You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT is too weak, 4 is too strong.
There is a speculative bid 3

We can assume that pd does not hold K. But he can have kings in hearts and/or clubs. May be with jacks….
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From the discussion above I understood that there was third fault: I do not distinguish second and fourth hand positions, after they open.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can tell you the truth of reality while preparing polls and articles (not only for BW).
90% of articles were born not as reports of my brilliancy but rather as analyzes of catastrophes.
In this deal I made 2 errors (or bad decisions). I bid 1NT instead of 2NT and then made only superaccept. Result 20% score.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. I did not like x in the first round. This is why:
W N E S(me)
1 p p x
p 1 p 1NT
p ?

In this position pd knows nothing.

2. Returning to the reality of the problem.
There are two possible interpretations of pd's 2 (Transfer).

A. Partner has close to maximum holdings. Within the limits of his previous pass.
B. Pd has minimum with 6-7 spades.

Tertium non datur. Because with something in between he would pass.

What do you think about that?
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ALL ACTIONS!!!!!
Bidding 2NT N-GIB knew that he is going to finish in 3, which can be easily doubled. Our 3 can be easily played on 4-3 fit with their division 1-5.
Their 2x seems less dangerous for NS.
It is worth to make simulation for comparison NS's 3 (sometimes doubled) against WE's 2x.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I made several simulations, projected another ones and made some “advanced simulations”. All of them were very interesting. This hand is a material for new simulations. One learns a lot making such research…

May be we will introduce a scientific corner at BW…
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any arguments in favor S's 3 do not convince me! To support my point 3 one has to make a simulation.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 after N's 3 is a STRANGE bid in my opinion. There are MANY arguments against such bid.
1. If N has 2 stoppers in spades, why he did not pass the double.
2. If N has 2 stoppers in spades and a very weak hand then NS's 3NT will be easy set through clubs,
3. Generally chances for 3NT after 3 are smaller than chances for 5 and even than 4.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me present my point. Especially in situation when public vote is clearly against me.
It was not necessary that W opens 2. I agree that this bid is most standard, but standard does not mean that 2 is obligatory.
Standard bid does not mean: safe bid or best bid.
For this particular hand NS line could and should double 2 or bid 3NT.
Without 2 it would be difficult (or far from easy) for NS to reach 3NT.
With the actual Lebensohl procedure and particularly with 3 bid by N it is nearly impossible to reach 3NT or earlier to double 2.
The only argument in favour of this Lebensohl can be a reasoning, which will prove that this particular hand is the extreme one.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But comparing with other normal tables 3 or 4 would still be very close to 0% score.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My naive thinking was: he can not have good spades. Or he have a spades stopper, but he is very weak. Then asking for spades stopper has no sens. After N's 3NT E will have absolutely clear first lead in clubs. He will not go in hearts since double nealy always is based on hearts!
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's rethink from te beginning.

1. When you reopen after 2, you take into account as a quite probable option that pd could not bid earlier since he has spades. Or spades are his very good or the best suit.

2. GIB-N bidding 2NT knew that we are going to play a diamonds contract. Knowing that RHO has many spades, trumps can be divided badly. The only values he holds are outside the diamonds.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK. But even passing 3 gives poor result comparing with their 2x or our 3NT.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes! But it is Lebensohl. Of course it would better not to use this convention.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good analysis. It is enough that pd has J….
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hint:
They can have communication problems. This hint is general in all hands, in which declarer cashes his longer first (mainly in NT contracts).
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good analysis!!!
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You assume that there is a high probability that E was 4=4=1=4?
For me queen and 9 of spades in hands of E was an important chance. But after E's a spade throwing, this chance has the probability close to zero. Then increases chance that E had 5 clubs at the beginning. That's why I threw a club.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a proposal, which would introduce an unique feature. The proposal is an effect of my statistical research.
For all quizzes I propose an option of multiple choice. I.e. author of the quiz can give voters a possibility to choose more than one answer.
Once we have this possibility, still more features can be introduced:
1. RANKING. Voter, who will decide to choose more than one answer can say that 3 bid is better than his second choice 3NT.
2. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. Having at least 40 voters and a feature of multiple choice (which was used by 20 voters) we can treat the set of all answers as a statistical sample. I can show methods of analysis of such sample. Of course more voters and more multiple choice voters give more chances that the analysis will be fruitful.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Q still belongs to the routine moves….
July 12
.

Bottom Home Top