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

Dear Discutants and other Readers interested in this problem. I put possible hands of declarer on the 4-th page of article. Please make some comments and/or further analysis (including “deep finesse”).

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

You are right!. Unfortunately - from this viewpoint, and fortunately - from routine bridge approach:

POLISH PNS NAT assumes openings from 5-card colors.

Consequence of this assumption is very large number of holdings, which qualify to 1C opening. This is why our primitive natural system is often called NAT(C).

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

Your both S's hands Rainer do not convince me.

1. ? K9x ? xx ? AKJxxxx ? K a. Natural bidders enters on the second hand with 12+hpc, since they do not use drury. b. If DQ will not drop (assuming it is not in hands of N), declarer can have serious problems.

2. ? A8x ? xx ? AKJxxxx ? K This is better. But still he must consider first lead in Spades, which makes communication problems. Also CA first lead will be difficult.

Nov. 18, 2012

Andrzej Matuszewski edited this comment Nov. 18, 2012

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

IMHO West can not play double dummy in the second trick. Because he has too little information so far. Also he should follow the indication given by his partner.

Also declarer can not play double dummy in this trick. Unblock or not SK is still the probabilistic decision.

May be E is first who may play double dummy in the third trick taking into account the information he has in this moment.

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

All your moves are definitely optimal from from probabilistic point of view. Unfortunately opponents made optimal decisions either.

The only debatable your move was: a 3D bid. Actually there was virtually no chance for 4-card support that allows 5D contract. Partner omitted 2D after your 2C. Without 3D chances for Diamonds lead would be higher.

July 29, 2012

Andrzej Matuszewski edited this comment July 29, 2012

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

I put possible hands of declarer on the 4-th page of article. Please make some comments and/or further analysis (including “deep finesse”).

Andrzej Matuszewski

POLISH PNS NAT assumes openings from 5-card colors.

Consequence of this assumption is very large number of holdings, which qualify to 1C opening. This is why our primitive natural system is often called NAT(C).

Andrzej Matuszewski

1. ? K9x ? xx ? AKJxxxx ? K

a. Natural bidders enters on the second hand with 12+hpc, since they do not use drury.

b. If DQ will not drop (assuming it is not in hands of N), declarer can have serious problems.

2. ? A8x ? xx ? AKJxxxx ? K

This is better. But still he must consider first lead in Spades, which makes communication problems. Also CA first lead will be difficult.

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

In the other evening 6 would be better ;)

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

I will add few pages to this article to explain some non-obvious points. But you have claryfied the basic “surprizes”!

Andrzej

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Also declarer can not play double dummy in this trick. Unblock or not SK is still the probabilistic decision.

May be E is first who may play double dummy in the third trick taking into account the information he has in this moment.

Andrzej Matuszewski

The only debatable your move was: a 3D bid. Actually there was virtually no chance for 4-card support that allows 5D contract. Partner omitted 2D after your 2C. Without 3D chances for Diamonds lead would be higher.