semeai

A teaching table on BBO is also a good way to do this. You can set constraints as well.

1. I would have bid 3♦ over 3♣. Partner's bidding is confusing due to the lack of cuebidding. I guess it must have been a slam try with 5 spades and a side club suit, but partner was discouraged by our 3NT bid. Since I don't have a 3NT bid and in fact my hand looks good for slam, I guess I can move, but mikeh's comment above (under different assumptions!) about not making up for past bids is worth noting. Just one possible hand for partner: AQxxx Kx xx AQ10x. My club J is worth something, but slam seems likely to be on a finesse if partner wasn't interested opposite something like Kxx AQxx KJxx xx. (I added a stupid extra comment here briefly, and now retract it.) 2. Pass. I'm mildly tempted to double. 3. Was pass forcing? If this is "obviously a sacrifice" and you play forcing passes of obvious sacrifices, then I suppose so. It's hard for there to be an obvious red/white sacrifice though, and maybe you don't want your passes to be forcing whenever the opponents "walk the dog" (though I guess that's not, intentionally at least, what's going on here). I guess pass wasn't forcing. I'll double, but also wouldn't be so surprised if it makes.

Good question. Maybe one of the "over the shoulder" type of books would be good for this, if you think lots of examples instead of mostly theory could help. Maybe a modern one, since the older ones (Bridge with the Blue Team, Reese) are better for play of the hand than for bidding. I'm not thinking of one in particular in book form to recommend, but there's software by Larry Cohen (1999 Life Master Pairs) and by Kit Woolsey (2000 Cavendish). Admittedly I've only tried the sample deals, but they look good. Does anyone who owns these know if these have lots of competitive bidding decisions and discussion thereof?

To paraphrase for Han, minus the probability lecture: If you're going to assume opener has five spades, do so. Then the vacant spaces are 31, and the rest of your calculation is basically fine using 31 instead of 34. (Han goes on to note that hcp considerations will matter slightly as well, hence the "basically.") If you don't want to assume opener has five spades, then you have some more work to do. It's still not too bad (though not something you want to compute at the table), just more complicated, at least ignoring the confounding factor of hcp.

You added a word there that MIckyB conspicuously left absent.

You bid 2♣, showing 14-17 with 6+C or 4D-5C, according to http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/Fantoni_Nunes.txt

I think it is not the bid, but you who are sandwiched between two active opponents.

To help your searches: The 2NT bid is called Jacoby 2NT and, if agreed that you're using this convention (many online will without comment, and it is part of the SAYC system most play), it shows a game forcing raise over a 1 of a major opening. There are specific responses that are standard that I'll leave you to find if/when you look up the convention. If you play neither splinters nor Jacoby 2NT, that's fine and you can just bid 2C and then raise spades on this hand. As we've seen many prefer this with this hand even playing those conventions because the club suit is notable in addition to the support.

More likely and probably still sufficient for getting a good position would be to find (with proof) the best bidding system for "bridge at the one- and two-levels with no doubles or redoubles." :)

Cross Hand Opponent Added: Yes, probably MrAce is right and it's Center, not Cross traditionally

The odds LHO has a Yarborough given that you have 16 hcp and RHO has opened has got to be closer to 20 to 1. There's likely somewhere around 10-12 hcp left for partner and LHO, which is likely held in 3-5 cards. It's 1 in 2^3 = 8, 1 in 2^4 = 16, or 1 in 2^5 = 32 that partner has a Yarborough in each of the cases for 3, 4, or 5 high cards remaining.

I don't have that book, but is it as complete as we've attempted to be here? I've seen lists in various intermediate-to-advanced articles and they're usually similar to the things we've been writing here but less complete. Not to say we've been so complete, but more so than other sources I've seen at least. Certainly the above lists could be merged and edited for clarity and order at some point.

I have no laws expertise, but I think OP (plus randomization method) is enough disclosure, and it's up to the opponents to work out that this makes it less likely it's the spade hand.

The 2♥ bid is affected as well. It changes the probability that he has a heart hand or a spade hand. Without the 20% it would be much more likely it was the spade hand, but with that it's probably close to even. Using Bayes' Theorem: prob(spade hand | 2♥) = prob(2♥ | spade hand) * prob(spade hand) / prob(2♥) = .2 * prob(spade hand) / prob(2♥) prob(heart hand | 2♥) = prob(2♥ | heart hand) * prob(heart hand) / prob(2♥) = prob(heart hand) / prob(2♥) So the ratio prob(spade hand | 2♥) : prob(heart hand | 2♥) is equal to .2 * prob(spade hand) : prob(heart hand) instead of the same expression without the .2 if the 20% provision weren't there. Here spade hand = 5-8, 5+ spades, heart hand = 11-15, 6+ hearts. Added: According to BBO's "deal source" widget, prob(spade hand) = 5.06%, and prob(heart hand) = 1.80 %. So without the 20% provision, it's more than twice as likely it's the spade hand. With it, it's almost twice as likely it's the heart hand.

Even on this uncontested auction I would play 4♥ as the limit raise (and presumably partner doesn't pass with his game-force-opposite-a-six-count). You need 3♥ as possibly just a preference with 2 hearts, so it can't be stronger than 4♥.

<apology type="necro">Sorry.</apology> I started a thread a while ago not knowing about this one. Here's the list we had in that thread. Note that these are for when double is not takeout. It still may be cards instead of penalty, but we didn't get into that. Some are repeats of those in this thread. I've put B in front of the numbers so as not to confuse with the numbering in this thread. Double of an opponent's suit bid is takeout unless: B1) Our side has already made a strength showing double or redouble (maybe this is supposed to be more restrictive) B2) We have a known fit B3) All four suits have been shown B4) The opponent's bid is artificial B5) Pass is forcing B6) Our side preempted or showed a defined 2-suiter B7) The doubler passed up an opportunity to make a takeout double earlier and is not balancing at the 2-level and no new suit has been bid B8) The opponents have shown 3 separate suits B9) The opponents have bid game and doubler has passed before B10) Partner has suggested the suit (even implicitly, as via a t/o X) as a place to play [note that this does not apply, for instance, to (1Y) 1N (2Y) X, where partner has shown cards in the suit but has not suggested it as a place for us to play] B11) Our side has rebid 1NT B12) We've both bid and they balance B13) We've shown a defined one-suiter and have room for a cuebid below 3NT Test for #3 and #12: 1D P 1H P; 2C P P 2S; X. Should this be takeout instead? Test for #11: 1C P 1S P; 1N 2H X. Should this be takeout instead? This one's a bit implausible. Maybe 1C 1H 1S P; 1N 2H X instead. The "and no new suit has been bid" clause of my #B7 takes care of this.

I wondered why I didn't get many responses! Thanks for the link to your thread.

Why? He just tells them exactly what you do. The result isn't knowable to your partner or opponents, but so what? Whether you're feeling frisky today is also perhaps not knowable, but it's allowed to base your actions on "whether I feel like taking a light action today."

This is great, as it sends no other signal about your hand and uses no (possibly illegal) outside aid. In fact, it gives you one of 13 factorial possibilities, using any absolute ordering of the cards. That's more than 32 bits. To get 50%, note two cards from your hand, shuffle your hand, and see which is first. To get 20%, note three cards from your hand, shuffle your hand, and if they appear in the order 123 shuffle again, and if they appear in the order 321, take your 20% action. Added: Maybe you don't want to be seen shuffling your cards more than the one initial time. In that case, do it once, and look at the first two cards for 50% or the first three for 20%. If the first three are in the order 123, look at the next three for your "second shuffle", and so on (this doesn't give exacty 20% as you have only four chances not to get 123). Added: To get exactly 20%, look at the first five cards and check whether the highest of them in your absolute order is first.

No

Do you mean you would pass and pull a double to show slam interest, and if partner bids 5m on his own, you would bid on? What would 4NT show on this auction? If it's generic slam interest, is it stronger or weaker than the above?

I think this is choice of slams, i.e. it tells me to choose between 6♥ and 6NT, usually with 5332 and values for a small slam. Here I have 3 hearts and no particular reason to expect notrump to be better, so I bid 6♥. That would make this different from 2NT-5NT (choose 6 or 7). I suppose texas transfer then 5NT is grand slam force. I don't know how to ask for a choice between 6 or 7 at the same time as asking for a choice between hearts and notrump. Perhaps this bid, with some sort of artificial responses, would be a way, but that can't be standard. Added: What's 2N-3D;3H-6N? Probably it's passable, inviting 7H or 7NT? With a choice of grands you can always bid 5N and raise the response to 7. Over 2N-3D;3H-5N, we could also cuebid with a great hand to account for a hand that can tolerate a grand. Our hand may come close to a 6♣ cuebid, but we have wastage in spades. We didn't superaccept, though, so maybe we do have a great hand and 6♣ is correct.

I think inquiry is basically correct. If West leads ♥K whenever he has ♥KQ and never otherwise, then the lead gives us precisely the inference that he has ♥KQ (and no other info). This means we should take it into account for vacant spaces. I think it's not far from the truth that West leads ♥K whenever he has ♥KQ and never otherwise given our hands and the contract. The ♥109 situation is much less clear. A lead from some sequence is not unlikely for this contract, so probably there's little to no adjustment to a vacant spaces calculation.

Let's start with an easier example. Maybe the bid is 2♠ showing 5-8 with 5+ spades but when you have that holding you only bid it 50% of the time and pass 50% of the time, choosing randomly. Other people may play 2♠ showing 5-8 with 5+ spades, only bidding it when they have that holding 50% of the time and passing 50% of the time, but deciding based on suit quality and other factors. Surely when you have two bids that both describe your hand (here, pass and 2♠), you're free to decide on your own which to make as long as your disclosure of any partnership understandings is fine. This comes up all the time. Usually the answer isn't that you choose randomly, but if it is and you disclose properly, I don't see why that would be a problem. (Be warned, though, that I have no laws expertise.) Often bids are just on a whim. If, say, my partner likes to upgrade unremarkable 14's to his 15-17 notrump "when he's feeling frisky" (and let's say that's 50% of the time), this is strikingly similar to him choosing randomly what to do with a 14. In fact, the former, even though much more common, is perhaps harder to properly disclose and not have UI from. I may be able to pick up on when my partner is feeling "frisky," whatever that means. We are not simple automatons, and I'd argue that for even the most experienced, steady players (though for them would be less often), often enough the same hand in the same situation would be bid differently based on mood or lunch or the previous hand or whether a butterfly flapped through the neighboring room. That all said, disclosure may be a problem. If you have a special method to choose pseudo-randomly, I suspect you should disclose it, and also make sure it's not one that your partner could crack. If you have no special method but it's "random, as decided by my gut sense of what's random", there's likely a problem with UI. Maybe you've recently had 5-8 with 5+ spades and you bid 2♠. Now it may be in your nature to make things "average out" and pass. This is a problem, as your partner has the past history, but your opponents do not. In other words, you'd better make sure your random variables for different instances of this bid are independent. Awesome. This would make the play of the hand hilarious if there was any guessing to be done with few cards remaining. Would this be considered "encrypted," though, and thus disallowed? Your partner doesn't have the key, of course. Gwnn didn't claim it was exact. In fact, he said "It would not be 20-20-20-20-20, but I'm sure it's not far either."