w&v=e&s=sqxxhkqt9xxd10xxcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] South gave it no second thought and played a diamond back. Maybe he hoped declarer would misread something (NB: the only one who could have a diamond doubleton here was North, and as those leads are very common in France, West would not have missed that) or do something silly in the Blacks. He scored a quick 10 tricks. I liked fluffy's answer : I didnot think about that, and actually it might work if declarer was 2632 missing the ♠Q. In the postmortem as it seemed unbeatable, I was wondering if South could have chosen another imaginative line of defense : Play back the ♠9 !? North of course will duck (he doesn't have the Ace after all ;)), and if West is 3631, he may imagine South has played a doubleton back (North would duck with ♠Axxxx, knowing West didnot open 2♥ with ♠Qxxx, definitely not the local style). If West is convinced that Spades are indeed 5-2, he may play the ♠Q, and finesse the ♣K hoping to discard a Spade on the ♣Ace. We'll never know if this idea would have worked. Playing ♠9 also is sometimes ridiculous when West is 1633 (less likely than 3631). I was really wondering the probability declarer would choose to finesse Clubs on the actual layout. Would you have ?

I think you stated it very clearly. The only remaining problem is that it may be very difficult for directors to judge if you really did violate the law or not, in borderline cases. Does someone know why in bridge (contrary to poker) declarers are not allowed to physically-bluff ? i don't see any technical reason for that. Maybe an historical etiquette coming from the old days of bridge-whist ?

I'm the guy who wrote this and let me state again that I would never suggest to *physically* act like I got bad news (like grimacing, or looking upset as if the roof fell in). That being said, the whole thing is usually not as simple as it may appear. Unless you always play like a sphynx and are absolutely pokerface all the time with no breaks in tempo (a la Helgemo), sometimes your behaviour maybe subject to caution. Let's take this deceptive play of playing AK in a suit when you really don't care at all what the oppos play (you just make a diversion). Let's suppose you are NOT always pokerface, and play *from time to time* in a very slightly more relaxed manner *when you play a noncritical suit*. Would it be considered as a violation of the law if you played AK in a "let's stay focus" way as if the suit *might* be critical. Where's the limit ? That reminds me a board where I had AQx behind KJTx in dummy. Opps were playing in 3NT. Declarer played low to the Jack. I had to make up my decision of doing the classical deceptive play of taking the Jack with the Ace instead of the Queen, in order to convince declarer to use his last entry to hand to repeat the "working" spade finesse. Situation was not that clear for me : in some cases this would actually declarer to make an otherwise unmakeable contract ! So I finally took my time, assessed the different chances, and decided that playing the Ace was the most likely way of defeating 3NT. Declarer came back to hand, repeated the finesse, went down, and called the director. His claim : "Taking 20" before playing the Ace is a mannerism destined to make me think he could definitely NOT have the Queen" (declarer was a strong player, and knew I could make the deceiving play). Director ruled to 3NT making 9 tricks. The appeal comittee maintained the decision, and I got a procedural warning in the process. I would be glad to have your opinion.

I bid 3♠. I don't really like 4♦, because I don't want to incite pard to bid on the 5 level with Diamond holdings like Qx, Qxx, Jxxx, etc. Imo, 3♠ will help pard more to decide what to do if they bid 4♠ (likely). He will know I have probably 5 trumps (I'm a passed hand, so bidding game with 14xx is less likely), and probably no good 5 card minor to mention. My 2 pence.

This is only one auction. My general point was that if the auction gets competitive, it will be hard for your side to judge what to do very often because you have such a wide range of possible hands. I do not think simulating how often this exact auction comes up is really relevant. For intance take an auction like 1C p p X 1S 2H 2S/3C ? When do you bid 3H? If you pass with 4 hearts ever, can partner ever compete, fearing that you have a weak balanced hand? Do you really think you'll be *much* better placed if you have 15HCP ? Even on 3C ? But 1C p p X 3C would be very good for those who have 15HCP ? Come on... Listen, I'm not arguing that I will feel happy when I happen to double 1C with a "nice" BAL 14HCP, and the sequence comes back to me like a boomerang at the 2 level. Of course you may be better placed on SOME deals (how many in reality ? very few I think, I can't remember one case since 1990, but I don't play many boards a year :lol:) if you translate my suggested zones 1 or 2 points up. OTOH, you may want to recover some games when your pard has (13)14(15 bad)HCP and couldnot act in 2nd seat. That's when being able to balance with (10)11 comes into the picture. The difficulty consist in estimating how many games you will miss playing your style, and how many times I will be much less placed (we are talking about 1-2 Hcp zoneshift, not 3-4) because auction comes back at the 2 level. To do that you need to estimate as best as you can, and frequency is one of the keypoints. Yes but you will be able to stop in 2M on those cases. Why did you ignore the point that you have to play 2N rather than 1N? If you pay me to produce an exhaustive 4 pages report each time I feel like doing a sim, I may do that next time. Reading the end of your post, the probability of this happening seems to be more or less equal to having me elected as the next pope. I guess you meant 1N :). Are you being too affirmative ? Maybe you could think about this in a different manner ? Let's say you have 1000000 boards in DB and the problem you try to figure out occur 0,05% of the time. That's 500 boards to look at. It would take you more than a lifetime to have such a sample set at the table. What I do when I feel like doing a "sim-session" is to have a visual look at all those 500 boards (take about 1 or 2 hours), and imagine what may happen during the bidding. Most of the boards pose no problems at all, and I'll usually figure out what will be the important events (they compete and you are stuck, you get too high, you miss too many games, and so on). Then I try to sum up all those things, and evaluate the REAL frequency of all those events. Then I make up my mind. You cannot really share the results of such of sim-session with others without having them looking at all the boards. So what you must do next is try to present the results in a synthetic manner, and probably, sometimes, a simplistic manner. Obviously, you don't like it. Maybe others do. If that's not the case, I promise I'll keep them for me. That will save some bandwith. Cheers.

I don't know who you are talking about :) i was talking about balancing over 1♣.

If you're attempting to deceive opponents by the order in which you play the cards, that's fine, but if you are trying to deceive them through your mannerisms, that's a violation of law 73D2. Do you mean you should look as if you absolutely don't care about what oppos play on Clubs, because actually you absolutely don't care ? :) You should attempt to look the same all the time. Then they aren't deceived. That's why I always play with a balaclava and sunglasses. :)+B)

If you're attempting to deceive opponents by the order in which you play the cards, that's fine, but if you are trying to deceive them through your mannerisms, that's a violation of law 73D2. Do you mean you should look as if you absolutely don't care about what oppos play on Clubs, because actually you absolutely don't care ? :)

Sry that wasn't clear. Pard has 4 cards for sure.

[hv=s=sxxhaxxxxdakqxxca]133|100|[/hv] maybe ? I'd love to bid 5♥ asking for a ♠ control.

I usually hate opening 12-HCP 4333 hands with 1♣, bud I would certainly have made an exception here, because of the 2 Tens and useful quacks. Even if North opens in 4th position, I don't see how you reach 3NT now, unless south goes crazy and bids 3NT himself (not really consistent with original Pass). So I would give 75% blame to south, and 25% to bad luck (hand fit perfectly). I would have bid 1NT(south, 12-14) 3NT. If playing strong NT, 1♣ 2♣(F1), 2NT (nat NF) 3NT.

how can you do it even a little bid without being unethical? Tough. I would certainly not sigh or pause after second ♣, even for a short time. First I would take my time after ♥A (anyway this is the killing point). Then I would play ♣A, ♣K as if I were very concentrated about this suit, and then call a diamond in tempo, as if I already had made my plan at trick 3 to switch to diamonds should the ♣ be badly distributed.

4♥. First answer is easy. Then I pass 4♠, and could be wrong in practice. My shape is not as good as it looks : I will be the long Hand, and my xxx in minors look very bad. If it was the day for the very famous sac r/w, too bad.

I don't believe I can get East napping if they lead 4th best. And If East has got the ♦Ace, they CANNOT block the ♥ suit. There's a distant hope of them blocking the heart suit though, if West has the ♦A. Depends of the remaining spots. If I'm playing MP, I don't play a ♦ straight away. I start with AK♣, hoping that RHO will discard on the second round. I'm trying to look as if I get bad news (without overdoing it, for ethical reasons). Then maybe if I play a diamond from dummy NOW, East may think his side has all the suits locked up... and duck. I would do the same at IMP. Early "suit misdirection" sometimes pay unexpected dividends. I would not expect to succeed very often here though.

"Mixed" normally means four-card support and constructive (but not invitational) values. Then I would not consider any other bid than 4♠ !

[hv=d=w&v=e&e=skjthj65dkqjcaq82&s=sa92ha73da85ckt54]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Oppos bid 2♥(weak) 4♥. Your pard lead the ♦7 (showing 2/4 cards). What is your plan, if any ? (strong oppos). EDIT: pard lead x(x)xx, xx(x), (x)x so you probably know pard has 4 small.

Tough one. Pard has 3♠2+♥ if I understand 3♥ properly. This looks like 17 total trumps, but as my spade holding is perfect for offense (and I have no Heart quacks), I think 17 trumps will often lead to 18 tricks. This suggests a 4♠ bid. OTOH if east's minor is Clubs, or if pard has 3+♥, 4♠ will often be a phantom against their 4♥ because 17 T-tricks only are available. But in that case I expect the scoresheet might be half full with 140 in my column, and I need to whack 4♥ to save some MP. It looks as if I cannot let them play 4♥ undoubled. At the table, I admit I would probably pass first. If it goes 3NT by west (4252), 4♣ by East, I hit the jackpot. Unlikely but possible. Otherwise, I guess I'll bid 4♠ very confidently at my next turn, unless pard whacks 4♥ himself. I don't really see why a very confident delayed 4♠ will see our line less favourably placed than a direct 4♠. But maybe I'm wrong, because many other posters bid a wtp 4♠. The bid I don't consider is 4♣. I would need 5-5 to bid that. EDIT: if mixed raise means limit 4+♠ (is that so ?) I bid a wtp 4♠ at light speed.

If East has 7+♦ his play doesn't make sense. If he has 6-♦, a ♦J return cannot cost, and will break any possible squeeze. ♦J.

Hi Justin, I've put reference numbers in the above quote, and will answer 1 by 1. It is almost a matter of religion I think : I never had any problems in any event playing this style over a passed out 1m. Anyway, I found your remarks interesting, so I had a look in my database of 750000 boards. A few statistics : 750000 Boards 5518 lead to 1C pass pass (I didnot study 1D, and 1C is 3+C) 1477 #4 has a notrumpish 10+ count (I excluded 4342, 3442, 44xx which may dbl) 314 10-11 HCP 466 14-16 HCP 247 17-19 HCP Now responding your remarks (I suppose now that West is notrumpish) : <1> Only 9 boards in 750000 will lead to 1C P P X 2C when #4 has 14 HCP. So I would say this is statistically irrelevant. (Actually, I have many more problems when I open 1C (nat or 15+ BAL) and oppos interfere at the 2-level). Hence I really don't think doubling with 14-16 BAL poses a problem (if #1 doesn't bid 2x, this is easy). <3> Only 6 boards in 750000 will lead to 1C P P 2NT missing a major fit (#2 has less than 6 HCP). In those cases, you actually never make 2NT, but you also never make 3M. You score one more trick in Major. This is also statistically irrelevant. <2> What about a bloodbath ? Playing 17-19 and looking at the results of the 2NT contract double dummy, West should double with 17+ hcp. There are 17 such cases in 750000. In 3 cases 2NT-X makes ! In 6 cases you go down 3. let's say it's again not really relevant (and do they always defend perfectly ?) <4> Balancing with 10-11 (or excellent 9). 314 cases in 750000. 50 times you bid game and make. 34 times you bid game and fail (double dummy). In reality, I guess there will be a slip in defense more often. It looks like a gain of about less than 300 imps in 750000 boards. 1 imp every 2500 boards. 1 imp every 1000 boards maybe if you study also 1D (actually, 0.001 imp/board is usually the limit for which I think something might be relevant). The other boards where you stay in 1NT are very uncertain : 1C and 1NT are both difficult to defend, statistics given by the sim don't really show an advantage in defending 1V versus playing 1NT. The vulnerability is also an important factor. I don't have any strong conclusion on this point. CONCLUSION : imo, 10-13, 11-14 or 12-15 will produce different results. I now very much doubt that one range is better than the other in practice. I'm sure that's definitely not where matches are win or lost.

Most people I know have a balancing 1N range of about 11-15, and X then 1N is 16-18, and balancing 2N is about 19-21. Maybe this is a regional thing. So much for my comment. Maybe not so regional, because in the old (rather good) book from Mike Lawrence, "The complete book on balancing" he suggests balancing 2NT with 17-19. Actually I would : - balance 1NT with (9!)10-13 on 1m Pass Pass ; (then 1NT rebid is 14-16). - balance 1NT with 11-14(15) on 1H - balance 1NT with 11-15(16) on 1S This was more or less the scheme suggested by Lawrence and I think it works quite well ! The idea is that on 1S, bidding DBL with 15 HCP is dangerous because afterwards you need to bid 2NT on any 2X by pard. On 1C, the problem is really different : 1NT will be available on most of the rebids of pard. So you can allow to balance 1NT with as low as 10HCP, which I think is usually a good thing to do. Well, I think you can choose from different ranges. But actually, I would find it suspicious (in terms of efficiency) if your ranges are the same after 1C/1D/1H/1S. Cheers.

1°) Partner with a 4 card fit can be mini or Maxi what is the impact on the sim? 2°) The key issue is the duplication of value in C in case of a fit you can have the info below 3H For instance : 1NT 2D 2S = 4H mini 2NT = 4H + anti-splinter in C (xxx or little wasted values) 3C = 4H + anti-splinter in D 3D = 4H + anti-splinter in S 3H = 4H Maxi So now in case of a super-fit you can analyze the true value of your singleton, the downside maybe that you are telling too much to the defense Worth the trouble or not ? Worth the trouble if you play this kind of stuff throughout your system... which is the case in the very complex system I play with one of my pards. You need to design it as to make the describing hand dummy most of the time. I think that locating shortness (or ideal holdings facing potential shortness) everytime it might be needed is really missing in most of the "natural" systems.

I would rate both DBL (when do we bid a balancing 2NT ?) and 1NT ridiculous, which might be between offbeat and insane. 1NT usually shows 14-16 in this pos no ?

Yes ! I would have made it lol <_< The real hand looks almost to good for the "short Qx in west hand theory"...(very long ♣QJT...).

One of the downsides of weak NT in 4th seat seems to be that you can't play 1M anymore. You also are opening 1N less frequently. Of course on the plus side sometimes you will get to play 1N when they could have found a making 2 level partscore otherwise. I don't really open 1NT less frequently. In 4th the probabilities of the different BAL ranges (it of course depends on oppos style in 3rd -- this is probably not true against Meckwell for instance) : 12-14 : 31% 13-15 : 32% 14-16 : 31% 15-17 : 28% So if you consider frequency only, it doesn't matter. I'm not going to advocate for weak notrump in 4th (we play it any vul, any pos). We are happy with this style. You get ups and downs. 1NT is difficult to defend, and you have lot of inferences from the P-P-P sequence when you declare. Also when you play 2M in the 5cM of responder, you often make. Also sometimes 1NT is a good sac against their 2M contract (even at this vul). OTOH, yes, sometimes we would love to bid 1m (P) 1M end. You cannot have your cake and eat it <_<

That really doesn't look like a 2NT rebid in my book. Of course slam is excellent.