You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

One may ask why forum like BW is important, while many “simple” bridge players do not need sophisticated analyzes. The point is that without searching optimality bridge would be a primitive game, which is totally “dominated” by computer solutions. The only practical reason is that optimal solution can be find in discussion of EXPERTS. This discussion is necessary always and everywhere, when we are talking about serious bridge.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

I think that every scientific project within the game of bridge area even such which is connected mainly with the bridge community must take into account several basic features of the game. Entire knowledge and ways of teaching bridge consider search of optimality. It is relatively easy to describe this search during the bidding. More difficult is define what is optimal at first lead and why we choose certain methods of carding for defenders. But explaining why certain moves are optimal during the declarer's play/defense phase is extremely difficult. In particular why we have to learn thousands non-obvious methods and tips. And how to choose among some of tchem, which are appropriate in a specific decision position. These aspects or criterions are constantly taken into account by each serious player.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

“Solution” is that both: Overtaking and clubs change Playing ♣3 in the first trick are the best and equivalent.

Basic S's holding is with 9 hearts. The only setting continuation can be clubs continuation with the hopes S does not have clubs void. If S has clubs void i.e. :1=9=3=0 with diamonds without jack, pd will be in simple squeeze on minors. To avoid squeeze pd had to start with a small diamond instead spades. Then the communication for squeeze can be destroyed.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Your opinion John is quite conservative. In declarer's play/defense phase goulash is very useful. At least as a teaching tool. The point is that in many problematic positions of normal bridge we CAN NOT RELY on apriori probablilties that follows from random distribution of cards. Holdings that are very improbable becomes as probable as others. Goulash has an additional value that first lead problems become sometimes RATIONAL i.e. there can exist a reasoning to prove that some lead is OPTIMAL. It is nearly impossible in normal bridge and the only way for evaluation problematic first leads is through the experts' panel.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Thanks for positive opinions. Yes, a version of this problem I posted here (if someone is interested I can find a link). But it was changed substantially.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

It is a theoretical possibility that is included within the set of agreements. In this case (this is only one possibility) pd may be will find out that trump continuation is good. This way we will know that he has at least one trump. This way you can say that e.g. ♦Q continuation is meaningless. Say you made an exhaustive analysis and you did not find holding, for which this continuation can give something. But first you had to make that difficult analysis!

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Good question! 1. In goulash you normally have unbalanced hands, so hands without 5-cards longer nearly do not exist. 2. In case you have a balanced holding (including 4-4-4-1) you should (or have possibility to) bid 1NT with 13 HCPs. 3. Such “strange” agreements (there are still some more…) are useful because the possibility that you can show something at level 1 or 2 is very limited.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Theoretically E could underlead the queen. I agree that putting ten we most probably resign from taking 12 tricks. The Chance for 12 tricks is rather or very small, however.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Your point is quite fundamental. Good partnership has to have 100 pages of bidding agreements. We can consider here at BW only the expert solutions. Is it means that there is no sense to discuss bidding problems? NO! 1. 95% of bridge community are not experts. 2. 80% play with agreements that can be written in 2 pages The prospective solution is: Most of the tournaments must be played with standard agreements. That's for the beginning.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

It was individual tournamnet far from expert level. I think that a practical solution is 1NT in first round. It would be difficult to double 1NT in this field unless they are very strong.

Andrzej Matuszewski

The point is that without searching optimality bridge would be a primitive game, which is totally “dominated” by computer solutions. The only practical reason is that optimal solution can be find in discussion of EXPERTS.

This discussion is necessary always and everywhere, when we are talking about serious bridge.

Andrzej Matuszewski

It is relatively easy to describe this search during the bidding. More difficult is define what is optimal at first lead and why we choose certain methods of carding for defenders.

But explaining why certain moves are optimal during the declarer's play/defense phase is extremely difficult. In particular why we have to learn thousands non-obvious methods and tips. And how to choose among some of tchem, which are appropriate in a specific decision position.

These aspects or criterions are constantly taken into account by each serious player.

Andrzej Matuszewski

Overtaking and clubs change

Playing ♣3 in the first trick

are the best and equivalent.

Basic S's holding is with 9 hearts. The only setting continuation can be clubs continuation with the hopes S does not have clubs void.

If S has clubs void i.e. :1=9=3=0 with diamonds without jack, pd will be in simple squeeze on minors.

To avoid squeeze pd had to start with a small diamond instead spades. Then the communication for squeeze can be destroyed.

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

At least as a teaching tool.

The point is that in many problematic positions of normal bridge we CAN NOT RELY on apriori probablilties that follows from random distribution of cards. Holdings that are very improbable becomes as probable as others.

Goulash has an additional value that first lead problems become sometimes RATIONAL i.e. there can exist a reasoning to prove that some lead is OPTIMAL. It is nearly impossible in normal bridge and the only way for evaluation problematic first leads is through the experts' panel.

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

This way you can say that e.g. ♦Q continuation is meaningless. Say you made an exhaustive analysis and you did not find holding, for which this continuation can give something. But first you had to make that difficult analysis!

Andrzej Matuszewski

1. In goulash you normally have unbalanced hands, so hands without 5-cards longer nearly do not exist.

2. In case you have a balanced holding (including 4-4-4-1) you should (or have possibility to) bid 1NT with 13 HCPs.

3. Such “strange” agreements (there are still some more…) are useful because the possibility that you can show something at level 1 or 2 is very limited.

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Good partnership has to have 100 pages of bidding agreements.

We can consider here at BW only the expert solutions.

Is it means that there is no sense to discuss bidding problems?

NO!

1. 95% of bridge community are not experts.

2. 80% play with agreements that can be written in 2 pages

The prospective solution is:

Most of the tournaments must be played with standard agreements.

That's for the beginning.

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski