[petsei]

I´m wondering whether studies have been conducted regarding the EV of rightsiding a contract after partner has opened one notrump (15 -17 ) or two notrump (20 – 21) .
Whether it is feasible at all, by calculations or simulations. Supposedly not by simulations since part of the EV stems from any less than optimal lead lead into the strong hand.
Up to now, partner and I have spared no effort in trying to make the NT- bidder declarer
The fact that Ron Klinger, famous author and creator of the convention „Keri over 1NT“ doesn´t seem to give a damn about rightsiding contracts in said convention gave me second thoughts.
Into the bargain did I find out that Benito Garozzo incorporated this convention in the system „Ambra“ which he devised together with Ron Klinger and others for the Italian Juniors.
Rightsiding seems not to be that important after all.
Maybe someone has some information about this matter.

[babalu1997]

i would not say whatsoever

the argument for rightsiding is to protect the 1nt opener tenaces, who is expected to have 2 of them

if the responder has 2 or more tenaces him self, there is no need right side anything

so, i dont play texas transfer, for example, 1nt-4h is to play

if i have a slam try in a major, well i bid 3h

if i have a veyr long suit which will be the major source of tricks, i transfer then bid 4h

[bluecalm]

I think right siding in constructive bidding is overrated.
It's much more important in comp though as usually you want defender who bid suit to be on lead.

[aguahombre]

Rightsiding, when the NT responder also has a lot of stuff scattered among the suits, such as when slam is approached -- might not be important as far as the opening lead coming up to opener is concerned. So, certain slam auctions end up with responder being declarer, and it not mattering.

When responder is weak, it gets to be more important. When 1NT is weak, it is less important. But transfers etc have more utility than just rightsiding. They allow better science to explore for strain and level.

"Rightsiding" might also involve making the dummy be the hand which has been better defined. The opponents can see dummy anyway, and if the declarer has also defined his hand perfectly, the defense has little guesswork.

This type of rightsiding is one good reason why J2N, with mandatory shape responses by opener, is rejected by some pairs.

[kenrexford]

Somewhat suggested, "right siding" has two benefits -- leads into and hiding the most values.

There's probably a subtle additional benefit, too. The person with the big hand feels like it's his turn, and so he's ready to play. If the weak hand plays these contracts too often, it seems like Opener would get miffed on occasion. Sure -- he plays some of the weak ones too, but then he wasn't expecting that, and it just doesn't seem fair.

[helene_t]

It shouldn't be too difficult to set up some simulations to test this. Just make the opening lead (or, ideally, the whole play of the hand) single-dummy instead of double-dummy.

FWIW I tend to agree with Bluecalm. It is sorta weird that "standard" methods is that transfers apply in uncontested auctions but not in contested auctions. I'd rather play the reverse.

[petsei]

Thank you all for replying!
Helene T suggested doing single-dummy simulations. I´m curious and interested in numbers so would like doing this. I have DM Pro, but as far as I know, performs Deep Finesse only double dummy simulations. I would be grateful to know if there is any program for single-dummy sims.

[whereagles]

Right siding is a tertiary aspect of bidding. You should only worry about that if there are serious hints you'll go down if you don't do it.

There are way more important things to start off the bidding to be bothered about it. Showing shape/strength has a much higher priority.