NZ vs Italy

The following is a report of the NZ vs Italy match from the Bermuda Bowl round robin. I don't have much experience in formatting bridge hands in HTML so let me know if it doesn't look good in your browser. The relevant system cards can be located here.

The first board was a cold 3NT at both tables - no swing.

Bd: 18 ♠ J3 Dlr: E ♥ AKJ984 Vul: N/S ♦ Q ♣ A1043 ♠ K8542 ♠ 1097 ♥ 1062 ♥ 53 ♦ J52 ♦ A643 ♣ Q5 ♣ 9872 ♠ AQ6 ♥ Q7 ♦ K10987 ♣ KJ6 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 1 4 1 3 1 N 11 8 11 10 11 E 1 4 1 3 1 S 12 9 12 10 12

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin P 1NT P 2♦ P 2♥ P 3♣ P 3NT P 5♥ P 6♥ P P P ♠2 ♠3 ♠9 ♠Q ♦7 ♦5 ♦Q ♦A ♠7 ♠A ♠4 ♠J ♦8 ♦2 ♥8 ♦3 ♥A ♥3 ♥7 ♥2 ♥4 ♥5 ♥Q ♥6 ♦9 ♦J ♥J

A 13 IMP swing to NZ from a combination of judgment and systemic differences, where the systemic differences were more luck than superior methods.

6H is a good contract by South, but not by North, so the strong notrump worked better. 4H by Cornell would have been a mild slam try, as with just game values he would bid 4H over 2H. Bach would probably have passed this, but was happy to go on to slam over the more strongly invitational 5H with help in partner's long suits along with primary cards in his short suits.

Bd: 19 ♠ K543 Dlr: S ♥ Q86 Vul: E/W ♦ AK105 ♣ KJ ♠ J10976 ♠ A82 ♥ K4 ♥ A102 ♦ 7 ♦ J64 ♣ AQ632 ♣ 10854 ♠ Q ♥ J9753 ♦ Q9832 ♣ 97 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 6 9 4 4 10 N 6 4 8 8 3 E 6 9 4 4 10 S 6 4 8 8 3

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin 2♥ 2♠ 4♥ 4♠ P P Dbl P P P ♦K ♦4 ♦8 ♦7 ♦A ♦6 ♦9 ♠6 ♠7 ♠3 ♠2 ♠Q ♦Q ♠9 ♦5 ♦J ♣A ♣J ♣4 ♣7 ♣2 ♣K ♣T ♣9 ♥Q ♥2 ♥3 ♥K ♠T ♠4 ♠8 ♥5 ♣Q ♥8 ♣8 ♥7 ♣6 ♠5 ♣5

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware P 1♠ 1NT Dbl 2♦ P 2♥ 2♠ 3♦ 3♠ 4♥ Dbl P P P ♣5 ♣7 ♣A ♣J ♦7 ♦T ♦J ♦Q ♥3 ♥4 ♥Q ♥A ♦6 ♦2 ♥K ♦K ♣2 ♣K ♣4 ♣9 ♥8 ♥2 ♥5 ♠6 ♥6 ♥T ♥J

New Zealand is probably the most aggressive preempting team in the competition and Italy the most conservative.

On this hand Bach's threadbare 2H opening led everyone to stretch and Dubion/Sementa ended up too high in 4S, though both their actions are understandable. The contract is not bad just looking at the E/W cards, but the bidding made bad breaks likely and a forcing defence meant the contract was unmakeable. Dubion might have escaped for one down with good guessing but ended up two down for -500.

At the other table, Nunes passed and N/S took a while to find their heart fit allowing E/W to communicate their (lack of) values at a lower level. Fantoni's final 4H bid is clearly too much, though without knowing their style it's possible that Nunes's 3D was the main culprit. On a club lead and diamond switch, this might also have gone two down but Ware failed to rise with KH on the trump lead from dummy so could only ruff with the winning trump. KH would be wrong if East might double with Jxx of hearts plus AS and KC.

12 IMPS to NZ. NZ 25, Italy 0.

Bd: 20 ♠ J84 Dlr: W ♥ Q1082 Vul: All ♦ Q852 ♣ 109 ♠ K1076 ♠ AQ93 ♥ 764 ♥ J5 ♦ J10 ♦ 93 ♣ 8432 ♣ KQJ75 ♠ 52 ♥ AK93 ♦ AK764 ♣ A6 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 3 8 2 3 8 N 9 5 11 10 5 E 3 8 2 3 8 S 9 5 11 10 5

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin P P 1♣ 1NT P P P ♣3 ♣T ♣J ♣A ♦4 ♦T ♦Q ♦3 ♦2 ♦9 ♦A ♦J ♦6 ♥6 ♦5

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware P P 1♣! Dbl P 1♥ P 2♣ P 2♦ P 4♥ P P P ♣K ♣A ♣2 ♣9 ♥A ♥4 ♥2 ♥5 ♥3 ♥6 ♥Q ♥J ♥8 ♣7 ♥K ♥7 ♦4 ♦J ♦Q ♦3 ♦2 ♦9 ♦A ♦T ♦K ♠6 ♦5

Another combined system/judgment swing, this time to Italy. Over East's 1C opening, Bach chose a 1NT overcall which ended the auction while Nunes doubled and reached a successful 4H game.

My view is that South is both too strong and too suit-oriented for a 1NT overcall. Bids with one flaw often succeed, but with two flaws you are better off trying something else. Here the options are 1D or dbl. Heavy overcalls are not my style so I would double, though 1D is possible and would be the choice of many experts.

After the double I prefer a 3H raise to Nunes's cue bid followed by 4H. South has a good hand but with loads of space available there is no need for him to essentially bid game on his own. North's two working queens are enough continue if invited and both are needed to make game good.

10 IMPS to Italy. NZ 25, Italy 10.

Bd: 21 ♠ AKJ762 Dlr: N ♥ 96 Vul: N/S ♦ QJ5 ♣ Q8 ♠ ♠ 83 ♥ KJ52 ♥ Q8743 ♦ AK1086 ♦ 32 ♣ J943 ♣ K765 ♠ Q10954 ♥ A10 ♦ 974 ♣ A102 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 4 4 10 8 9 N 8 9 3 5 3 E 4 4 10 8 9 S 8 9 3 5 3

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin 1♠ P 4♠ Dbl P 5♥ Dbl P P P ♠4 ♥2 ♠6 ♠8 ♦A ♦5 ♦3 ♦4 ♦K ♦J ♦2 ♦7 ♦6 ♦Q ♥7 ♦9 ♥3 ♥T ♥K ♥6 ♣3 ♣8 ♣K ♣A ♠5 ♥5 ♠2 ♠3 ♣4 ♣Q ♣7 ♣2 ♠A ♣5 ♠9 ♥J ♣J ♥9

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware 2♠! P 4♠ P P P ♥3 ♥A ♥2 ♥6 ♠T ♦6 ♠A ♠3 ♠7 ♠8 ♠9 ♦8 ♥T ♥K ♥9 ♥8 ♦K ♦5 ♦2 ♦4 ♦A ♦J ♦3 ♦7 ♦T ♦Q ♣5 ♦9 ♣8 ♣7 ♣A ♣3 ♣2 ♣4 ♣Q ♣K

NZ gained 9 IMPS when Ware judged a high level competitive auction better than Dubion. The 2S opening by Fantoni was intermediate so both Wests were in a similar position. Ware passed and collected 100 against 4S (though 200 was possible). Dubion doubled and Sementa in 5HX chose to play 'safely' for -300 rather than hope for 2-2 trumps and risk losing control. Bach also helped to create the swing with his heavy 4S jump. Unlike Nunes, he was facing an unlimited opener.

I think double is the percentage action with West, but it can obviously be wrong as it is here. East's 5H is also reasonable though passing the double is an option as well.

9 more IMPS to NZ. NZ 34, Italy 10.

Bd: 22 ♠ KJ976 Dlr: E ♥ J643 Vul: E/W ♦ 84 ♣ 86 ♠ 104 ♠ AQ53 ♥ Q1092 ♥ K ♦ Q32 ♦ AJ105 ♣ 10975 ♣ AQJ3 ♠ 82 ♥ A875 ♦ K976 ♣ K42 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 9 7 7 9 10 N 4 6 6 3 3 E 9 7 7 10 10 S 4 6 6 3 3

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin 1♣ 1♥ P 1♠ P 2♦ P 2♥ Dbl P 3♣ P P P ♠8 ♠T ♠J ♠Q ♥K ♥A ♥2 ♥3 ♦6 ♦Q ♦4 ♦5 ♣5 ♣6 ♣A ♣2 ♣3 ♣4 ♣T ♣8 ♣7 ♦8 ♣Q ♣K ♠2 ♠4 ♠6 ♠A ♠3

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware 1♣! P P P ♠2 ♠4 ♠9 ♠Q ♥K ♥A ♥2 ♥3 ♥5 ♥9 ♥J ♣3 ♣A ♣2 ♣5 ♣6 ♣J ♣4 ♣7 ♣8 ♠A ♠8 ♠T ♠7 ♠3 ♥7 ♣9 ♠6 ♦Q ♦4 ♦5 ♦K ♣K ♣T ♥4 ♣Q

This is a pretty good 3NT that might have been reached after an offshape 2NT opening. Both Easts, however, opened 1C and played a club partscore. I agree with the 1C opening which makes it much easier to reach a minor suit game or slam (or partscore) and the risk of missing a game is small.

Italy gained 1 IMP for an extra overtrick. NZ 34, Italy 11.

Board 23 was a routine 3NT and Italy gained another overtrick IMP. NZ 34, Italy 12.

Bd: 24 ♠ Q652 Dlr: W ♥ J1065 Vul: None ♦ K984 ♣ Q ♠ K9743 ♠ J10 ♥ AQ2 ♥ K983 ♦ 2 ♦ AQJ103 ♣ 9842 ♣ 63 ♠ A8 ♥ 74 ♦ 765 ♣ AKJ1075 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 6 8 8 8 6 N 7 5 4 5 7 E 6 8 8 8 6 S 7 5 4 5 7

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin P P 1♦ 2♣ 2♠ P P 3♣ P P P ♦2 ♦4 ♦T ♦6 ♣3 ♣5 ♣2 ♣Q ♥5 ♥3 ♥7 ♥Q ♥A ♥6 ♥8 ♥4 ♣4 ♠2 ♣6 ♣7 ♣A ♣8 ♠5 ♦3 ♣K ♣9 ♦8 ♦J ♣T ♠7 ♥T ♥9 ♣J ♠4 ♥J ♠J ♠A ♠3 ♠6 ♠T ♠8 ♠K ♠Q ♦Q ♥2 ♦9 ♥K ♦5 ♦A ♦7 ♠9 ♦K

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware P P 1♦ 2♣ Dbl P 2♥ P 2♠ P P P ♣Q ♣3 ♣K ♣2 ♠8 ♠3 ♠Q ♠T ♠5 ♠J ♠A ♠4 ♣A ♣4 ♥6 ♣6 ♣T ♣8 ♥T ♦3 ♣J ♣9 ♥5 ♥3 ♣7 ♠K ♥J ♦T

Both West's, oddly I think, chose to commit their side to 2S on what could easily have been a singleton opposite their K9xxx. I prefer either to pass 2C or make a negative double and pass partner's 2H.

As it happens, 2S is makeable though Ware went down after Nunes found the excellent small trump switch from Ax at trick two. The defence then took the first six tricks. For South's overcall, he could easily have KD and QS instead of AS but whether he would have found the same switch from Qx is open to question of course.

Bach chose to bid 3C over 2S though I prefer pass. With the wide range of hands partner may hold, it's better to let him decide rather than go on just because I have a bit extra. I would expect either 2S or 3C (and possibly both) to usually fail if partner cannot raise my overcall or make a negative double.

4 IMPS to Italy. NZ 34, Italy 16.

Bd: 25 ♠ AJ Dlr: N ♥ AQ7 Vul: E/W ♦ J942 ♣ J653 ♠ 542 ♠ K86 ♥ 9654 ♥ K1082 ♦ AK8 ♦ Q1076 ♣ A104 ♣ 98 ♠ Q10973 ♥ J3 ♦ 53 ♣ KQ72 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 7 5 8 7 5 N 6 7 4 6 8 E 7 5 8 7 5 S 6 7 4 5 8

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin 1♣ P 1♥ P 1NT P 2♣ P P Dbl 2♠ P P P ♦A ♦2 ♦6 ♦3 ♦K ♦4 ♦7 ♦5 ♦8 ♦9 ♦T ♠3 ♠7 ♠4 ♠J ♠K ♦Q ♥3 ♥6 ♦J ♠6 ♠9 ♠2 ♠A ♣3 ♣8 ♣Q ♣A ♥4 ♥A ♥2 ♥J ♣5 ♣9 ♣K ♣4 ♠Q

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware 1NT! P 2♥! P 2♠ P P P ♣9 ♣Q ♣A ♣5 ♣4 ♣6 ♣8 ♣K ♥3 ♥4 ♥Q ♥K ♦7 ♦3 ♦K ♦2 ♣T ♣J ♠6 ♣2 ♦6 ♦5 ♦A ♦4 ♥5 ♥7 ♥2 ♥J ♠3 ♠2 ♠A ♠8 ♠J ♠K ♠7 ♠4

Another partscore swing. Fantoni/Nunes, playing a weak notrump, declared 2S by North after a transfer sequence. Cornell/Bach, playing a strong notrump, ended in 2S by South. Since East had a doubleton club and a trump entry, the Italians were one down while NZ just made.

4 IMPS to NZ. NZ 38, Italy 16.

Bd: 26 ♠ AQJ85 Dlr: E ♥ AQ43 Vul: All ♦ J ♣ Q73 ♠ 9762 ♠ K103 ♥ 5 ♥ J109876 ♦ A752 ♦ 94 ♣ AJ105 ♣ K4 ♠ 4 ♥ K2 ♦ KQ10863 ♣ 9862 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 4 6 6 4 5 N 8 5 6 7 8 E 4 6 6 4 5 S 8 5 6 7 8

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin P 3♦ P 3♠ P 3NT P P P ♣J ♣Q ♣K ♣2 ♣4 ♣8 ♣T ♣3 ♣A ♣7 ♥J ♣6 ♠6 ♠Q ♠K ♠4 ♥T ♥2 ♥5 ♥Q ♦J ♦4 ♦Q ♦A ♠2 ♠A ♠3 ♦3 ♠J ♠T ♦6 ♠7 ♥3 ♥6 ♥K

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware 2♥ P P 2♠ P 3♦ P 3NT P P P ♥J ♥2 ♥5 ♥Q ♦J ♦4 ♦K ♦2 ♦Q ♦A ♥3 ♦9 ♣5 ♣3 ♣K ♣2 ♣4 ♣6 ♣A ♣7 ♠7 ♠A ♠3 ♠4 ♥4 ♥6 ♥K ♦5

Style again helped create a swing as NZ opened with a preempt at both tables.

After opening 3D, Bach ended in 3NT by South and was down fairly quickly after the JC lead and later spade switch established five tricks for the defence. Fantoni declared 3NT by North. He won the heart lead in hand then overtook the JD and continued diamonds, knocking out the ace and happily noting the fall of the 9. Though there are now 9 tricks on top, the blockage in hearts means a spade switch followed by a heart back would beat the contract. Ware instead tried a low club but Fantoni guessed correctly to play low and had no further problems.

4 IMPS to Italy. NZ 38, Italy 28.

Bd: 27 ♠ A85 Dlr: S ♥ AQ63 Vul: None ♦ 1085 ♣ A96 ♠ 7642 ♠ Q9 ♥ 72 ♥ KJ54 ♦ 94 ♦ AKQ7 ♣ KJ1085 ♣ Q72 ♠ KJ103 ♥ 1098 ♦ J632 ♣ 43 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 7 6 6 6 9 N 6 7 7 7 4 E 7 6 6 6 8 S 6 7 7 6 4

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin P P 1♣ 1NT P P P ♥T ♥2 ♥A ♥5 ♥3 ♥K ♥9 ♥7 ♣7 ♣3 ♣J ♣6 ♣T ♣9 ♣2 ♣4 ♠2 ♠5 ♠Q ♠K ♥8 ♣5 ♥6 ♥J

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware P P 1NT! Dbl P! P P ♦K ♦2 ♦4 ♦5 ♥5 ♥8 ♥2 ♥3 ♦3 ♦9 ♦T ♦Q ♣7 ♣3 ♣K ♣6 ♥7 ♥A ♥4 ♥9 ♦8 ♦A ♦6 ♠7 ♣Q ♣4 ♣5 ♣9 ♣2 ♥T ♣J ♣A ♠A ♠9 ♠3 ♠2 ♠5 ♠Q

Whibley doubled Fantoni's weak notrump and Ware chose a characteristically aggressive pass, rather than 2C. Double dummy this can be defeated if East leads clubs which declarer must duck twice allowing West two entries to push hearts through. In practice though, it was always going to be a question of overtricks and Fantoni managed eight tricks for +280.

Cornell/Bach play a strong notrump so East overcalled Cornell's 1C with 1NT. He appears to have misread the heart position after the 10H lead but the defence failed to take their tricks so another +90 to Italy and 9 IMPS.

NEW ZEALAND: 38, ITALY: 37.

Bd: 28 ♠ Q972 Dlr: W ♥ Q65 Vul: N/S ♦ 8 ♣ J6432 ♠ J ♠ AK108653 ♥ K10984 ♥ J72 ♦ A942 ♦ K5 ♣ Q98 ♣ 5 ♠ 4 ♥ A3 ♦ QJ10763 ♣ AK107 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 6 9 9 5 3 N 6 4 4 7 9 E 7 9 9 6 3 S 6 4 4 7 9

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin P P 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ P 2♠ 3♣ P 4♣ P 5♣ P P P ♠J ♠Q ♠K ♠4 ♥2 ♥3 ♥K ♥5 ♥T ♥6 ♥7 ♥A ♦T ♦A ♦8 ♦5 ♥9 ♥Q ♥J ♦3 ♣2 ♣5 ♣A ♣8 ♦6 ♦2 ♣3 ♦K ♣J ♠3

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware P P 4♠ P P P ♣A ♣8 ♣J ♣5 ♦Q ♦A ♦8 ♦5 ♠J ♠2 ♠3 ♠4 ♣9 ♣6 ♠8 ♣T ♠A ♦6 ♥4 ♠7 ♦K ♦3 ♦2 ♠9 ♥5 ♥2 ♥A ♥8 ♥3 ♥9 ♥Q ♥7

Preempting style again caused a swing here. Whibley opened 4S in third seat on the East cards and Nunes chose to which was correct on this hand as 4S failed by one trick with the bad trump break and QH offside. Meanwhile Sementa was content to open 1S and Cornell/Bach reached an optimistic 5C which had some play single dummy but no chance on the actual hand with Qxx of trumps offside and KH also badly placed. This failed by two tricks for a 6 IMP swing to Italy.

NEW ZEALAND: 38, ITALY: 43.

Bd: 29 ♠ AK1064 Dlr: N ♥ AK4 Vul: All ♦ Q102 ♣ K2 ♠ J975 ♠ Q832 ♥ 9 ♥ J10 ♦ AJ73 ♦ 85 ♣ AJ64 ♣ 98753 ♠ ♥ Q876532 ♦ K964 ♣ Q10 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 2 4 1 3 6 N 10 7 11 9 5 E 2 5 1 3 7 S 10 7 11 10 5

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin 2NT P 3♦ P 3♥ P 5♥ P 5♠ P 6♦ Dbl 6♥ P P P ♦8 ♦4 ♦A ♦T ♣A ♣2

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware 1♠! P 1NT! P 2♣! P 2♦! P 2♥! P 3♠! P 4♣! P 4♦! P 4♥ P 4NT! P 5♠! P 6♥ P P P ♥J ♥2 ♥9 ♥A ♠4 ♠2 ♥Q ♠5 ♥8 ♣4 ♥K ♥T ♠A ♠3 ♣T ♠7 ♠K ♠8 ♣Q ♠9 ♦2 ♦5 ♦K ♦A ♦3 ♦T ♦8 ♦4

A flagrant violation of Burn's law with both tables reaching a slam off two aces. However Italy made the slam and New Zealand did not.

I don't claim to fully understand the Fantoni-Nunes auction but if Nunes intended his 4NT as RKCB, he would have been disappointed to find himself too high after North showed two key cards and the heart queen!

Cornell chose to upgrade his 19 to a 2NT opening and Bach was understandably very interested in slam. I don't know whether they have a way to agree hearts and initiate cue bidding, but once the auction took a quantitative route it was always going to end too high as the hands fit poorly and have considerable wastage.

Obviously a lead of either minor suit defeats the contract. There is some justification for Whibley's trump lead as North will have short trumps plus a ruffing value and East has some useful spade cards that will limit the discards from South on good spades. However declarer will still usually get the ruffs they need and North's fifth spade at least will be established eventually. There's probably not enough of a reason to depart from the usual practice against a slam of making an aggressive lead to try and set up a trick.

Quite a lot of luck was involved in this swing, not only on the lead but also in finding the jack of diamonds and the fact that Fantoni/Nunes were able to declare from North without the benefit of a transfer sequence.

17 IMPs to Italy anyway. NEW ZEALAND: 38, ITALY: 60.

The last three boards were more or less flat with NZ gaining another 2 IMPS and Italy 3 IMPS for extra undertricks. So the final score was New Zealand 40 and Italy 63, or 20-10 in VPs.

EBU Debate Series

The EBU has published very interesting series of debates on various topics. Each one has two experts presenting opposite arguments on a disputed topic. Here are the links (PDF):

Opening 1NT with a 5 card major
Sponsors playing for national teams
Opening bid with 5-5 in the black suits
Weak NT vs strong NT
Teams vs pairs
Attitude vs count signals
Disciplined vs random preempts
Percentages vs flair
Opening bid with 4-4 in a major and a minor
RKCB vs simple Blackwood
Smith peters

PABF Championships

I played interclub last night so missed the second half of our Juniors against Australia on Vugraph. Since BBO saves its Vugraph sessions I was able to download it and construct a text file report of the match which is below.

It's incomplete but I think they had some technical problems. The commentary is in a block at the end of each hand rather than mixed in with the play and this means that sometimes the comments refer to the previous hand. I also included a Deep Finesse style double dummy analysis.

Here is the link: PABF_R1-2.txt

UPDATE:
I've added two more, the NZ women against Australia and the open team against Singapore:
Here is the link: PABF_R1-4.txt
Here is the link: PABF_R1-7.txt

The first one is definitely worth a look. I'm not the kind of person who normally knocks women's bridge but there are two hands in there that are really quite special. Board 19 features an eight card spade suit headed by AK that was not bid beyond the two level at one table and not bid at all at the other table. On board 25, Australia came close to making 3NT at both tables.

Responses to 1NT

One of my pet hates is 'practice Stayman', where a hand with no interest in the majors has to start with Stayman in order to invite 3NT. It helps the defence too much, especially on the opening lead. I'd rather guess between pass and 3NT than do that. There's no need for it because usually the 2S and 2NT bids are assigned meanings that seldom provide any real benefit.

I would suggest the following structure of responses to 1NT:

2C Stayman, always has a major if balanced
2D/H Transfers
2S Range finder or weak with long minor or GF 3 suiter with both minors
2NT Both minors, either weak or GF
3C/D Natural invitational
3H/S Natural slam try 6+ suit

After 2C:
2C-2D-2H: Both majors weak
2C-2D-2S: 5S and 4H game interest but not forcing
2 any - 2NT: invitational
2 any - 3C/D: Natural GF 5+ suit may have no major.
2D-3H/S: strong major 3 suiter, 3H=C shortage, 3S=D shortage
2H/S - jump in a new suit is a splinter.
Other major (i.e. 2C-2H-2S or 2C-2S-3H) is slam try with 4 card support and no shortage).

After 2D/H:
New suit game forcing except 2D-2H-2S which is forcing to 2NT or 3H/S only
Transfer then jump (eg 2D-2H-3S/4C/4D) is a splinter (in support of own suit :). With 6+ major, slam interest and no shortage start with 3H/S over 1NT.
Superaccept in new suit by opener shows values, or 2NT with scattered values but I like to just bid three of responder's suit to avoid telling them anything. May superaccept with a good maximum and only three card support.

After 2S:
Opener bids 2NT with min and 3C with max, then:
3C/D - Signoff
3H/S - Three suiter showing shortage

After 2N:
Opener bids better minor and natural after that. 3H/S by 2NT bidder is a fragment not a real suit as minor three suiters start with 2S.

After 3C/D:
Opener will usually pass or bid 3NT. 3 of a suit implies a fit and willingness to play 4/5 of the minor if stoppers for NT are not there.

After 3H/S:
Cue bidding

I think this handles everything pretty well and is not much to remember. Information about declarer's hand is withheld where reasonably possible. All hand types are covered. One suiters start with transfer if a major or 2C if a minor. Major two suiters start with transfer and bid other suit. Minor two suiters start with 2NT. Major/minor 2 suiters start with transfer if 5 major and 2C if 4 major. Three suiters start with 2C if both majors and 2S with both minors.

If they double our 1NT

Suit bids show a five card or longer suit
Pass forces redouble and bids then show spades and the suit bid
Redouble shows a two suiter without spades. Opener bids best minor then natural.

The advantage of doing it this way is that the hands we are most likely to able to compete on are the ones where we have a 5-4 fit or a 4-4 spade fit. These are identified immediately to allow opener to act if there is further bidding. Despite their double the hand may still belong to us or we could gain from pushing them a level higher.

If they double in 4th seat (ie 1N-P-P-X-P-P) then redouble with one suiter and bid lowest suit with 2 suiter.

Use the same method if they double our 1NT overcall or natural 2NT overcall.

Simulations

I'm going to start a series of posts simulating outcomes in various bidding situations. I'll try to clearly list the assumptions in each case.

One problem that I can't easily do anything about is the difference between double dummy analysis and results that occur at the table. I'm not sure if any research has been done into quantifying this, but if it has, please let me know.

The big advantage for declarer playing double dummy are that missing cards (e.g. queens) can always be located and singleton kings offside always drop. The bid advantage for defenders are they always find the best opening lead and single dummy defence is just hard because you can't see your side's combined resources in they way that declarer can.

In slam contracts, I think declarer will take more tricks double dummy. This is just because there are fewer decisions for the defence when they hold fewer high cards. Not that defence against slams isn't important, but declarer gets a higher percentage of the tough decisions in slams compared to games and part scores. As a general rule, I'd guess that the higher the contract, the more double dummy analysis inflates the number of tricks taken by declarer. In a contract such as 1NT I expect the defence to do better double dummy than in real life.

If there is a significant difference between tricks taken double dummy and in real life, my conclusions will be wrong by that amount.

Inviting game after single major raise

This post focuses on the hands that are borderline between passing and making a game try after you open 1H/S and partner raises to 2. I'm making the following assumptions:

1. Partner will have three card support only.
2. Partner's HCP range is about 4-8 (but not 4 HCP if 4333). If you play 2/1 GF then you probably respond 1NT on very weak hands with support so your range is more like 6-9. I'm assuming 2/1 responses can be only around 9+ and will include the hands with three card support and 9 HCP. If not, adjust the strength of the opening hand accordingly.
3. Partner will always decline the game try with 4-5 HCP and always accept with 8. With 6-7 he will choose the correct action 70% of the time (because your game try will enable him to evaluate more accurately).
4. For the IMP calculations, I assume they pass at the other table.
5. I'm also disregarding the possibility that they will balance if you pass. This is obviously quite likely and argues in favour of bidding, not so much to shut them out, but because you no longer have to worry about losing IMPS in the case where the other table just make the two level contract your way.

5431 Hands

	Tricks	7 or less	8	9	10 or more
AK873	HCP=4	2.01%	3.81%	2.78%	1.10%
KJ65	HCP=5	2.88%	6.28%	6.79%	3.20%
AT5	HCP=6	1.33%	5.37%	8.61%	5.98%
4	HCP=7	0.68%	3.72%	10.19%	10.52%
	HCP=8	0.29%	1.77%	7.45%	15.26%

Expected IMP gain from inviting: Vul 0.52, Non Vul -0.08

The numbers in the table are the percentage of hands in each category according to the simulation. Partner's HCP are on the rows and the number of tricks you take on the columns.

So you show a slight loss by bidding on nonvul but it's worth continuing vul. This was a little surprising to me because I would never consider passing that hand, regardless of vulnerability. Possibly I have not increased my standards for making game tries while I have been progressively lowering my standards for single raises. Let's try with a slightly weaker hand:

	Tricks	7 or less	8	9	10 or more
AK873	HCP=4	3.04%	4.03%	1.97%	0.37%
KT65	HCP=5	3.16%	6.95%	5.49%	1.62%
AT5	HCP=6	2.37%	7.35%	8.49%	3.90%
4	HCP=7	0.73%	5.75%	10.66%	7.76%
	HCP=8	0.36%	3.36%	9.77%	12.87%

Expected IMP gain from inviting: Vul -0.66, Non Vul -0.89

So this one is a clear pass. A rule of thumb is that 5431 shapes need a good 15 to invite (or 39 on the 11-7-4-2-1 scale).


6322 Hands

	Tricks	7 or less	8	9	10 or more
AK8732	HCP=4	1.64%	3.60%	3.08%	0.83%
K6	HCP=5	2.50%	7.15%	6.14%	2.20%
AT5	HCP=6	1.42%	6.52%	9.24%	5.38%
43	HCP=7	0.56%	4.78%	9.72%	9.38%
	HCP=8	0.30%	2.63%	9.38%	13.55%

Expected IMP gain from inviting: Vul -0.08, Non Vul -0.5

This one has a good 14 HCP and 37 11-7-4-2-1 points. It's a tossup vulnerable and a pass nonvul.

	Tricks	7 or less	8	9	10 or more
AK8732	HCP=4	1.03%	3.34%	3.64%	1.40%
K6	HCP=5	1.79%	6.04%	7.37%	3.68%
AJ5	HCP=6	0.74%	4.78%	9.36%	7.55%
43	HCP=7	0.33%	3.08%	8.85%	12.04%
	HCP=8	0.12%	1.75%	7.09%	16.01%

Expected IMP gain from inviting: Vul 1.06, Non Vul 0.27

Changing the D10 into a jack makes it worth another move. It's now about an average 15 and has 38 11-7-4-2-1 points.


5332 Hands

	Tricks	7 or less	8	9	10 or more
AK873	HCP=4	3.17%	3.89%	2.44%	0.56%
KT2	HCP=5	3.85%	7.04%	5.38%	1.99%
AQ5	HCP=6	2.58%	7.67%	8.89%	4.28%
43	HCP=7	1.23%	5.06%	9.60%	8.58%
	HCP=8	0.45%	2.81%	8.17%	12.37%

Expected IMP gain from inviting: Vul -0.51, Non Vul -0.77

This above average 16 HCP hand is not worth inviting, though you wouldn't find many players passing it. Let's make it a bit better:

	Tricks	7 or less	8	9	10 or more
AK873	HCP=4	2.38%	4.04%	3.69%	1.26%
KJ2	HCP=5	2.65%	6.40%	7.34%	3.33%
AQ5	HCP=6	1.42%	4.85%	8.51%	6.81%
43	HCP=7	0.66%	3.40%	8.73%	11.36%
	HCP=8	0.31%	2.07%	6.40%	14.39%

Expected IMP gain from inviting: Vul 0.65, Non Vul 0.01

It's now a typical 17 and is worth a move, but nonvul it is still right on the margin. So 5332 hands need quite a lot to invite. There's also less chance they will balance so you may get to play 2S when it makes just eight tricks. However you will also be able to make 3NT sometimes when 4S goes down so a 2NT game try if available could still be worth a shot.

The minimum to invite with 5332 is a very good 16 or 42 on the 11-7-4-2-1 scale.


5422 Hands

	Tricks	7 or less	8	9	10 or more
AK873	HCP=4	1.98%	3.42%	3.77%	0.67%
A2	HCP=5	2.37%	6.09%	8.76%	2.48%
KQT5	HCP=6	1.35%	4.71%	10.66%	5.55%
43	HCP=7	0.81%	3.23%	9.53%	10.61%
	HCP=8	0.31%	1.71%	7.24%	14.73%

Expected IMP gain from inviting: Vul 0.54, Non Vul -0.06

This is a good 16 and has 41 11-7-4-2-1 points. It's just barely worth a move.


6421 Hands

	Tricks	7 or less	8	9	10 or more
AK8732	HCP=4	2.11%	3.67%	3.03%	1.01%
K2	HCP=5	2.71%	6.08%	5.90%	3.34%
QJT5	HCP=6	1.96%	5.73%	7.68%	6.06%
4	HCP=7	1.25%	4.80%	9.17%	9.65%
	HCP=8	0.71%	3.18%	8.34%	13.64%

Expected IMP gain from inviting: Vul 0.06, Non Vul -0.38

This is borderline with 13 HCP and 33 11-7-4-2-1 points.


6331 Hands

	Tricks	7 or less	8	9	10 or more
AK8732	HCP=4	0.96%	4.19%	3.42%	1.44%
A32	HCP=5	1.87%	6.20%	6.77%	3.46%
QJ5	HCP=6	1.05%	5.18%	9.37%	6.40%
4	HCP=7	0.51%	3.68%	9.39%	10.87%
	HCP=8	0.23%	2.12%	7.95%	14.94%

Expected IMP gain from inviting: Vul 0.57, Non Vul -0.06

Here you need 14 HCP or 35 11-7-4-2-1 points.


5521 Hands

	Tricks	7 or less	8	9	10 or more
AK873	HCP=4	1.48%	4.24%	3.87%	0.74%
A2	HCP=5	1.78%	6.24%	6.97%	2.59%
QJT52	HCP=6	1.14%	5.96%	9.53%	5.52%
3	HCP=7	0.41%	3.89%	9.67%	10.59%
	HCP=8	0.22%	2.34%	8.18%	14.64%

Expected IMP gain from inviting: Vul 0.35, Non Vul -0.21

This is right on the margin, again a hand that few players would consider passing. This is possibly the most striking example, partly because people routinely overbid 5-5 hands. It has a good 14 HCP and 36 11-7-4-2-1 points.


Summary

The following is the minimum strength to invite for each hand shape:

Shape	HCP	11-7-4-2-1
6421	13	33
6331	14	35
5521	Good 14	36
6322	Average 15	38
5431	Good 15	39
5422	Good 16	41
5332	Very good 16	42

A further interesting point is how little the vulnerability affects the decision. Even on the marginal hands above, there are only a couple where bidding is right if vulnerable but not if non-vulnerable. Certainly the difference is small, maybe less than a ten. This needs further investigation.

Anti Percentage

The following hand came up today in the Nickell vs Welland match to decide who plays Fleischer for the second USA spot in the Bermuda Bowl. Others may prefer to write about doubled grand slams making with two top losers, or the correct way to bid a 0607 shape, however the more mundane but higher frequency hands like this one tend to interest me.

How much would you bid with the South hand opposite a weak notrump?

Below is the Meckstroth-Rodwell auction but South at both tables jumped to game after discovering four hearts in the North hand. My instinct was that inviting is enough so I decided to run a simulation. The simulation is based on North as declarer with a balanced 11-14 including 4 hearts. I chose North on the basis that you either play a weak NT or transfer responses to 1C. This probably improves the expected number of tricks a little.

Results are as follows:

HCP	Num Hands	Num Makes	%
11	11120	1696	15.25%
12	9720	2935	30.20%
13	8371	4342	51.87%
14	6784	4495	66.26%

This suggests that inviting is plenty, and opposite an 11-13 hand even pass is possibly correct, especially when you also take into account hands where eight tricks are the limit. Certainly non-vulnerable it is right to pass if partner has a maximum of 13 and just invite if his maximum is 14.

Dealer: N ♠ Q 10 3 Vul: N/S ♥ A 9 8 7 ♦ K 10 ♣ Q 8 7 5 ♠ A K 9 5 ♠ 7 6 4 ♥ 2 ♥ J 10 ♦ 8 7 6 5 3 ♦ Q J 9 4 ♣ 10 9 6 ♣ A K J 3 ♠ J 8 2 ♥ K Q 6 5 4 3 ♦ A 2 ♣ 4 2

W N E S 1♦ P 1♥ P 2♥ P 4♥ P P P