text:
In Axis and Allies, Should Russia Head East, West, Or Stay Put in the Early Going?
Some Russian players like to send armies east. That is, to reinforce Allied outposts in Sinkiang and India. Maybe attack Manchuria on the first turn, if allowed. The theory is that Russia is strong enough to contain "only." Germany, so the need is to prevent Japan from becoming a swing factor in the game.
Other Russian players will launch spoiling attacks west as soon as allowed. Particularly in Norway, to open a window for Allied reinforcements.
A third strategy is "hedgehog." Push all the infantry into Karelia and Caucasus (roughly 2 to 1 in favor of the former) pull all the planes and tanks into Moscow for counterattack, and a last ditch stand. Then build 8 infantry each turn for about five turns. Here, the big worry is Germany. Let the Allies take care of Japan.
Which strategy do you prefer? East? West? or "Hedgehog?" And why?

Realistically, Russia can pursue all three options. Barring cataclysmic dice rolls, Russia can defend Karelia against a German offensive for the first three turns without having to reinforce it to the hilt.
When playing Russia my first few turns typically adhere pretty tightly to the following script. (This presumes Russia cannot attack on the opening move.)

Turn 1: Buy 8 infantry. Move the Russian fighter to Sinkiang to dissuade Japan from attacking Sinkiang on its opening turn and to give the USA player the option to build a factory (although I'm not a fan of that approach). Move all other possible units into Karelia save for a lone infantry in Caucasus. Place all 8 purchased infantry in Karelia. On the Eastern front, move the tank from Soviet Far East into Novo. Move one troop from Soviet Far East into Yakut. For the troops in Evenki, I either move them to Novo or Yakut. Usually I go to Novo, but if I know the Japanese player is aggressive on his opening move in Asia then I'll move them to Yakut.
Turn 2: Buy all infantry. Attack Finland. This is needed for two reasons - an opening for the Allies to start shuck-shucking, and the additional 2 IPCs per turn, which will help once Japan starts pushing into the Eastern Russian territories. Also, most German players will have retreated from Ukraine. If there are no troops there I'll blitz it with a tank from Karelia. If there is just one inf I'll use my Karelia fighter and two infs to take it back. Usually, I'll move the tank in Novo into Karelia on the non-combat phase and the fighter in Sinkiang, although again this depends on Japan's moves, whether UK has built a factory in India, and so on. As with Turn 1, dump all purchased infantry into Karelia.
Turn 3: Start operation "hedgehog." Buy all infantry again, move all surviving units from Finland back to Karelia. Take Ukraine back, start retreating troops from the Eastern front, if Japan is strong enough to threaten them.

With my Russian approach it is absolutely vital that the UK and US have, #1, secured Africa, and, #2, have started the troop pipeline into Finland by turn 5. Otherwise, Russia is going to be getting a lot of heat from Japan and will have to start to focus on fortifying Russia instead of Karelia.
All that being said, my main point is that it is possible for Russia to initially fortify in the East, attack Finland in the West, and fortify Karelia in the first few turns.

I seem to have lost my Russian combat card. I know that their non-land units consist of two fighters, and transport, and a sub. How many 1) infantry and 2) tanks do they get, and where are they located (in the second edition)?

@Tom, check out http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/WW2#Preview - you can see a complete preview of the Axis & Allies 2nd Edition board. (And if you like, you can play a game, too! :-)

Sweet. That's pretty much exactly my Russia strategy, although I disagree that US and UK need to have secured Africa any time soon (I couldn't tell when you think that needs to happen). However, I do think shuck better be set up before turn 5. Games where I win with the Axis are typically pretty much over by turn 5. The shuck should be dumping troops into Finland by turn 3 or 4 at the latest.

You can have an Eastern front attack on Manchuria synchronized with the Allies to wipe out all of Japan/Asia on the third to fourth turn. Turn one, buy two anti-aircraft guns, three guys and a tank. Attack Belorussia with three guys and two fighters, Attack West Russia with four guys, a gun, two tanks. When successful,  move anti-aircraft guns to West Russia and Novosibirsk, move two remaining infantry from Russia to Caucasus, move a tank to Kazakh, one tank and one gun to Novosibirsk, two guys from Kazakh and two guys from Novosibirsk to Sinkiang, one guy to Soviet Far East and three guys to Yakut. Land your fighters in Caucasus. Phew.... place two guys and a tank and an a.a. gun in Caucasus and a guy and your last a.a. in Moscow.
Your Allies should build a factory in India, land the US bomber in Yakut s.s.r. US fighters and transport to prepare for an attack on Northern Europe. Secure the easy North Atlantic by the end of the first turn (or at least the second).
Second turn--you now have troops in place to secure Asia by the third or fourth turn. Buy whatever you want from now on and focus on the typical German slug fest. You are defended at home, have comitted a big enough force to make the diference in Asia and it's only the second turn. So... attack China with two tanks and four guys, and two planes if need be. Move the a.a. gun and the force in Novosibirsk into Sinkiang, the force in East Russia to Buryatia and get ready to take Manchuria. You can either hit it the next turn  or wait for the remaining force to arrive with the other a.a. gun. By now the US should be able to build two factories and have a force to hit Kwnagtung and UK should be able hit French Indochina. You can hit only one Japan land territory and mass, you can hit the zone with the factory, or you can take a weak sister and build a factory there.  Use your Asia allies to help destroy those lonely transports, have one ally clear the way for the next to hit a weak factory (if there is one). Don't forget, from Yakut the US bomber can hit either Norway or anywhere in Asia on the second turn.
IMPORTANT - for ally assisted operation, you must go US - Russia - UK   These all go before Japan gets another turn, you can use this formula to clean paths in mainland Asia, or even better, to hit and take out all three Japan land zones at once. But at the end of the first turn you've left Russia with a good army in West Russia, a strong force in Caucasus to defend and you've lost nothing in Asia. You've enabled at least one US factory, and with the added strength of two tanks and your fighters, on offense you should be able to take or assist in taking at least one if not all of the Japan land zones. You can also---on the third turn, before Germany even gets to go---have a factory in Karelia with British defense and US-occupied Norway. UK goes after Germany and can take Karelia, then the Russians move their force in and build a factory in liberated Karelia. These are a few neat moves for Russia to help in the battle for Asia. Any other ideas or great battle strategies I can use to whoop my friends (who are getting better each time)? Email me
john_ready@hotmail.com.

Russia should only buy infantry on the through fourth turn, and almost always be on the defense. Taking East Germany is critical, as Germany has a very weak force there  and it will reduce the number of troops you have on the front lines.

You should go for planes and infantry, and fight at the western front.
The americans will attack Japan, you just defende against germany. When Germany focusses on Britain, you then blitz attack with your airplanes and infantry, moving to the next country. So Germany has to attack you to hold stand against you.
You just build a factory when he goes on attacking Britain, and start producing tanks next round. Send these tanks to central Germany, to make sure he can't build troops anymore. When he attacks you the whole time, Britain can just attack Germany on the other side, which makes that Germany has to fight at two fronts.


text:
How do I Decide to Sacrifice or Preserve "Smaller" Naval Units  (E.g. Subs) In Axis and Allies?
In the Pearl Harbor attack, people like Don Rae advocate sacrificing a battleship or bomber (instead of a cheaper fighter) as a "second" casualty as a "gambit" just to get American air forces to head for the Pacific instead of the Atlantic. Can one also make a case for electing NOT to take the sub as a (first) casualty?
Likewise, in a first turn Med naval battle, should Germany use its sub off France as "cannon fodder" in an attack against the British battleship off Gibraltar? Or should it have the sub try to take out the U.S. convoy off the Atlantic and let larger units deal with the battleship (and suffer the consequences).
Basically, is it sometimes better to take big warships or planes as potential casualties over a smaller, but more strategic unit such as a sub? Or is the loss in IPCs too much to bear (12 or 15 versus 8)?  How do you make these choices?  And, how, if at all, would your answer change if you had "super" subs.

@Tom: On a tangent, there is an interesting variation called "two-hit battleships," in which each battleship can sustain two hits before sinking. (A damaged battleship remains damaged the rest of the game.) This gives battleships a more realistic quality and helps balance the cost to use ratio to a more fair value, IMO.

I think this question is too broad because it's asking about an overall A&A naval philosophy, which I'm not even inclined to think exists. If you've come across a particular situation and you're asking what tactics people use and what their decision calculus is that would be easier to answer, or even naval strategy in a particular area of the map (e.g. the question about what the US should do with its Pacific fleet).

@Adam - I'm inclined to agree

OK, let me try to fix this question.

I think it's a much tighter question now. Specifically about when it might make sense to sacrifice a capital ship or aircraft to save a sub.

After having left a "partial" answer to try to frame the discussion a week ago, I'll now try to finish it.
In purely NAVAL terms, a sub is worth more than 8 IPCs. Specifically, a 24-IPC battleship has four attack and four defense rolls. So do two subs. On this basis, a sub might be worth 12 IPCs, about the same as a fighter. And more than a transport PLUS an infantry.
A sub also has "first strike" and "early withdrawal" capabilities that battleships and fighters do not, adding to their value.
Unlike the others, a sub cannot fight air or land units. You could say that diminishes the value of the sub, or at least that this balances out the sub's special capabilities.
So if we're valuing the units for their purely naval capacities, there's probably nothing better (for the money) than a sub. The reason to use the sub as "cannon fodder" is if we want to save planes or battleships for non-naval functions like land bombardment or anti-aircraft. And that these needs took priority over what was going on at sea.

I appreciate your answer, but Stack Exchange sites are not discussion forums.  Questions are asked, and answered.  Please try to keep that in mind when asking questions here.   See the meta question:  http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/462/is-asking-every-relevant-question-one-can-think-of-about-a-game-to-be-encouraged, and the FAQ entry "What kind of questions should I not ask here?"

@littlebobbytables: adam seems to feel that the reworded question is ok: when should I sacrifice capital ships or planes to save subs. (I agree that the earlier question was too broad.) Then I gave a "sample" answer that subs might be worth more than their nominal value  (8 IPCs) under certain circumstances. But I'm still waiting for an answer to the rest of the question. I wouldn't have done this if someone had answered within 24 hours.

it takes more than 24 hours sometimes for a question to be answered, you need to be patient.  The re-worded question works better, but I take issue that it seems like you are trying to start a discussion.

@littlebobbytables: Maybe I should have waited 48 hours instead of 24. Also, the site awards a "self learned" badge to anyone who answers their own question with three upvotes. So it might not frown on such answers. Also, I deliberately used a partial escalation feature to stop just short of answering my own question.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
In Bridge, What's the Difference Between the Blackwood And Gerber Conventions?
I have an idea that both conventions are used to check for aces in slam bidding, and that one starts at four clubs and the other at 4NT. Beyond that, I'm confused.
Why would a bidder use one over the other? Or is it that some systems prefer one over the other?
How would I tell which one my partner is using? Or must we agree beforehand?

Yeah, Blackwood and Gerber are for different things.  You might want to check out variants of Blackwood, like Roman Key Card Blackwood, for different approaches to seeking a fit for slam.

Blackwood is used for suit contracts, while Gerber is used for Notrump contracts.  This was a necessary evil based on how Blackwood develops.
Say we have established that we should be in Notrump, and I want to try for slam.  If I bid 4NT Blackwood, and find out that we are missing 2 Aces, how can I sign off?  5NT would ask for Kings, and 6NT is obviously too high.  There's no way to bid a safe level of Notrump anymore.  By using the Gerber 4C bid, I can sign off in 4NT if we are missing two aces.

OK. You can't use NT to check for NT. So you use Gerber, instead.

You could use 5S as a signoff to 5NT. I believe we don't use 4NT as Ace asking in response to 1NT or 2NT because that is used as a quantitative bid. And 4C in response to a suit is better used as a splinter/other bid.

True, 5S as a conventional transfer would have as good a solution as anything to solving this problem.  I think (but don't know for sure) that the quantitative 4NT was created after we stopped using Blackwood for Aces over Notrump.

Maybe you are right, it would be interesting to find that out.

Interesting blog: http://pokerandbridge.blogspot.com/2010/03/sorry-mr-blackwood.html

Gerber has the advantage that you can get out for only 4NT when missing 2 aces.

A significant drawback of Gerber is that it interferes with cue-bidding sequences. Gerber is now seen as rather old-fashioned, although you will still find plenty of people who play it. It does have the virtue of keeping the bidding at a lower level if you don't get the answer you're looking for.

Welcome to the site. Thanks for your answer, which I have upvoted.

Lesson 5 of the ACBL website's Teachers' manuals give a comprehensive explanation of Gerber and Blackwood conventions with lots of examples.

Hi Rosemary, welcome to the site. While somewhat useful, your answer would be much better if you linked to the resource you describe, and if you summarised the information available there. Can you answer the OP's questions based on the content of your manual?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
In Bridge, Why Do People Use "Transfer Bids" Over 1 NT?
Over 1NT, some people bid two diamonds to say they have five hearts, and two hearts to say they have five spades. The 1NT person bids the desired suit, completing the transfer.
Apparently the idea is to "hide" the (stronger) 1NT hand. Except for one thing. As a defender I already have a pretty good idea of the 1NT hand; balanced distribution probably one or more honors in every suit. A defender might actually be more interested in seeing the "five trump" hand, particularly if is highly distributional (singletons and voids, instead of high card points). The "no trumper" has three trumps, on average.
Can the advantages of transfer bids possibly outweigh the disadvantages? Put another way, why is it more important to hide the high cards than the five trumps?

The main reason to transfer is because the opening 1NT bidder is more likely to have tenances (AQ, KJ, etc.) in his hand than the responder. As a defender with dummy on your left, you can lead through them to score your partner's honors.  If they were hidden, leads by you could very well wind up giving declarer free finesses.  Yes, you wind up showing the more shapely hand, but that is considered preferable to showing the defense just what honors the stronger hand has.

OK, it's the TENACES that count in the 1NT hand, not just the points. Accepted on that basis.

Specifically, it protects those tenaces from the opening lead.  Sure, RHO might get in and lead through them, and then they "are hidden" which can also help, but the big thing is if they lead "their suit", and you have AQ, you get 2 tricks no matter where the K is.  But "more and easier sequences" is at least as important (says the person that switched to transfers over their 12-14 NT 13 years ago and won't go back, even if there is no "strong hand" in game).

A much more important reason is to allow the responder to describe their hand more fully. A 1NT opening bid describes both shape and point count and so it's usually up to responder to then set the contract - the 1NT opener will typically not bid again. However, responder with points for a 2NT raise and a five card major is in a quandary. Bidding 2NT may mean missing a 5-3 major suit fit, but bidding 3M may take them past the safe level of 2NT if opener is minimum. With transfers, responder gets two bites at the cherry. Holding five spades, responder bids 2H. Opener converts to 2S and now responder bids 2NT getting across shape and point count and leaving opener much better placed to set the final contract.

Ok, the responder gets two bids, one artificial (which forces the opener to "convert,)" and the second a real one.

Transfers are useful over 1N. They are even more useful over 2N or over 2C-2D/2N. While Jacoby (red suit) transfers are popular, 4 suit transfers are also coming into vogue. For example, 2S is often used as a transfer to clubs with 2N as either minor suit Stayman or a transfer to diamonds. Or 3C could be used as a transfer to diamonds.
Use of a transfer bid does NOT carry any suggestion wrt responder's point count. With a weak hand, responder wants to escape from notrump. Nor does it imply that responder has a one suited hand. This is determined when responder rebids a second suit, passes or raises the transfer suit.
Further (and I hope this is not straying from your question) advancer to an overcall may use transfers or responder may use transfers (rubensohl) when partner's notrump is overcalled.
And transfers enhance the communication process AND bring the limit bidder (the opening no-trumper)  back into the dialogue. But breaking the transfer is allowed ONLY with a super "fit", when opener can jump to the three level; for the law of total tricks comes into the picture on the one hand, and using up the opponents' bidding space on the other.
Say partner opens 2N and you hold S94 H109752 D98632 C5; you can transfer to 3H and actually produce a couple of tricks PLUS an entry or two. Who knows; he might even make it.
But he WILL NOT make 2N.
Or, say you hold  S AQ1052 H KJ932 D void C 543
Over 1N, you can transfer to spades, then rebid hearts. Who knows, you MIGHT reach 6H facing SK4 H A1076 D Q106 C AK8
So far we have talked about Jacoby transfers.
Yesterday, I am playing in a pairs game with an old buddy. Put yourself in his shoes. You hold something like;
S 10987532 H void D Q9853 C 6
WE are VUL.
Pardy opens the bidding 1N; 12-14. RHO passes. Do you transfer to spades? (You are NT playing Texas transfers. OLD buddy; remember?)
The opponents have 24-26 HCP. They also are likely to have 9+ hearts and 8+ clubs between them. Even a Texas transfer is fraught with danger. LHO might DOUBLE 4H, and they will reach FIVE or even SIX hearts. Yes. transfers have a downside. Indiscriminate use might facilitate the opponents endeavors. So did YOU find the 4S bid that will silence the opponents?
South African Texas transfers would work well here, but THAT is just lucky. Issues such as protecting tenaces,  finding the best "fit" and defining controls are quite subservient to the need to eat up their bidding space. The obvious danger is that your suits break badly and you get nailed for a number. As against that, if you have a 10 card or better spade "fit", THEY may have a slam.
And will they REALLY be able to double you?
Partner bid 2H. LHO finds a horrific double on HK9875. I bid 2S, suggesting 3. RHO now bids 4H on HAQJ642 and some cards in clubs.
Sometimes it is better not to transfer.

Welcome to the site. Good answer. An upvote to get you started.

The main reason for using a transfer is to allow the responder greater flexibility in setting the final contract (not to hide the hand). After the 1NT opening, the responder knows the opener's strength within narrow parameters (15-17, balanced), is in the better position to steer the partnership, and and is therefore "captain" of the team until further notice.
A transfer advertises a five card (usually major) suit and forces the opener to bid the responder's suit: 1NT, two diamonds, two hearts. Or 1NT, two hearts, two spades. At this point, all we know is that the responder has a preference for suit play. With a weak hand (less than 8 points), responder should pass, secure in the knowledge  that 2 of a suit is at least as good a landing spot as 1NT given the fact that responder has five and opener has at least two.
With a game-going hand responder should jump to four of a major with six of the suit. With five, responder should bid 3NT, and pass the "buck" back to opener.
In some bidding systems, the opener also has choices. If s/he has FOUR of the major and 17 hcps, then opener can raise to THREE of the "transferred" suit. This invites a game bid by responder with only 6-7 points, because a combined 23 points and nine trumps for the partnership is a favorite for game.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
In Axis and Allies, Should An Attacker Be Allowed to Relinquish Certain "Prerogatives?"
These are situations that seem to be outside the official (second edition) rules. Unless I'm missing something.
Suppose Russia is allowed attack Norway on the first turn, and does so with two fighters, three tanks (five units that hit with 1-3), and three infantry via Karelia, against 1 fighter, 1 tank, and 3 infantry. The five heavy units roll 1,1,2,3,4, an above average roll that scores four hits. Can the attack tell the infantry NOT to fire?
If the fifth unit is eliminated by infantry, Russia has to occupy Norway, possibly fatally weakening Karelia. Russia has now achieved its "strafing" objective (the German fighter should retreat, and the UK can occupy Norway on its turn.) So Russia would like to cap the hits at four, if allowed.
In the Pearl Harbor attack, Japan sends a battle fleet against the Hawaiian sea zone, and scores two hits on the first round. The US elects to take the carrier and fighter as casualties (so that the sub can withdraw).
If the carrier had survived, Japan can retreat its fleet to Wake Island, out of the Hawaiian dead zone. Can it do the same with a withdrawing sub? (The rules say that the battle is over, and the attacker must stand put, when the defender is DESTROYED. But the sub wasn't "destroyed.")
My theory is that the attacker relinquished his prerogative of "hot pursuit" of the sub and chose to withdraw after a short, one-round battle.

In the case of Karelia versus Norway, the infantry must attack; all attacks other than sub sneak-attacks are considered simultaneous, and you've already declared your attackers, so you must go down the line and attack with everything.
If you didn't want to take Norway, you shouldn't have attacked with so many models.  You can always place your reinforcements in Karelia at the end of the turn.

I was planning to use the infantry as cannon fodder. But Bobby has a point: IF I'm allowed to order the infantry not to fire, I must do so before seeing the results of the heavy weapons attack. Because all the action would in reality be simultaneous.

Here's an example of this concept from another context: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/380090-yankees-rangers-should-a-team-alter-its-offensive-strategy-for-rain

Agree, attacks are simultaneous. Managing dead zones and attacking with only the bare minimum required to capture a territory, but not leaving much to be countered, or attacking with just enough to strafe and damage while retaining the ability to retreat, are key tactical skills fundamental to the game.

Is "models" the Norwegian word for "pieces?" Jeg snakke lite Norsk.

Remember that in a strategy level game like A&A 'turns' equate to something along the lines of a month. The kind of actions you are wanting to control are more 'tactical'. At the command level troops are committed to an attack long before the offensive begins.


text:
Are there times when a hand with a seven card suit is too strong for a three level pre-empt?
Partner opened with 3 spades (pre-empt). I passed with (s) xx (h) KQx (d) KQxx (c) AJxx.
That's because I was expecting something like the following (with or without the side jacks):
(s) KQxxxxx (h) Jxx (d) Jx (c) x.
Partner's spade suit was actually AKQxxxx, with the other suits as listed above. So we missed a cold game in spades or possibly no trump.
I said, "You had eleven high card points. That, together with your distributional strength was an opening hand. Opposite my (better than) opening hand, that meant game."
She said, "I bid three to show you may seven card suit."
I said, "That's not nearly as important as your high card strength. Your length will become clear when you rebid."
Was I right to pass, in expectation of the weaker version of her hand, given that three spades is quite high? Should partner have bid one spade if she didn't want me to pass her out with my 15 points?

There's an old saying in Curling: "You're only as good a skip as the team that will play for you." If you want to get better, stop playing with beginners. If only beginners will play with you, ..., then there is nothing more for me to say.

@PieterGeerkens: I play bridge for "social" reasons, not for competitive reasons. So I choose my bridge circles based on things other than their bridge abilities, then try to make the best of it, bridgewise.

If partner actually had the hand you showed you'd have a good chance of making game as long as you can avoid losing two trumps. Trumps 2-2 or stiff ace or Axx onside will do it as your hand has entries to lead towards the trumps twice. The stiff club is favourable, one of the red jacks sufficient.

An opening bid of 3 spades shows a somewhat weak hand with 7 spades. A hand like AKJxxxx Ax xx Qx would certainly never open 3S. Partner's hand in first or second seat is worth a 1S opening in my book; it's certainly better than any balanced 12-count. In third seat I might open 3S, since game is unlikely (partner is a passed hand) and LHO might have a good hand and guess wrong about how to proceed.
Personally I would have risked a game bid with your hand, at least at some forms of scoring (eg vulnerable at IMPs). Game is a good bet if partner shows up with the hand you expected. You'll expect a loser in hearts and diamonds, with some chances of shaking a club loser or two on the red suits. You'll run into a bad time if partner had a spade suit headed by the KJ and nothing outside, so when your side has favorable vulnerability, the raise to game may be ill-advised.

"Risked a game." That's a tough one for me, because it really depends on the two jacks (or lack thereof). Without them, partner has about 5 trump tricks, and I have three more with AJ and KQ for about eight. Those two J's are only two points, but opposite my KQ's, they're two extra tricks.

Here are 3 different kinds of minimum-ish hands that are better than 50% to make a game: AKTxxxx xx xx xx; KQJxxxx xx xxx x;  QJTxxxx Ax xxx x. If you can only count on partner to have 5 trump tricks with nothing outside when they open at the 3-level red, your partners bid much more aggressively than I would have guessed.

Interesting. The "difference" between your partners and mine is that your partners are likely to have the "two jacks" (or equivalent), and mine might not. (And unknown to me at the time, the focus of the question was the two jacks, not the side ace.)

@TomAu You're focusing too heavily on the jacks. They're essentially meaningless to the decision of what to bid. Here they're nice because of your KQs, but partner can still lead toward your KQ and have a 50% chance of two winners in the suit.

@TomAu: ruds, is right. The Jacks are irrelevant when you bid 4S, and you must. Passing 3S is losing bridge (especially at teams/rubber).

@Aryabhata: Here's to you (and Ruds). What if I tell you that we bid three spades on "any seven cards, even 8765432" at favorable vulnerability, seven to the Q at equal vulnerability and seven to the KQ or QJT if vulnerable versus not, with no side honors? I'd love to see an extra jack to say, KQxxxxx, either in suit or not, but can't be sure of getting it.

@TomAu If you bid completely destructively, that's one thing. The main disadvantage to destructive preempts is that partner can never raise to game. I gave this hand to a few of my friends (including a national champion), and the consensus was that your hand should raise to game whenever partner is in second seat or vulnerable.

@TomAu: I would say good luck with that :-)

Pre-empts should show a number of tricks and then you use "cover cards" in a situation like yours. If partner is used to pre-empting on 7 to the QJ and nothing else then you're going to pass on hands like that, but if partner has made a normal pre-empt you can assume a rule of 500, so 6 tricks if not-vulnerable, 7 if vulnerable.
Of course you have no idea whether the KQ holdings will yield tricks or not, and a club lead could certainly see the opponents set up 4 tricks, but I would generally think of your hand as  3 tricks and you'd certainly raise a vulnerable partner. With partner non-vulnerable, well take your pick but the cost is only 6 imps if you miss game here.

QJ with seven is about five tricks, one less than the "usual" six. So (at that vulnerability), you need an extra trick to compensate.

Your partner's hand looks borderline to me: it certainly could be opened 1S, but to what end? You certainly will not be able to support spades, and equally certainly her hand is valueless in any other suit. All a one opening does is allow the opposition to bid.
What is much clearer is that your hand is worth 3NT. All the other suits are stopped (with the opening lead where it is, quite possibly double-stopped), and you have two spades to get back to dummy. On a 2-2 split, the game is a no-brainer; in any event there will be some play for it. On the hand you were expecting, one Jack or other will surely be the extra entry you need, but in any event, your partner must have something outside spades. Even if she has AKQxxxx and literally nothing else, the game is solid.

Just today I played a hand in which opponents found their 7-4 fit after a 1S opening. Your partner would also be happy to hear 2H in response to their opening.

Sorry, IMO, 3NT is a silly contract. It would be a rare hand where 3NT makes but not 4S. As to opening 1S to what end: to not miss game (a good idea at teams). You have the spade suit. If you have a game, they will need to sacrifice at the 5 level. If the suit was not spades, one could perhaps be inclined to preempt.

Partner can win at least the seven spade tricks in her own hand. If I get in minimum response (say 1NT) meaning that I have 1-2 tricks, partner can profitably sacrifice against opposing any game contract. With my actual hand, I'd bid 3NT, and she'd bid 4 spades (we can make either).


text:
In bridge, what level of strength do different systems require to bid a short minor?
Most players will bid 1 spade with (s) AKJxx (h)Axxx (d)xx (c)xx. That is, 12 hcp and a five card major.
If you "redistribute" the two spade spots, you get: (s) AKJ (h)Axxx (d)xxx (c)xxx.
Many systems would say that this is not enough to bid a short one club. They would require 13 hcp, or something like (s) AKJ (h)Axxx (d)xxx (c)Jxx.
Are there systems that say "12 is 12," so go ahead and bid 1 club without the jack?
Conversely, are there other systems that say, "your three card club suit is so short, we need 14hcp for one club"?
Would any of the answers change if the hand had FOUR clubs instead of three and two diamonds instead of three?

1)
Yes, there are systems that that open these ugly 11 counts (Repeat after me: Subtract a point for 4-3-3-3 distribution!), but they are (a) strong club systems that limit an opening bid to 15 or so HCP; (b) systems with a weak NT; or (c) systems with a strong club AND a weak NT.
N.B. The average playing potential, in both NT and a suit contract, is almost a full trick less for a 4-3-3-3 compared to a 4-4-3-2 hand. This is evaluated by awarding a point for the doubleton in 4-4-3-2, AND subtracting a point for the 4-3-3-3. You are significantly overbidding your 4-3-3-3's if you do not make this adjustment.
2) NO, not really; but there are systems that say you really only have 12 points (or even 11) because the hand is crap.
3) No, the answer wouldn't change on reversing the minor suits in any system I know of.
Update from comments:

Considering AKJ-Axxx-xxx-Qxx: Nominally 14; -1 (flat); -1/2 (poor
honour placement) = 12.5. I would open, in preference order: 1NT if
weak; 1H if playing 4-card majors; else 1C. With proper evaluation of
distribution and honour-support, 12 point hands are worth an opening.
I intend to rebid 1NT over partners 1D or 1S, or raise 1H to 2H. If
partner jump-shifts I will give a single raise. I will not
voluntarily compete past 2S unless partner shows 10+.
Considering AKJ-Axxx-xx-Jxxx: I wold prefer to see the SK trade with
a small clubs, but this will do. Nominally 13, +1 for diamond
doubleton, -1/2 for poor honour placement = 13.5. My preference for
openings remains identical to the previous comment: iNT, or 1H, or 1C
with the same proviso.

Update #2 - Advanced Hand Evaluation
Those interested in more precise and more accurate hand evaluation could do worse than to adopt the Banzai Point Count. This uses a 5-4-3-2-1 system and then multiples the result by 2/3, rounding a remainder of 1 down and a remainder of 1 up. This can be done independently of any system, or even partnership understanding, to simply improve one's judgement of hand worth. (Of course, if you DO discuss it with partner, it becomes a partnership understanding and must be revealed on your convention card.)

Part three was would your answer change if you had three spades, four hearts, two diamonds and FOUR clubs instead of three diamonds and three hearts? I edited the question to make this clearer. Which systems say that (s) AKJ (h)Axxx (d)xxx (c)Qxx is really 11-12 when it is nominally 14? http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/8308/in-bridge-are-there-some-13-point-hands-that-should-not-be-opened?

Considering AKJ-Axxx-xxx-Qxx: Nominally 14; -1 (flat); -1/2 (poor honour placement) = 12.5. I would open, in preference order: 1NT if weak; 1H if playing 4-card majors; else 1C. With proper evaluation of distribution and honour-support, 12 point hands are worth an opening. I intend to rebid 1NT over partners 1D or 1S, or raise 1H to 2H. If partner jump-shifts I will give a single raise. I will not voluntarily compete past 2S unless partner shows 10+.

Considering AKJ-Axxx-xx-Jxxx: I wold prefer to see the SK trade with a small clubs, but this will do. Nominally 13, +1 for diamond doubleton, -1/2 for poor honour placement = 13.5. My preference for openings remains identical to the previous comment: iNT, or 1H, or 1C with the same proviso.

OK in "part three" changing 3-4-3-3 to 3-4-2-4 improves your hand by improving the distribution, right?

Yes, by about 2 pts. Also the fourth club improves the CJ, so maybe 13.75 is a better estimate. Throw in 2 round 10's and it is an easy 14 count.


text:
In Axis and Allies, how do you choose which player plays which country?
Can players choose because there enough diversity of interest so that everyone can get their first or second choice?
Do you use a bidding system where players "bid" for a country by specifying the "handicap" there are willing to take to play it?
Do you "draw" for country as in diplomacy?
Is there a consensus that the "newest" players play the U.S. (or Britain) while the more experienced players play the harder countries?

The rule book has advice in it on which to choose. I think this would be an opinion, not a rule.

The question is NOT "how should you choose which player plays which country," which is subjective. It is "how DO you choose..." Some people have dealt with this in their own games, and I am primarily interested in what they DID. That calls for an "experienced" fact-based answer.

I'll assume we're talking about "global" A&A versions (whole world map)

Is there a consensus that the "newest" players play the U.S. (or
  Britain)

Good question! I found out that US is the worst option for new players because over and over they are overwhelemed with the question: "what to buy?" "when do I get to roll some dice?".  With no exceptions they have ended up rushing wich results in either loosing their fleet or loosing their ground units, with frustration feeling that had no impact in the game.
I think these setups might help:
3 players:

US: most experienced
RUS + UK: intermediate
AXIS: less experienced

5 players

US: Most experienced
UK: next most-experienced
JAP: third-most
RUS: second least-experienced
GER: least experienced

The reason is: US that us and UK may loose heavily at the beggining of the game; and between begginers, those with germany have more chances to smash russia, so an exp player in UK balances.
Most importantly, new players should get the chance to buy and roll many dice :)

Do you use a bidding system where players "bid"

There is a bid system. In short, if your group agrees that either axis or allies are weaker; you start bidding the ammount of cash that the players will get if they get the weaker team (axis or allies):

start at 1, no one takes it? bid is 2.. so on.

You can assign the amount between the nations that got it (i.e. if bid is 5 to axis, you can distribute germany 5 jap 0, or germany 4 jap 1, etc)
You can then buy units with this extra cash and place them in a friendly territory before the games starts, max one per territory. You may also not buy anything and save the cash
Hope it helps

Whatever works for your group. Only if multiple players want to play the same country is a "method" even necessary. Until your group knows the game well, handicapping is extreme; use random selection, but even then only to break contentions

It depends on the people you are playing with. My group just need to talk to find a solution. But since we play more games when we play we switch nations with every game so everyone can play his favorite nation at least one time.


text:
How do you decide which way to finesse for an ace?
This is from the New York Post, which is to say that it is a "problem."
You are declarer (South) in a 3 no trump contract. You get a "friendly" lead in a suit where you have three winners (two in hand, one in dummy). You have A-K in each of two other suits for seven top tricks. You have no issues (transportation or weaknesses) in these three suits, but no chances for extra tricks. So focus only on the fact that you need two tricks from the fourth suit, in which you hold K854.
Dummy holds QT32.
If the suit splits 3-2, there's no problem. If it splits 5-0, you might be out of luck. Your "nightmare" scenario is a 4-1 split with the singleton being either the 7 or the 6.
Apparently, the correct procedure is to lead low to one of your face cards for a finesse.
How do you decide whether to lead from dummy toward your king, or from hand toward the queen?
Which trivializes the second question: should you win in hand or in dummy?

do you know anything from the bidding?

Please give the full hand with the bidding etc. Looking at the suit in isolation, a quick look seems to indicate playing low to Q is probably better for two tricks (and seems to guarantee if it does not split 5-0).

@Aryabhata: I described the hand. Dummy had Kxx, Axx, Axx, QT32, while declarer had AQJ, kxx, kxx, K854.

@TomAu: You didn't. The number of cards accompanying the A and K in the other suits could be relevant. The opening lead and the play could also matter (like count signals from opps) etc.

@Aryabhata: I fixed the question so that it's clear that it is a problem from a news article, and that there were no other possibilities or issues other than the one asked about.

Playing low to Q, and then towards the K, covering RHO's card if RHO follows seems the right play.
If RHO shows out when you play towards the K, you can rise with the K and play towards the T the second trick.
This is basically 100% (caters to 3-2, 4-1 and 5-0 splits!)
The other option of playing to the K loses to the singleton A over the K, losing two more tricks to the J9x over the QTx.
This is intuitively similar to the combination
A9xx
opposite
KJxx
where you need 3 tricks.
The correct play is to play the K, and then play towards the A9x, covering whatever LHO plays. If LHO fails to follow suit, you go up with the A, and play towards the J.
The usual way to attack suit combination problems is to try and count the number of combinations where a line of play works. This can be time consuming at first, but in most cases, you can work out a reasonable line (not necessarily the best line) at the table.

An important and often overlooked datum for this situation is that Opening Leader has declined to lead the suit with the important Ace. Of many possible reasons for this decision, two are that he held the Ace in question, or was actually void in the suit. As both of these indicate a slightly increased probability of the interesting Ace being in his partner's hand, you should play fort the Ace to be held by the partner of Opening Leader.
Of course, the longer you can delay making the decision, the more information you will have about the opponent's distribution. This information will often dwarf the subtle inference above, but not always; in those situations you buy yourself an additional 1% or 2% by playing as recommended.

The issue here is that you are finessing for two cards, the A and the J. Therefore you lead low from hand towards dummy, which has two high cards, the Q and T.
If West covers, you duck, otherwise play the Q. East presumably wins with the ace. When you regain the lead (in dummy), lead low from dummy toward your King, finessing for the Jack or 9 in East. If East plays either of those cards, you cover, otherwise finesse the 8, unless E shows out, in which case you play the K (and finesse to the T in dummy).
If West doesn't win your 8, your king will win the next trick. If West does win, your K will drop the last opposing card, and your low card will win a second trick.


text:
Are there times to pre-empt with a "strong" six trumps in bridge?
Suppose you have something like AQJxxx of clubs (and no other values). If it were any other suit than clubs, I'd open with a with a "weak two" bid.
But two clubs is the STRONG two bid. Meaning that if I wanted a "weak" two bid, I'd have to go to THREE clubs. With such a strong honor holding, is it ok to do so with only six clubs, on the theory that your suit is actually stronger than a seven card suit such as QTxxxxx? (If your partner has nothing, you figure to win five tricks, going down four, but your opponents can make a small slam.)
Would you do this with another suit besides clubs, where you could bid a weak two? And how would vulnerability affect your answer.

Reference - ACBL SAYC SYSTEM BOOKLET

OPENING PREEMPTS
Opposite an unpassed partner, an opening 3 or 4-level call in a suit tends toward sound at equal or unfavorable vulnerability. Vulnerable against not, you should be within two tricks of your bid (i.e. with likely distribution of the remaining cards in your suit). When the vulnerability is equal, you should be within three tricks of your bid. At favorable vulnerability, the preempt tends to be lighter, so you should be within four tricks of your bid.

To decide whether or not your bid is sound, start by considering the scoring:

Next, consider how many tricks you'd be likely to make with your longest suit as trumps. With your AQJxxx of clubs you'll probably take 5 tricks.
If you're non-vulnerable and your opponents are vulnerable then 3 clubs is reasonable - if your partner has anything you should be able to get a 6th trick, if your partner has nothing then your opponents probably had a small slam. At any other vulnerability you should pass.

Now consider the case where partner has a singleton Club, so the Opponents are very likely to have two (maybe three) inescapable Club losers. That's why the 3Club opening should always be at least seven cards.

Under most circumstances, I wouldn't. If your partner has 3 or 4 clubs and mediocre strength, and decides to support, you might find yourself in a disastrous 4CX or 5CX while your opponents didn't have anything better than a game.
It depends on your distribution as well. With 6-4-3-0 I might feel bold enough to try it. With 6-3-2-2, probably not.

Welcome to the site. An upvote to get you started. I'm in your "camp," but many other people I know think that I'm not aggressive enough.

The only rule about preempts is "Don't make a preempt your partner won't expect".  Have an agreement with your partner, and stick to it.  What that agreement is is (almost) irrelevant; it is certainly less damaging to your results than violating the agreement.
I play duplicate, and mostly matchpoints.  So read this with that slant.  Although I will note that even at IMPs, very aggressive preempts are common even at the top levels, because they work.
At rubber, remember the golden rule of preempts: You are deliberately paying to extend the rubber.  If you're playing with the weakest player at the table, the job is to get out as cheaply as possible and cut someone better, not pay a premium to continue longer.  S.J. Simon's Why You Lose At Bridge is just as right about that as it was in 1946 when he wrote it.
End of digression.
If your agreement is "Rule of 2/3" then with 3 tricks opposite a vulnerable 3H bid, bid game and expect to make it.  Great!  You'll score a lot of -140s into -100 or -620s into -170 when you pass, but that's the choice you and your partner have made.
If your agreement is "7 cards, hopefully to an honour or two, and no more than half a defensive trick outside", then more power to you!  You'll get a lot of +170s that the room bids game on, and the odd -500 into nothing, but the opponents are figuring out what to do at the 3 level when the room gets to open 1 a lot more, and they will not bid as well on average - and -100 for 3D-1 scores really well when other tables' opponents know to matchpoint double after the competitive auction, or get to wrap up 110 in 2S.
In particular, 3C (and 3D in systems with a conventional 2D call) are frequently very aggressive.  They're "only as preemptive" as 2S, so these pairs treat them the same as 2S (even though, if doubled, it's down one more).  If it works for you, go for it!  If it doesn't, don't! (see below for my almost reverse of this decision).
I play very sound preempts with one partner, because she's one of the best card players in the city, and expects to win by taking one more trick than the field on the play and on defence (frequently doubled).
My agreement with my other regular partner is "3C or 3D opposite an unpassed hand will not feel guilty putting down dummy in 3NT.  3H or 3S, especially NV, is anything goes." (within the context of "anything goes" 2-bids and NAMYATS 4-major)
I've even played a system where your example of CAQJxxx is too strong for a 3C bid.
One thing my teacher said, 30 years ago, was "think about playing 5/8/11."  That is, when you're vul and they're not, your preempt will go down 2 tricks (500) opposite a bust; at equal vul, 800 (-3V or -4 NV); at favourable, -5 (1100).  Note that this style is basically trying to disrupt opponents' slam bidding, not game bidding.  Again, if that's your style, go for it!
If I have to play with a new partner at the last minute (which as a club TD I am frequently called on to do), I ask 4 questions, and hope to muddle through the rest.  One of them is "what's your preempt style?"  It's that important to be on the same page.
I'll end with a link to a discussion on another site about preempts.  Note especially the thread at the bottom, from a English International player (my emphasis):

xx
  J
  QJ10xxx
  xxxx
was opened 3D, first seat, favourable vulnerability at 4 of the 5 tables in the English trials. The fifth opened it 4D.

My other questions, in case anyone cares: "What's our carding?" "What's our defence to 1NT?" and (because they will bid it, even though they don't know what the answer will mean) "what style of Blackwood?"

I prefer a "weak" preempt, 3-7 hcps with a 7 card suit, as a defense against slams. If I have 3, and you have a bust, opponents have a small, if not a grand slam. With 8-9 hcps, I prefer a "weak two," so 3 clubs could mean either a "weak two" with 6-9 and seven cards, or a true preempt with 3-5 and seven cards. With 10, I have hand that is "average" in hcps but the two extra cards make up for it, and I would just bid one of the suit.

Opening 3 Clubs on this hand is a disaster waiting to happen. If your partner has a singleton Club and an Ace there is every likelihood the opponents can't make game on their 29 HCP, but you are going down 2 or 3 (probably not doubled, but turning a plus into a minus).
This is why opening preempts should be disciplined on length (at least). The absence of a seventh Club in your hand is 1/3 to 1/2 of a defensive trick. You have 2 to 2.5  more potential defensive tricks in Clubs, again because the seventh Club is missing.
A key maxim for expert bridge is:
Don't take blind flyers in the bidding.
You are taking a huge flyer here, that is predicated not only on partner having absolutely none of the remaining 6 controls, but 2 or 3 Clubs as well.  That is a very low odds proposition even in 3rd seat.
Now consider the delightful case where partner is strong, with 3 little Clubs. With the Club King missing, partner will completely misread the odds of Clubs being a no-loser suit in slam. Another disaster waiting to happen as you are the only pair in the room going down in 6C or even 7C.
Defensively, you are also advertising to opponents which way to side a NT or slam contract to avoid Club losers.
Finally, many pairs reserve opening preempts in 3C and 3D for weak suits and open a gambling 3NT with a strong long minor instead. Why is that? because opening 3C or 3D gives the opponents a lot of information but doesn't really preempt them much.
In conclusion, just don't do this. It's really bad bridge.

The point about a pre-empt is precisely the lomg suit.  If you bid on a 6-card suit more than once in a blue moon you are misleading your partner (who can be expected to have an opening bid in your example, and may bid up, based on your 7-suit); if you do it often, you are misleading your opponents, and should declare your 'system' in advance.

On the other hand, if you are third seat opposite a passed partner, s/he doesn't have an opening bid. So maybe the time to do so is only in third seat and not otherwise. In fourth seat, I'd pass.


text:
When should you not place the robber to do the most damage in Settlers of Catan?
If you have the robber and are playing against the field, you might want to place it where it can do the most damage.
But my understanding is that sometimes the better use is to "sic" the robber on the player who is in the lead.
How do you decide between the two courses of action or others? And what about the times when one or another course of action will do YOU some harm?

The robber is a political action.
If it's early days in the game, you may well want to shrug your shoulders and say "I don't care, I'm just going to put this where it will cause the most damage to the most players who aren't me. Nothing personal."
If it's later on, you might want to attack a player who's been giving you hassle, and make it clear that that's what you're doing.  Or you might want to avoid doing anything to hurt a player who's behind - they may be grateful to be "given a break", and return the favour later.
Naturally, if another player is about to do rather too well, putting the robber on him may be everyone else's last chance not to lose the game.  Or if you're about to grab the last few points necessary to win, then a well-judged resource-steal may be a timely action.
But in general I don't think you need to micro-analyse your robber plays.  Use the robber to make friends and punish enemies, and maintain some approximation of a status quo (until you're ready to break free of that).  Sometimes it can even be advantageous to place the robber where it will do the least harm.  Everybody likes a nice person, right?  Where I come from, it's not nice guys who finish last, but overly competitive ones :)

I'd say it's more diplomatic than political, but the point is the same I guess.

The placement of the robber should take into account several factors:

Does the next player have a Knight card? (or Development card, since this isn't open information) If they do, they are likely to use it before rolling for their turn, likely putting it on your settlement/city. You should consider placing it on a hex that blocks the player to your right, because it has the highest probabilty of remaining there.
Does another player have a higher pobability of having a good you need right now? Stealing from them may help you improve you board position this turn, allowing you to build that road, settlement, or city this turn intead of having to hold cards in hand until next turn.
Who is in the lead? If a player is closer to winning than any other player, hurting them is usually a good course of action.
Does placement of the robber make your trade goods more valuable, or a good less available? If you become the sole provider for a good, it will trade for more or make it harder for someone to get a good you want to make more scarce.
Does this hurt the most (more blocked pips) without hurting you? You rarely want to block your own settlements/cities.

Good answer. Also worth mentioning that rather than blocking the most pips, sometimes it can more beneficial to block a specific resource you know a rival needs. E.g. If you know the lead player is one stone away from being able to upgrade a settlement to a city, rather than block their sheep with 4 pips, blocking their stone with 3 pips might be a better bet.

One obvious choice is when an opponent threatens to take the Longest Road (card), and thereby reach 10 points, with the help of a city on wood/brick with a 6/8. I would block a hex to stop this course of events, even if I had a settlement adjacent.


text:
Is a "drop-finesse" better than a simple "drop" play with a nine card suit in bridge?
Regarding finesses for a missing queen in a key (e.g. trump suit), there is a proverb of "eight ever [always] nine never."  Instead, one is supposed to play for a drop. (This, and most other proverbs need to be taken with grain of salt).
A "blind" finesse (without further information), is 50-50. If you have nine cards in a suit headed by the ace and king (and play them to drop the queen), your chances of success are 52.5%. That is, the opposing cards will fall 2-2. 40% of the time. Some 50% of the time, they will be split 3-1.And of these, the singleton will be the queen one-fourth of the time, or 12.5% of the total (40%+12.5%)= 52.5%.
But suppose you have one or more finesse possibilities. That is, you have AJxxx. Dummy has KTxx. Then you can lead one of your tops "blindly" and catch the queen 12.5% of the time. A finesse the other way would succeed 50% of the remaining times =.5*87.5% or 43.75%. The total chances of success would be (43.75+12.5%)=56.25%> 52.5%.
So a "drop" (top card) play followed by a finesse has an advantage over a pure drop (two top card plays), right? And wouldn't this be even more true if East or West showed strength by opening, meaning that you would finesse "around" him to one hand after playing the top honor in the other hand.
And wouldn't the exception be if you had only a "one way" finesse e.g. Axxxx opposite dummy's KTxx and East opened, meaning that the Q was probably "offside?

Your calculation seems off. You seem to have missed an approximately 5% chance of a 4-0 break which the play for drop will catch, but have that implicitly included in the calculations for the drop-finesse.
If you include that, the play for drop indeed comes out to be more, but by very little.
A possibly simple way to figure this out is to compare the holdings where one wins but the other loses.
Say you have AJT9x opposite K87x (in hand) and you decide to play the K first (in both lines).
Taking the finesse next wins over the drop when RHO has Qxx (assuming both follow to the first trick, otherwise it is the same for both lines).
Playing for the drop wins over the finesse when RHO has Qx.
Since RHO will have Qxx 3/4ths of 1-3 split = 3/4ths of ~25% = ~19%, while RHO will have Qx 1/2 of ~40%  = ~20%, playing for the drop is better.

I don't see how a drop can "catch" the queen when there is a 4-0 break.

@TomAu: On seeing a 4-0 break, you will obviously take the finesse that needs to be taken, right? The play for drop does not mean, close your eyes and bang the top cards down. If someone shows out and you have a marked finesse, you take it! In this case, when RHO shows out on the K, both lines will end up taking finesse...


text:
Are there partnerships that win major events by using unpopular systems?
There are some bridge combinations that most players shun, at least when possible.
One of these is the so-called Moyesian or 4-3 trump fit.
The result is that there are bidding systems that require "five card majors" just to avoid such Moyesian fits. But are there successful, world-class partnerships that court these, or other "unpopular" situations that everyone "knows about" but few want to play?
I remember reading that one backgammon player became a world champion by pioneering "back" games (which were originally unpopular). Has a similar thing happened from time to time in bridge?

Is that backgammon player perhaps Oswald Jacoby? He was a darn good bridge player in his time, as was his son.

@PieterGeerkens: I don't think so, but I'm not sure. I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Good bridge teacher, too.

Barry Crane (originally Barry Cohen, the Detroit Demon) dominated many aspects of North American bridge for decades playing a system of weak openings and early exits from the auction. This was the antithesis of the systems being expounded by teachers such as Culbertson and Goren, which revolved around sound openings to assist average players in making their contracts, even if they often underbid.
Wealthy enough to be a client and strong enough to compete against the best, Crane inspired strong feelings, pro and con, amongst the North American bridge elite; but few dared cross him because it was nearly impossible to win the McKenney trophy without his patronage.
Noted most for his superb match-point play, Crane's systems revolved around opening 4-card heart suits in order to buy as many contracts as possible in 2H, but opening 1Spade required 5 cards. In consequence he was probably an even more ardent exponent of Moysian fits then Alphonse (Sonny) Moyse was.
It is still possible to find compilations of Crane's bidding system and ruminations on the web.
The post of Grant Baze's memories of Barry., on that final link, are priceless. One oft repeated story is the following:

Jeff Meckstroth went one better. He played with Barry in a two session
  regional event just because he thought he should play at least once
  with “Mr. McKinney.” At the end of the event Jeff tore their
  convention card into ribbons and threw the pieces at Barry, making it
  very clear that he would never play with Barry again.

Yes, that is the very same Jeff Meckstroth who has had almost as much influence on the bridge world, since Crane's murder, as Crane himself did.
And just for you Tom, because I know you love rulessuch as these:

But back to the bidding dictums for a moment. Allegedly, among locals
  in SoCal, he[Crane] mandated “Double at match points (for penalty) in
  pass-out seat after an opening 2NT.”
I rather doubt that but maybe others could shed more light.
I have done quick and dirty simulations – finding about 52-55%
  conversion rate. Maybe others can chip in.
Response:
  Ed: I think the statement is correct, but incomplete – after
  “pass out seat”, add “4 hcp's or less”, the rationale being that
  partner holds 11+ hcp behind declarer.

It happens all the time. I play standard methods with some partners and an unpopular one (Kaplan-Sheinwold, featuring a 12-14 1NT opener) with others. All my national and international successes have come playing KS.
There are several possible reasons for this. Some proponents of unpopular systems would like us to believe that the system is inherently superior, but I don't think that's sustainable. Bridge players are rational, and if a system were truly superior it would likely be more popular, especially long term. Another possibility is that I'm more comfortable playing my preferred methods, and I play better accordingly.
There is a third reason that would apply at any level, especially at matchpoints. An unpopular system will increase the variance of a partnership's scores. If one wants to win more often then it's better to have a mix of 60% and 40% games rather than consistently score 50% or so. In fact a random 60/40 mix would win more often than a consistent 55%.

Welcome - it's nice to see such an accomplished bridge player on the site. Is K-S truly unpopular though? Certainly I have had several opportunities to play it over the years, but have not had the time to devote to the game over the past 20 years.

It seems unpopular to me! Besides Doug Doub and me, at the top level only Martel and Stansby played it, and they split up a few years ago. I seldom encounter it in Regionals or in NABC play.

If you're interested in the system please check out the K-S mailing list. You can view content or sign up at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/kaplan-sheinwold


text:
How much would you revalue your hand after finding a "double fit?"
Suppose you hear your partner open one spade. You, the responder (North) have:
(s)Kxx (h)xx (d)xxx (c)AKxxx, and respond two clubs. Opener now bids three clubs, showing you a "double fit" in spades and clubs.
You have ten high card points, and presume that opener has at least 13, for a total of at least 23. Normally, that's not quite enough for game, but the double fit has increased the value of your hands. Can you go directly to four spades on the theory that the double fit is worth 2-3 points, thereby bringing you to 25-26 (adjusted)? Or should you stop at three spades and let partner decide based on whether he has a minimum or more?
Suppose you were opener, and heard partner (responder) stop at 3 spades. You have (s) AQJxx (h)Kxx (d)xx (c) QJx. You assume that he has a bare 10, and you have only 13. Can you go to 4S on the basis of the double fit?

Why did you raise his 2C bid to three with only QJX support?

And since your 2C is not a game-going bid and partner decides to raise you to 3C voluntarily, you should be going to 4 anyways.

@petqwe: Not true - the 2C bid was forcing on opener, so with 4+ Clubs and an unbalanced hand partner is compelled to bid 3C as a non-forcing call. The revealed fit is likely good for both hands, but a return to 3S now by Responder says "I can't do any more, but I do have 3 Spades for you."

Let's give partner a fitting minimum for the first auction; one that fits nicely but is otherwise as weak as possible:
S: AJxxx
H: x
D: KJX
C: QTxx

This hand by partner has only 11 HCP, evaluates to exactly 13 total points as opener, and there are excellent chances to make 4S, especially with an attacking diamond lead being up to partner's holding.
Let's also consider a non-fitting maximum hand for partner, with the maximum possible non-working values:
S: Qxxxx
H: AQ
D: AQ
C: xxxx

Again 4S has a good play, with one sure loser in trumps and good chances that the rest of the hand can be managed for only two losers.
These two hands illustrate the principle that if one's own values are strongly fitting, as in the hand given, and especially when one is the weaker hand of the partnership, one can be aggressive. Practice visualizing typical fitting minimum and non-fitting maximum hands for partner in the bidding, and evaluate your own holding against those when deciding whether to bid or invite game/slam. Caveat: Be very careful to not place cards in partner's hand when doing so. It is easy to engage in wishful thinking when doing this exercise, so you must consciously restrain your self until that becomes second nature.
Let's try the flip side; partner's fitting minimum could be something like:
S: xxx
H: x
D: KJTx
C: Axxxx

This is about as bad a hand as partner could come down with, 8HCP and 10 total points, yet 4S is not hopeless despite the mismatch in the red suits. Even small additions like ST or C9 start looking like big cards. Vulnerable at IMPS bidding this game is mandatory, and perhaps also non-vulnerable at IMPS, but at MatchPoints I'd rather play 3S and trust partner to bid game herself when holding a hand like
S: Kxx
H: xx
D: xxx
C: AKxxx

Update:
The three distinctive marks of a weak player are:

not counting;
still not counting; and
thinking that hand evaluation ends with counting points, when in fact it only begins with counting points.

Note that the examples of hand visualization given above all start with counting - of points, distribution, potential losers and winners - of things that cannot yet be seen in partner's hand but must be visualized. One begins to approach expert status only when this process starts to become second nature.  In many senses an expert performs this visualization first; decides on the appropriate call based on this visualization; determines what the value of the hand is based on the call and bidding system; and only then decides how that value is apportioned as HCP and distribution and fitting points.

Basically an expert relies on intuition, and uses the point count as a check, while a non-expert uses the point count as a crutch.

@TomAu: NOT intuition - but visualization. Ask an expert and fitting minimum hands will come spilling out.

The law of total tricks predicts an 'average' double-fit to add only  1/2 trick to either team's offensive potential, but both point-upgrades and downgrades are possible. The double-fit generally means some low cards in the fitting suits don't lose, however low honours in short suits have no offensive value.
Though, in this example I think you should describe, not decide. Partner would likely think you "exceeded your authority" by choosing unilaterally. With Opener's wide range of 11-17, you don't (and won't) know enough. So, showing your double fit and 8 losers, which only you see, is highest in priority. Just keep the bidding going and trust opener's decision (i.e. how team-work works best!).
I'd say 3S described that hand nicely - a double fit with no other merit (a void would score extra) and Opener can easily place this contract. If opener only made their forced rebid for you to reveal extra strength then your answer was 'no, but having 3 spades'. (And, the double-fit hasn't appreciably reduced losers in your flat hand, perhaps a heart ruff, but you need more than partner promised so far and 4 more cover cards.)
With a complete picture, Opener can forecast winners and losers easily - but only now that they have a well defined image to work from. Obviously 16+ points is 4S and 11 a simple pass. Between these margins, Opener should visualise 6 or less losers in their hand with 3 cover cards expected from your double-fit (in high cards or ruffs), rather than exact point-counting.
6 losers would suggest game, although sometimes the point distribution (with points in opponents suits) may lean towards defence, when opponents have over-bid the double-fit which they also possess!


text:
Have recent changes in bidding priorities changed the value of finesses?
I was taught to "bid to make." That is, it would take 26 points to bid a game that was at least a 2 to 1 favorite to make. (I'd bid game with 24-25 only with "something extra" such as a solid five card suit that would take a disproportionate number of tricks.) Under these cirumstances, I would shun finesses (a 50-50 proposition) except as a last resort, because they "average down" my theoretical  "67%" chances. Instead, I would look for an endplay, squeeze, or maybe a combination play (e.g. a drop play for 3-3 distribution in a key suit followed by a finesse.))
The IMP scoring table allows bidders to come out ahead if they make as many as 40% of the game contracts they bid. Hence, many players will now bid a speculative game with 22-24 points (instead of 26). More to the point, this result is occurring more frequently because of pre-emptive and "competitive" bidding, where the slightly stronger partnership is pushed into a game contract, instead of being allowed to stop at the three level. In this situation, a 50-50 shot at a successful finesse will "average up" their chances.
Do good players play finesses more frequently to "shorten" the odds when they are in long odds contracts with less than 25-26 points? In finance terms, do good players regard finesses as "dilutive" when they have 26+ points and "accretive" when they have 22?

Tom - You really need to read more on the history of the game. Culbertson, Statyman, Goren, Sobel, Jacoby were all bidding aggressively to game from the 1930's and 1940's on. You are being misled by the relatively passive bidding styles that they recommended to students, who wished to make their contracts with weaker playing skills.

@Aryabhata: If a finesse is is 50-50, are you more likely to play one when you have 22 points and an (otherwise) 40% chance of making your contract, or when you have 26 points and a 70% chance of making your contract? So if competitive bidding systems put you in more 22 point contracts than before, wouldn't you use the finesse more?

Your question is too vague. Sorry. I am going to vote to close.

I have replaced the opinion based portions with more objective language.

Good players do what they need to do, to make the contracts. If it involves a finesse, they take it. If it involves a swindle, they do that too. It seems like you are asking the following: "take all 22 point games and compute the number of finesses needed. Compare that to the same figure for 26 point games. Which is larger?". That is a pretty broad question... What is your motivation for this question?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Sorry, cannot chat. Comments here are fine.

@Aryabhata.  I think Tom's question is perfectly clear, and actually quite a good question.

@northernman: Sure. What constitutes a good question for the site is subjective. If you have an answer, please feel free to add it.

@Aryabhata  I'm just not sure why you are ragging on Tom. Your initial response was not an answer, and I was just pointing out that he asked a valid question.  Your passive-aggressive comments aren't adding anything to the discussion.

@northernman: Aryabhata has a particular view of what kinds of questions are appropriate for the site. I don't agree with it, but he's entitled to his opinion. He and I have been through this before.

Finesses, now as always, are worth half a trick (absent information about opponents' distributions). In IMPs scoring, it is usually appropriate to take a finesse if that is the most likely way to make your contract, and usually inappropriate to take a finesse if it risks the contract for a chance at an overtrick.
Just because a contract is less likely to make, it doesn't change the value of a finesse. If a squeeze, endplay, or combination play gives you better chances, you should do that instead of finessing. If no better alternatives exist, you should finesse.
It may be that finesses are more commonly employed by players who bid lighter games, but that doesn't reflect on their desirability.

My theory is that players who bid lighter games have fewer chances of squeezes,endplays, and combination plays but I could be wrong of course. To a large extent, that's what the question is about; do light bidders need to rely on finesses, and do finesses give them a good fallback position by "averaging up" results? Thanks for answering, though.

I broadly agree with ruds, but want to give some thoughts based on Tom Au's comment on that answer and they didn't fit in a comment.
There is a confusion about a priori (prior) and a poserteriori (post-facto) knowledge going on here.  The fact that bidding 4H on 22 points will not make most of the time doesn't necessarily mean that finesses are better plays when they are available, it could be that most 22 point hands simply can't make 4H, or can only make when the lie of the cards is highly favorable.  When the game will make, it might well be that finessing is still a bad idea a lot of the time, because in these scenarios there is also a higher percentage line of play.  There may simply be fewer opportunities to finesse with 22 points.  Similarly, in 27 point games, it might be the case that when a finesse is available it is actually likely to be the right play because they are only commonly available in scenarios where other, higher probability plays, are unlikely.  What makes for a good line of play is based on the hand you see, not the unknown of the bidding sequence.
I don't really think the latter is true, the former might be (experience tells me that cross roughing might be that competing line) but instead what I'm saying is that the analysis needs to be based on sampling a large number of hands, it can't be based on the sort of probabilistic argument you're proposing.

You are essentially asking for statistics on the tactics chosen by expert players over the course of playing many games, correlated with the ease and perceived necessity of making their desired score in those games. While fascinating, i don't think you can find this out other than by asking experts directly for several reasons:

stats of this kind are hard to find or not produced
it depends on the player and their "style"
good players aren't playing to make their contract anyhow;  they are playing to equal (defensive bidding) or marginally beat the field, so you can't correlate play tactics to actual bids, you have to correlate to their estimate of the tricks they feel they need and the risks they feel safe in taking to obtain them in that game
good players may perceive extra information/insights which guide them to more effective plays (if you can better read the lay of cards maybe you don't need to guess/finesse 100% of the time with 50% error but only 60% of the time with a 20% error, or you are much more sure than 50% so they aren't a 50/50 chance any more, or something?)

Welcome to the site. An interesting answer.


text:
What are good tips for playing the endgame in Scrabble?
Toward the end of the game, you want to get rid of as many tiles as you can so that they don't count against you. Or do you?
Yesterday, with less than 20 tiles to go, I got a few points for extending "RE" (considered a word in our group) to "rein" by adding "IN." That seemed like a bad move, because this opened up two columns for my two opponents who each got a multiple of the points that I did. Given the chance to play this again, I would exchanged tiles, or even passed.
Does there come a point toward the endgame where you "play not to lose" rather than "play to win?" That is, should you refrain from making moves that help you if you suspect that they will help your opponents more? Should you sometimes "burn" tiles and turns and let your opponents make moves that help you?
I'm assuming that you can't immediately end the game in your favor by using up all your tiles, and thereby preventing your opponents from responding.

I'm not sure that the specific examples you give are things that are different in the end-game vs during most of the rest of the game. As in, "refrain from making moves that help you if you suspect that they will help your opponents more" is a good idea at any time during the game. But there are probably still some things that change during the end-game, especially if you can run out the tiles and end the game while you have the lead.

@GendoIkari: Earlier in the game, if you open up things for your opponents, maybe they will do the same for you, and you'll have more chances to recoup. Whereas if this is the last two or three rounds, you make a move, your opponent responds, you may not get a "second" chance. Things change as you get closer to the "edge," either of time or of the board.

A note that among tourney Scrabble players, what you described is a pre-endgame, not an endgame, situation.
Endgame in Scrabble refers to when the bag is empty, so the tiles available to you and opponent (in a two-player game) are all known. In an endgame, a definite theoretical best sequence of plays for both players can be determined, because of the perfect information available.
Pre-endgame is when about 1-2 moves are left for each player to make before endgame is reached. It requires different strategy. You may want to edit the misleading question title if that is what you meant.

There's a huge amount of information out there about Scrabble end-games - far more than I can summarise here - but most of it concerns two-player games. In those situations, it becomes possible to plan out the last few moves with a great deal of accuracy, since once the tiles are gone from the bag you can work out exactly what is on your opponent's rack. The key becomes maximising the points differential between you: so a 5 point move where the best response is 10 points would be preferable to a 10 point move with a possible response worth 20 points. You also need to factor in the letters that might be left on your rack at the end, since these tiles are worth double to your opponent (once when they are subtracted from your score and again when they are added to theirs).
In a 3 or 4 player game, as you describe, it is much harder to control the flow of play and work out what the other players are going to do. Therefore, it's much more about just maximising your score on any given turn. Still, there are a couple of things you can do in the endgame to help your chances:

Get rid of any high-scoring tiles from your rack as a priority.
Go for longer words if possible so that you can be the first to empty your rack.
As @Becuzz suggests, try not to leave any blatant double- or triple- word opportunities for the player following you.
If the bag is empty and you can't see the Q, you know one of your opponents has it, so try to block any tempting spots they could play it out.

Depending on the situation, some of these may be mutually exclusive, so you need to make a judgement call on which is a priority. E.g. if you have six tiles and an opponent only has two left, they will probably be able to clear their rack next go, so your priority should be to get rid of any high-scoring tiles from your rack.

The app Quackle has the useful feature of giving its valuation of those plays it lists. By comparing its valuations of various options in various circumstances I found out that Quackle values:

leaving 1 tile in the bag at +10
leaving 2 tiles in the bag at +7

The point is: once there are not many tiles in the bag, provided that there's a decent chance that you can go out, if you play, draw tiles, and leave 1 tile in the bag, your opponent must either

score 0, or
empty the bag, giving you the first opportunity to go out.

Another endgame tactic which comes into play slightly earlier is that if the number of tiles in the bag is 7 or not much larger, and you have an awkward tile like Q or J or V which would hinder your chances of going out, seriously consider exchanging because it might be your last opportunity to. In the endgame, try to go out. (I went out in 60% of my club games.) Alternatively, it might happen that it's a good idea to play so as to prevent your opponent going out -- but for you to know that, and to know what to try to do, you need to either track tiles or do a grand totting up of tiles so that you can work out your opponent's rack.

In general, this is a real strategy in many board games, especially those with multiple rounds.  Sometimes you need to play in a way that is purely for your immediate benefit (get rid of as many tiles as possible and gain as many points as possible along the way).  Other times a way to (indirectly) come out ahead is to cause another player harm (ie. don't play your two tiles for negligible gain when that opens up a lot to an opponent who may be able to capitalize on it).  Either way, it's a bit of a gamble as to which will be more helpful.  Without perfect and complete information, you will never know for sure what is best.
Some examples:

Say you are playing Uno and the player next to you has one card left.  You suspect it is a green card.  It would be a really bad move to switch the color of the discard pile to green.  Unless the card they have really isn't green.  Stopping another player from winning is a way to help yourself.  Problem is you don't know for sure if what you do will stop them, so it's a gamble.
Playing hearts (or some other game where you gain unwanted points between rounds).  It may be beneficial in the long game to help someone besides yourself win a round in order to cause another player to end up at a disadvantage.  (ie. player A is doing really well and player B is about to go out and end the round.  If the round ends now, player A will get a lot of points, making it harder for them to win and thus easier for you.)
In Scrabble, don't play words / letters that are easy to extend off of for negligible gain.  Playing the word "the" next to a double word score tile is probably a bad idea because any one of a few letters will let your opponents extend that and get much more than you got out of it.

Ultimately, these kinds of plays are more for a bit of a long term strategy or to stall the game (if the game works like that).  But ultimately it can work, you just won't really know every time.


text:
Do bridge champions retain their abilities to a later age than those of chess or go?
My understanding is that bridge champions can continue winning tournaments into their sixties, and even later in life. On the other hand, chess champions often seem to lose their crowns in their forties and fifties, and Go champions seem to make no further progress after their thirties. And of course, most sports champions are "done" by age 40, if not before.
Do bridge masters in fact last longer at or near the top than those of other games? And even so, would it make sense to have top bridge partners of very different ages where the older one might have better bidding judgment, and the younger one, greater endurance for the cut-and-thrust of "play?"
Source for Go: "The 1971 Honinbo Tournament," by James Davies. Source for others: Various Wikipedia biographies.

Interesting question, could you add some sources to verify your claims ?

@Kit: I just went through biographies of players from Wikipedia and various bridge  sources, maybe 15-20 in all. I don't have any single, or even "grouped" sources except for Go.

@Kii I think you've got it the wrong way around. He's looking for sources to verify or debunk the claims.

@corsiKa : I may have misunderstood but, I want examples of bridge player being top 10 at the age of sixties.

@Kii: If I see e.g. Alan Truscott at age 64-years old win a major bridge tournament, I'm going to assume he's top 10, or something close. I asked the question to make sure I wasn't "seeing things," and also to wonder why, and whether it might be because s/he had a younger partner to help him/her over the rough spots. The other games don't feature partners. Arghya had a good answer.

Experience counts for a lot in bridge.

With regards to losing abilities... my grandmother suffered a stroke around age 90 where she lost most language ability.  Despite this, she was still able to play bridge rather successfully, using a printed chart of suits and numbers to point to for communicating bids.

Not only do bridge players retain their abilities to a later age than Chess and Go players, they don't even attain their peak ability until an age, around forty or so, when they have decidedly passed their peak in Go and Chess.
Bob Hamman, born 1938, was ranked 7th in the world by the World Bridge Federation as of October, 2012, at the age of 74. His Championship performances in the preceding 5 years were:
 - Bermuda Bowl: Win 2009;
 - United States Bridge Team Trial Championship: win 2008 & 2012;
 - Spingold North American Championship: win 2007;
 - Reisinger North American Championship: Win 2008;
 - Open Board-a-Match Teams North American Championship: win 2008;
 - Jacoby Open Swiss Teams North American Bridge Championship: win 2009;
A quick glance at Hamman's record suggests that this 5 year period may have been one of his most prolific, with seven significant wins.
Lorenzo Lauria, born July 7 1947, was ranked 5th in the world at that time at age 65.
Jeff Meckstroth, born May 1956, was ranked 6th in he world at that time at age 56.
Eric Rodwell, born May 1957, was ranked 8th in the world at that time at age 55.
Tor Helness, born 1957 or 1958, was ranked 10th at that time at age 54 or 55.
The youngest player in the top 10 at that time was Geir Helgemo, born February 1970, at age 42.
This is and has been consistent for the several decades that I have been playing the game - players very rarely crack top ten in the world until after 40, peak in their fifties and sixties, and often retain world championship caliber play (if not quite championship level play) into their seventies and eighties.
As posted on July 10, 2016, though apparently without adjustments for the cheating scandal of September 2015, the current WBF Top 10 Masterpoint holders with their ages are:
Fulvio Fantoni: Age 52 (disgraced)
Claudio Nunes: Age 48 (disgraced)

Geir Helgemo: Age 46
Tor Helness: Age 59 or 58
Giorgio Duboin: Age 57
Zia Mahmood: Age 70
Frank Multon: Age 52
Alfredo Versace: Age 47
Pierre Zimmermann: Age 61
Jeff Meckstroth: Age 60
Lorenzo Lauria: Age 69
Norberto Bocchi: Age 55

Top 10: Youngest: 46; Median: 53.5 (52&55); Oldest: 70
Note that Fantoni & Nunes, 1st and 2nd on both lists, are now disgraced; found guilty in April 2016 of cheating and banned for life as a pair, and individually for three years.

The 'rank' has an inherent bias towards the older people because of the Masterpoint system: the older you get the more Masterpoints you can accumulate. Say player A played Bridge for 20 years and gets 300 points per year. His point is now 6000. Player B played Bridge for 2 years and get 2000 points per year, giving him 4000 points. Player A's rank is higher than B because he has more Masterpoints, but is it the case that A is better than B?

@petqwe: Not for WBF Master Points. Every January 1 prior master point totals are multiplied by 0.85, a 15% depreciation. The WBF tracks lifetime Placing Points, a nondepreciating measure, separately. You can see the effect by observing that Bob Hamman's Placing Point total is nearly 2.5 times that of the current #1 master point holder; but his master points are less than half as much.

@petqwe: To be precise, the WBF rates player B at 5550 MPs, and player A at 1922 MPs; until the next evaluation date when both players will have these amounts multiplied by 0.85.

I don't know anything about Bridge, I played a bit Chess and am a regular Go player. That being said, I completely agree with Arghya's answer and want to add some details from my perspective.
I think that Go is evolving through time. As chess. These games have Complete Information (see Wikipedia's article about Game Theory) and still, they are so difficult to play that there is no Perfect Play for us Humans. (but there may exist eventually one)
In Go, the opening theory is still a challenge and new players can learn from the best of their generation. There are multiple player that are considered Go Saints because they discovered some new patterns and thus made the game deeper and more interesting. The arriving of computers that can challenge top pros probably will bring an evolution in the way the game itself is played by Humans
In Go, each player has a unique style and if you're considered the best a lot of rivals will learn from your games. They will play between them and eventually find a way to counter your style.
It may not be a simple matter of age but a matter of time.
Bridge is not a game with Complete Information and I don't know if the strategies are evolving. Is there even a best strategy possible ?

Have you even researched the game of Contract bridge? No, there is not a best strategy, because every hand is one of incomplete information, and a new arrangement of cards. The technical aspects of bridge easily compare with those of Go and Chess, with the additional aspect of having to play with a partner and, in the most prestigious events, a team. Note also that all the top players in the world and many lesser ones are professionals, paid  employees of a team captain who often plays as a member of the team.

@Kil: The optimal strategy for games with incomplete information is often a mixed strategy, e.g. make play A 70% of the time and play B 30% of the time.

As for "is there even a best strategy" possible, the answer is yes. This is the domain of "game theory" (the mathematical field).


text:
Would you pass this 13 high card point hand?
At my duplicate bridge club, with both sides vulnerable, some Souths dealt, and passed with this 13 point hand:
♠ AJx
♡ Axxx
♢ QT9
♣ Qxx (All x's are 7 or lower.)

The hand's main drawback is its 4-3-3-3 shape, which would cause me to deduct a point from it. Even so, I would be loathe to pass out a hand with a four card major and equal vulnerability. Give me unfavorable (only us) vulnerability, and switch the red suits (four diamonds, three hearts), and I might pass. But here, I would bid 1 club. Are these reasonable postures?
FWIW, N-S got a top score by having N bid and make 1NT (with 9 hcps), and a bottom score by passing.

Some people play bridge with their own psychological scoring, which is something like +1 for making a part score, +2 for making a game, +4 for making a slam, -20 for going down in any contract, and 0 if the opponents declare.  Needless to say, this is not how bridge scoring actually works.

Both Goren and Culbertson (using honor trick count) would have readily not only opened this hand - but recommended opening this hand for their readers. It's not even close for either of them. Never pass a hand that both Goren and Culbertson would open. Your 80 year old isn't passing this hand because they're 80 - they're passing because they've always been a weak player.

Modern bidding style is relatively aggressive. Many experts open all 12 counts and 11 counts with a modicum of shape, and I've seen some open flat 11 counts. My personal minimum is that I won't open 4333 12 counts unless they have something extra going for them (the 12 points are all aces, or there are a bunch of 9's and 10's supporting the honors). Standards also are typically lowered in 3rd seat -- you can open a balanced hand and pass partner's response if you have a minimum.
The general idea is that the tactical advantage of entering the bidding makes up for the occasional poor results from opening a mediocre hand.
So I think only the most conservative players will ever pass a hand with 13 HCP.
I'm pretty surprised that this hand was passed by anyone at your club. As I said, advanced players tend to be more aggressive, and less experienced players are usually inveterate pointer counters who just follow simple rules. Either way, that means that all 13 pointers get opened.

One reason is that the average age at the club is around 80 (an 80 year old, born 1942, passed this hand). At age 65, I am a club "youngster."

@TomAu Those "life novices" are the ones I think tend to just count points.

13 hcp with two aces? I’d open that 10/10 times regardless of distribution.  4 diamonds I’m still fine bidding a 1D then; it’s even a more useful bid than the nondescript 1C.
I’m not surprised some passed, but as a modern player I think it’s very rare to pass that sort of hand. You want to compete for the 20-20 hands where both sides probably make 1NT with the bonus half trick or more you get from declaring.

You may not be - but I'm surprised that even a some pairs passed. Even Goren not only opens this hand, but recommends that his beginner readers do so. The Spade J is supported; the Diamond T9 are plus values; and the Heart suit plays well opposite either length or shortness with Partner. All of this more than compensates for the flat distribution. As you note, this call isn't even close. I'm opening, Matchpoints or Teams, at any Vulnerability.

I've played with plenty of players who are very hesitant to open if they don't have a really nice hand... they see 13 points but see 4-3-3-3 and say "well, that's really 12", and they only open 13 counts.  Sigh.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: As you noted, Axxx plays well on either offense or defense. To a lesser extent, that's also true of AJx and QT9.

@TomAu: Don't put words in my mouth: that's not what I said. I stated that Axxx plays well "opposite either length or shortness with Partner". Both of those apply when Declaring as well as when defending.

I feel like the problem with this hand is that yes, 13 points should be opened, somehow, but many conventions forbid all actual potential opening bids: you don't really want to open 1C or 1D because your clubs and diamonds are basically trash, and you can't open 1H or 1S because you don't have a 5-card major. Still, I would definitely open 1C with this and hope my partner has some kind of guidance.

Standard-ish conventions generally allow for 1c with no regard for the suit quality or even length... many allow 1c with 4432 (SHDC) for example.  Every bid other than 1c says something about the suit, but not 1c.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/