[lamford]

---

Board 183 from a match between USA and England showed the Reese-Schapiro signalling system in a good light. Reese led the ten of spades against 1NT, ducked all round, and a low spade went to Schapiro's king. There might have been a temptation now to continue spades or switch to hearts, North's stronger red suit, but North knew that South had only three hearts (from the standard signalling methods) but did not know how many diamonds South held (opponents tend to complain when you hold your cards with two hands at the same time). He therefore switched to the seven of diamonds which South won deceptively with the queen. Declarer won the third round of spades and led the jack of clubs overtaking in dummy and North ducked. The nine of diamonds was led to South's ten and South played a small club (he also knew North had three hearts, of course, so must be 4-3-3-3). Declarer misguessed, putting up the king, and was one down, losing three spades, two diamonds and two clubs. In the other room 3NT by Meredith made when North won the first club which was the jack overtaken, and declarer made four club tricks. Mathe, East, commented after the hand, "that was good defence, R and S, you did not play hearts once, even though there were three small in dummy". "Just a lucky guess," replied R and S in unison.

[PeterAlan]

I'm another of those who don't find the endless re-hash of the Reese-Schapiro case at all helpful, but to add a lighter note it's always amused me that when Mark Horton re-issued Reese's "Story of an Accusation" in his paperback BBN imprint he included a plug on the back for his own book "Better Signalling Now"!

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2014-April-07, 18:03, said:

I'm another of those who don't find the endless re-hash of the Reese-Schapiro case at all helpful, but to add a lighter note it's always amused me that when Mark Horton re-issued Reese's "Story of an Accusation" in his paperback BBN imprint he included a plug on the back for his own book "Better Signalling Now"!

OK. If these three hands get significant adverse comment, I shall avoid adding any more from my collection and leave it at that. I have not seen these three discussed in this way before. I mistakenly thought the issue was topical, the subject of a recent BBC radio play, and appropriate for this forum.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 16:45, said:

Board 183 from a match between USA and England showed the Reese-Schapiro signalling system in a good light. Reese led the ten of spades against 1NT, ducked all round, and a low spade went to Schapiro's king. There might have been a temptation now to continue spades or switch to hearts, North's stronger red suit, but North knew that South had only three hearts (from the standard signalling methods) but did not know how many diamonds South held (opponents tend to complain when you hold your cards with two hands at the same time). He therefore switched to the seven of diamonds which South won deceptively with the queen. Declarer won the third round of spades and led the jack of clubs overtaking in dummy and North ducked. The nine of diamonds was led to South's ten and South played a small club (he also knew North had three hearts, of course, so must be 4-3-3-3). Declarer misguessed, putting up the king, and was one down, losing three spades, two diamonds and two clubs. In the other room 3NT by Meredith made when North won the first club which was the jack overtaken, and declarer made four club tricks. Mathe, East, commented after the hand, "that was good defence, R and S, you did not play hearts once, even though there were three small in dummy". "Just a lucky guess," replied R and S in unison.

---

Thanks Paul. Good stuff! Nowadays, players are prone to open 1NT whenever they have the right shape, no matter what their honour distribution or lead value. For example a modern player might open a strong 1N with ♠ x x ♥ x x x ♦ A K Q x ♣ A K x x. In 1965, for many players, a requirement was length or honours in every suit. Hence, for North, a ♦ switch seems more attractive than a heart. If a ♥ lead is necessary, it will often be OK for either partner to lead them but a ♦ lead will almost always be better from North. What this hand mainly shows is that Schapiro was aware of the necessity to duck the first round of ♣. This seems to be GBK -- not specific knowledge of the ♥ suit.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2014-April-08, 04:16, said:

If a ♥ lead is necessary, it will often be OK for either partner to lead them but a ♦ lead will almost always be better from North.

This did not tally with my, admittedly short, simulation where a heart was right far more often than a diamond. If your heart holding was Axx or Kxx I might agree with you. Give partner something like K8xx and it is clear that a heart is better. If you know partner has three hearts, then I agree a diamond is right

[Cascade]

Was the range really 15-17 and the hand downgraded?

[Cascade]

Does anyone know anything about the style of the 1NT opening. In particular was the modern style of always opening 1NT with a good five card minor normal or would players more likely open 1♦ with five very good diamonds?

I am trying to do some simulations. At the moment I concur with lamford (also based on a very small sample) that a heart is more likely to be better than a diamond. However when I restrict the 1NT opener to 4333 or 4432 the (again small sample) swings in favour of diamonds.

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2014-April-08, 14:35, said:

Does anyone know anything about the style of the 1NT opening. In particular was the modern style of always opening 1NT with a good five card minor normal or would players more likely open 1♦ with five very good diamonds?

I think five-card majors were rare, but five-card minors common - looking through some old books. But I do not have the time to do a frequency analysis. For the simulation, I allowed East to have either, and the heart came out on top. If you stop him having a five-card heart suit, then the heart is easily best. Of course, both North and South knew that East had exactly four hearts when dummy hit, so maybe you should plug that in to the simulation. I get a diamond coming out ahead now, of course, as East could be 3-4-3-3.

[larlar]

If declarer is 3352 with 1 heart stopper, he will not hold up on the second spade giving you a chance to now set up 3 or 4 heart tricks while you still hold the ace of clubs. His most likely line is to win the spade, play a club to dummy, then go after diamonds. Likewise, with 3343 and 1 heart stopper (and KJx and AJx count as one heart stopper), he is not going to hold up on the spade, his most likely line is to hope for Ax of clubs and failing that play diamonds.

The same applies when he is 3433 or 3532, the difference is that there are many more holdings that declarer can have that he will consider "2 stoppers" in diamonds that actually aren't since we have 3 small, including AJT, AQT, KQT. The other likely reason for holding up twice is something like what is actually happening, declarer is 3442 with strength in both suits, in which case a diamond is also the indicated play.

I would say that shifting to a heart is a pretty brainless play.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-April-08, 07:26, said:

This did not tally with my, admittedly short, simulation where a heart was right far more often than a diamond. If your heart holding was Axx or Kxx I might agree with you. Give partner something like K8xx and it is clear that a heart is better. If you know partner has three hearts, then I agree a diamond is right

Please provide some details of the methods and results of your short simulation.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2014-April-09, 17:51, said:

Please provide some details of the methods and results of your short simulation.

lamford, on 2014-April-08, 18:27, said:

I now have to do a few major projects unconnected with bridge, and am unlikely to post on here for a while. "Good riddance", I hear many of you say. [This post was auto-generated by a spider which scans for replies to my posts]

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-April-08, 20:27 said:

I now have to do a few major projects unconnected with bridge, and am unlikely to post on here for a while. "Good riddance", I hear many of you say. [This post was auto-generated by a spider which scans for replies to my posts]

Good luck with your projects. Come back soon!