eyhung

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=saqj7hkt5d43cqt63&s=sk9haj93dakjca852]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You are playing in the GNTs with a slim 13 IMP lead going into the final quarter against the favorites, Lew and JoAnna Stansby's team. You reach 6NT from the South and the lead is a low spade. The Stansbies are at the other table and they know the situation. What line would you take? Some hidden text:

I am very aggressive about bypassing Stayman at matchpoints, especially when 4333. Consider that Stayman can contribute to losing matchpoints when: 1) They are able to double for a club lead 2) They are able to use a negative inference from the failure to double for a club lead 3) They know more about opener's distribution (he denies a 4 card major, he shows a 4 card major) and are able to use this knowledge to gain a trick by making a better lead/shift 4) Even when you find a 4-4 fit, sometimes your partner cannot take extra tricks in the major vs. notrump, because You have no ruffing value The opponents do not have a suit to run The opponents blow an extra trick leading aggressively vs. notrump (while they are less likely to do so vs. a suit contract declared by strong notrumper) The opponents are able to engineer a ruff or trump promotion The trump suit breaks poorly While there are certainly hands where using Stayman on 4333 is right, I think it's similar to the decision on whether or not to transfer opposite a strong notrump holding a 5-card major with no chance for game. In these situations, I practically always transfer and never use Stayman. It feels solidly +EV, and frees my brain cells to worry about other areas.

Agree, pass is by far the percentage action; anyone who chooses double is catering too much to low-probability outcomes. Double can be right, but Pass rates to be so much better. Also, few people in the modern game play penalty doubles at the 3-level, so the negative double issue doesn't seem relevant to me.

According to ACBL website, there are exactly 461 people with 10000+ MP. I suspect most of these already qualify under the 50/3 rule. I'd save your outrage for the 200 lifetime provision.

Pooltuna, you do not understand me correctly. Please reread what I wrote in my first post to this thread for my position. I simulated to quantify how much AKJT-eighth is worse than AKQ-seventh from a pure suit standpoint. Whether that lower percentage is enough to not open 3NT is up to you. For me, the lower percentage, PLUS the other factors (such as misdescribing club length for other contracts) cause me to now prefer 4♣. I'm not saying 3NT is a horrible call with no upside. I'm saying I prefer to bid 4♣. And ArtK, my point about the 8th club trick was directed to billw. He was saying that the 8th club influences things. My answer to that is, not very much. In general responder is not playing you for 8 club tricks but 7, so the 8th club trick is unlikely to be relevant (as the 9th trick).

All right, that one is good -- now I can see partner passing with this hand, since the QJs should have enough annoyance value to give us a chance to get in and try a spade finesse for a roughly 50% game (sometimes clubs don't break). So the 8th club doesn't "never" help, but it's "unlikely" to help. OK?

You are down 1 in 3NT on any lead, not just a spade. Even if the opponents lead a red suit, they will find the spade switch since they can see that you have 7 clubs, the spade ace (but not the king), and no red-suit side winners. 4♣ does not make either, and will often go down more than 3NT, but I don't find this be particularly especially meaningful because if they unwisely choose to defend in a scenario when clubs goes down more, they are sometimes missing a game in 4♠. Yes, there are layouts where nothing makes. But this hand doesn't detract from my point that opening 3NT with 8 clubs and expecting the 8th card to matter for making the contract is not a good idea.

Meanwhile, when partner has the expected AKQ-seventh and out: [hv=n=sat9xhqjxxdqjxcxx&s=sxhxxxdxcakjtxxxx]133|200|[/hv] you look very silly passing 3NT.

You clearly have a different style -- when I open a 4-level preempt vulnerable, I am usually within 2 tricks of my bid, not 3. Preempting style is getting lighter and lighter, but I think my style is more standard than yours -- the 4-level is serious since it forecloses 3NT. My results show that the chance of 3NT making is at least 9% worse with AKJT-eighth and out than AKQ-seventh. So the question is how much of a gambler you are. Apparently, Justin and I have little gamble in us.

If partner has one side trick, say just one ace and nothing else, he is not passing 3NT, since the gambling 3NT promises no controls on the side. If you think partner will be passing 3NT with exactly one side trick and hope to run 8 tricks from your expected 7-card suit and nothing on the side, think again. The 8th club winner will never help us make the 9th trick in 3NT.

Got home and ran a sim for 100000 deals each. Giving opener AKQxxxx (1327 shape) Average club length of responder = 2.00035 void = 7051 stiff = 26174 xx = 23771 Jx or at least 3 = 43004 running for no losers : 68% opposite any stiff + 90% opposite xx + 100% auto-run = 82395 --------------------------------------- Giving opener AKJTxxxx (1318 shape) Average club length of responder = 1.66837 void = 11311 x = 26996 xx = 21234 CQ or 3+ clubs = 40459 running for no losers = 52.5% * (26996) + 89% [assuming can reach responder to take marked finesse on 0-3 break] * (21234) + 100% * 40459 = 73530 --------------------------------- Conclusion : AKQxxxx plays for no losers 82.4% AKJTxxxx plays for no losers 73.5% So the difference is around 9% in favor of the 7-card suit, not 5 or 15. Note that the comparison is strictly between AKQ-seventh and AKJT-eighth, with no chance of opener holding the jack or ten of clubs in the 7-card case. If opener could have the jack or ten of clubs, then it's even more likely that the 7-card suit will run.

1) My point is that partner holding a club void is never a winning scenario for the 3NT call and is sometimes a losing scenario. Say partner bids 4C pass or correct, which he will always do with a club void. Do you now bid 5C guessing that your eighth club will be enough, or do you pass and miss a good game when partner has a singleton club and your extra trump is the 11th trick? 2) Yeah, stiff Q helps. So 80% of the time partner is singleton, he will have a 52.5% chance of bringing in the suit, and 20% of the time, the suit runs. So 62.5% when partner has a stiff. I guess I should sim how much more frequently partner is stiff opposite an 8-bagger than a 7-bagger... 3) There are other more complicated defenses to 3NT that can handle those three-suiters. For example, 4m showing some length in that minor and at least one major (asks partner to bid better major but partner can raise the minor if short in major). But yes, most opponents don't have a fancy defense here so there's little difference between 3NT and 4C on this point.

If I were dealt this hand at the table, I know I would have opened 3NT, but in the cold light of analysis away from it, I have become convinced that 4♣ is right. Consider that : 1) Partner is much more likely to be void in clubs when you hold eight clubs than seven. 2) When partner is stiff (again, more likely with eight clubs than seven) the suit only runs 52.5% of the time as opposed to 68%. 3) The opponents have more room to show majors (they can use 4♣ as strong hearts and 4♦ as strong spades), and they are more likely to have a good major-suit contract with your eighth club. 4) Unless you have good methods over 3NT (who does?) it will be hard to identify the 8th club for club contract evaluation. Nice hand.

gnasher, I think your 17 opposite 9-12 IMP odds estimate is misleading when we have no idea what the other table will be doing, or exactly how many tricks we'd be losing in 7♦. -500 is a possibility, for example, so we might lose only 10 imps from a phantom sac. And if you and I held the held the same hand in a match with the same enemy bidding, I'd be winning 15 IMPs from you (you'd be going -1660 while I'd be going -500), yet I didn't see "win 15" as one of your save upside scenarios. What it boils down to is that I feel the slam is making significantly more than 50% of the time, so I feel the odds are on my side.

I usually don't save very often in these situations but assuming good opponents, I would have bid 7♦ over 6♦. RHO is missing the AK of his long suit, and yet he's made a grand slam try in hearts instead of simply raising to 6H on a hope and prayer. He must have first-round control of diamonds plus other slammish cards (at least two of spade ace / heart AKQ, maybe more) to make this try. In fact, as Justin pointed out, since RHO is known to have control + short diamonds and yet didn't double, he probably has extreme club length too. So my high clubs are unlikely to stand up and I'll take insurance. Bidding over 6♦ has the extra advantage that opponents may feel pressured to bid 7♥.

You say half empty, others say half full. if you look at the spots (non-honors) 98765432 9652 is actually the average spot holding for holding Kxxxx.

The issue is that there are non 15-17s that will not move over 2♦ that make game reasonable. Any controls besides the Club King are what's needed, not the KQ of clubs or jacks. x Kx AKxxx Axxxx (the prime perfecto!) void QJxx KQxxx Axxx are examples of hands that offer good play for game. Anyway given the power of the likely 10-card trump fit, the side ace, and the right singleton, I was thinking there don't seem to be as many -1 hands (or if we do, the opponent can make a major partial) as hands where we could reach a good game opposite a pass of 2♦. But I can definitely respect 2♦ -- it's the normal bid. Just wondering whether 3♦ is a good upgrade here.

Matchpoints, decent opponents, neither vul [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sjt72hat6d96543c5]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ ? Is this hand worth 3♦ with a plan to pull to 4♦ if partner bids 3NT? Or is this worth just a gentle 2♦? EDIT: We don't bid this way with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs.

I wasn't talking about considering a complete set of rebids or a competitive auction. I was talking about common problem rebids in a constructive auction, like anticipating what to do when opening a 1345 11-count, or a 1156 10-count, or even a 2344 19-count (now the question is which minor). I've gotten good enough that I can streamline the process into identifying difficult rebids quickly, but it would be wrong for me to say "I don't consider rebids when deciding whether or not to open and I think it's good practice". If you aren't considering your rebid for partner's simple non-jump response, I think you may have room to improve your opening algorithm. And FWIW I think I can be too fast at times, so anything that can help me even out my tempo is a good thing.

You're kidding, right? I always know what my rebid is over each non-jump response, that way I can bid in tempo and not give UI when I have an unusual rebid. I also find that if a rebid is too difficult and opening is marginal, that influences me to pass rather than open.

Heh, despite writing that review several months ago, I still haven't finished Rubens yet. I've been playing more than reading lately, and I felt the first half gave me enough to chew upon for now. I'll revisit the second half later, as the Martens e-books I ordered seem to be far more practical in treating themes that I expect to see at the table.

Calf. By Krzysztof Martens Level = Expert - World Class The theme of this book is about not defending too quickly, but carefully considering the clues about the unseen hands to find the right play. All of these hands were misdefended by the author at the table "like a calf" -- can you do better? I do not recommend this book for intermediate (ACBL Flt C) or advanced (ACBL Flt B ) players, because much of the material in here verges on the spectacular. Like a mystery novel, the right answer is never the "obvious" answer. You will frequently make moves contrary to human nature, such as tossing winners away under declarer's winners, discarding unnaturally to give declarer a false impression of the hand, or shifting to unusual suits/cards in anticipation of future squeezes/endplays. I think an advanced player would be better off with a more traditional defense book so that they could identify more common patterns of defense -- but if your aim is to become a world-class player, you must read this book. Many of these problems seem easy to miss at the table, unless you are playing at the top of your game. Reading the book will broaden your thinking and emphasize the important lesson not to defend "on autopilot". The presentation and layout are poor: all the hands have East as dummy and West as declarer, which is a bit jarring, and it's often too easy to skim the failed defense and jump straight to the answer. But the quality of material is high -- I was exposed to some concepts I had not seen before -- and that makes the book worth reading. I consider it the modern successor to Kelsey's KILLING DEFENSE. This book is part of a series of books written by K. Martens. After this one, I plan to get the others in the series. The books are quite expensive ($20-28 each) but apparently you can order them as e-books online for cheaper.

South also has the ace of spades, which is a valuable card opposite North's 4♠ cue. I think it's ok to cue a second-round diamond control at the 5-level when you have an unshowable and working first-round control (usually the trump ace). Also, I believe South should cue a club control over a diamond control because if North only needed a diamond control for slam, North could have asked for it by raising 4♥ to 5♥. So count me in the camp that says 5♦ implies no club control.

I have. I agree with what's been said about it so far, but one caveat: it apparently does not run on Windows 7 -- it uses an older engine.

You are comparing 2 numbers that are almost unrelated. Of cause about 25% off all openings are ♦. Twcho and I have been looking at deals that have the ♦ and ♠ length shown by the auction that are restricted by responders known shape. Of these deals 60% have only 4♦ the remaining 40% have more than 4♦. I think it has been quite clear that I am NOT saying that 25% of all possible bridge hands contain exactly 4 diamonds. I do not see why anyone would perceive that unless they had an emotional attachment to erroneous results. Instead, I am saying that ~25% of hands that 1) qualify for a 1♦ opening bid under 2/1 and 2) would rebid 1♠ over a 1♥ response contain exactly 4 diamonds. If you would open 1♦ with 4342 and 16 HCP, or you would rebid 1♠ with 4342 and 19 HCP, then you will obviously get different results.