Third of Several

[hrothgar]

You hold

 

IMPS

Red

 

♠ AKQ

♥ 932

♦ Q54

♣ KQ96

 

Partner opens a 15 - 17 HCP 1NT.

 

Whats your bidding plan?

[whereagles]

3NT. Flattish shape slams require 34 hcp. Unless pard has a good 16-17 with 5 card suit, 11 tricks should be tops.

[brianshark]

4NT.

[Gerben42]

Close between bidding 3NT and 4NT. Just 3NT for me because of the bad shape and honor placement.

[TimG]

I wouldn't complain about 3NT or 4NT. I think this would be a good hand for a double dummy simulation. And, with a little playing, we might learn something about how valuable the KQ are in the four-card suit as opposed to a three-card suit, and how valuable 4432 is instead of 4333.

[jillybean]

I have to make a move with this - 4nt

[Codo]

4 NT but just because obviously this is close

[Rebound]

I have to make a move with this - 4nt

Ditto.

[sfbp]

3NT. Flattish shape slams require 34 hcp. Unless pard has a good 16-17 with 5 card suit, 11 tricks should be tops.

Not so. I measured this a long time ago.

Here is the quotation:

RESULTS

1. Conventional wisdom has it that 33 points are needed to bid slam. This data says that is only true only when you have 4333 in both hands. With two extra four-card suits you only need 32. And on IMPS you should always bid on 32 anyway with only 1 4432 hand (of the partnership).

 

2. Past 34 points, the values start to diminish, because now some hands are making 7NT.

I don't know where you get 34 from. Goren used to think that 33 points were needed because you could not then be off 2 aces, and that seems conservative.

 

The data appear to say that you are right, if and only if partner turns out to have 4333 15-count. I'm not talking "make the contract" but about "the action that gets the best matchpoint score in the long run". Any idea what percentage of openers are 4333 15-count?

[Apollo81]

I would bid 3N opposite a partner I trust to upgrade really good 17-HCP hands. Agree that this is a good hand for a simulation.

[whereagles]

I don't know where you get 34 from.

"Thinking about IMPS", John Boederer.

 

His simulations indicate that 4333 opposite 4333 need 34, while 4333 opp 4432 need 33 and 4432 opp 4432 can get along with 32.

[pclayton]

4N. 3N is just too unilateral for me. Why can't pard have a 5 bagger? Why can't we have a 4-4 club fit (and pard have a 4432 so that we get a 12th trick by ruffing something).

[gnasher]

Before deciding what to do, I'd like to be able to find out about my partner's shape. A club fit might provide both a long-suit trick and a ruff, a four-card spade suit would make my ♠AKQ look a bit healthier, and a five-card diamond suit would make DQ look useful.

 

Put me down for a low-level shape enquiry if available; otherwise for a Baron-style balanced slam try. If my only option is to bid some number of notrumps, I bid 3.

[sfbp]

I don't know where you get 34 from.

"Thinking about IMPS", John Boederer.

 

His simulations indicate that 4333 opposite 4333 need 34, while 4333 opp 4432 need 33 and 4432 opp 4432 can get along with 32.

He's got the right idea but the data appear to say different. Simply one point less than the numbers he gives, in each case.

[awm]

You're using different data.

 

When the declaring side has the vast majority of the strength (near slam values) declarer's advantage over double-dummy play and defense should be magnified. Especially on a "blind" auction like 1NT-4NT-6NT, opponents will often make a poor lead. They may also discard wrong on the run of a long suit (especially this is true of weak opponents or opponents without good signaling agreements). Declarer in the meantime can see almost all the high cards, and usually has fewer good lines to choose from than in a partscore (or a suit slam for that matter).

 

So it wouldn't surprise me if the requirements for slam on real hands (especially real hands often played against pickup opposition) were lighter than the requirements for slam assuming double dummy play and defense. A one point difference seems quite reasonable. :D

 

Anyways, I would bid 4NT on this one. One factor that hasn't been mentioned is the jack-less nature of this hand. I expect partner to generally bid slam with 5332 and 16 points, or with any 17 points, and this should be okay (except maybe if partner is 4333 also). It might be nice to have some kind of relay available (easy to imagine a 4-4 minor fit is the making slam if partner 4432) and it also might be nice to have a "good quantitative invite" and a "bad quantitative invite" (i.e. the first partner accepts if not a real dog, the second he accepts only with a nice max).

[gwnn]

If your pd accepted the slam invitation and went down, he didn't have his accept.

[TimG]

When the declaring side has the vast majority of the strength (near slam values) declarer's advantage over double-dummy play and defense should be magnified. Especially on a "blind" auction like 1NT-4NT-6NT, opponents will often make a poor lead. They may also discard wrong on the run of a long suit (especially this is true of weak opponents or opponents without good signaling agreements). Declarer in the meantime can see almost all the high cards, and usually has fewer good lines to choose from than in a partscore (or a suit slam for that matter).

I don't think this is true. I believe that in general, the higher the contract, the closer at-the-table play is to double-dummy play -- that is declarer's advantage decreases as the level of the contract increases. My research was limited to a few contracts, but I found that declarers advantage was greater in 1NT than in 3NT and greater in 3NT than in 6NT. My work was mostly with relatively unrevealing auctions such as 1N-P, 1N-3N, 1N-2N-3N, 1N-6N and 1N-4N-6N.

 

I think this is mostly because it is less likely that a random opening lead will blow a trick.

[Apollo81]

declaring side has the vast majority of the strength (near slam values) declarer's advantage over double-dummy play and defense should be magnified. Especially on a "blind" auction like 1NT-4NT-6NT, opponents will often make a poor lead. They may also discard wrong on the run of a long suit (especially this is true of weak opponents or opponents without good signaling agreements). Declarer in the meantime can see almost all the high cards, and usually has fewer good lines to choose from than in a partscore (or a suit slam for that matter).

 

I also don't think this is true, leading/defense against 6NT is a lot easier than leading/defending against 1NT or 3NT.

 

Agree that having a "conservative invite" and an "aggressive invite" would help on this hand and that this would be a obvious "aggressive invite"

[Wackojack]

Bidding plan with most f2f partners:

Respond 2S (Baron). If partner responds 2NT (min) bid 3NT. If partner responds 3C bid 6C. If partner responds any other 3 level bid it is close and I dont think we can know any more. 6NT or 3NT depending on the state of the match and what you know about the opps.

[Zelandakh]

Am I allowed to bid 2♠ range ask?

 

 

(-: Zel :-)

[rogerclee]

Agree that having a "conservative invite" and an "aggressive invite" would help on this hand and that this would be a obvious "aggressive invite"

What do you play 4♠ as?

[Cascade]

Agree that having a "conservative invite" and an "aggressive invite" would help on this hand and that this would be a obvious "aggressive invite"

What do you play 4♠ as?

That is an interesting thought.

 

We actually already use 4♠ as very distributional both minors and no slam interest.

 

But there are other similar options:

 

1NT 2♣

2♦ 4♦

 

1NT 2♣

2♥ 4♠

 

1NT 2♣

2♠ 4♥

 

are all semi-free in my system.

 

I am sure others have some free sequences. Perhaps a direct 4NT compared with some other option through a range probe etc etc

[Cascade]

I played around with this hand this morning for a bit.

 

Double dummy slam made most of the time that partner had 16 or 17 points.

 

Since we don't have that many controls (only four) for a sixteen count we don't want partner going on some marginal hands. I also forced partner to have six controls and slam was much better.

 

The average number of controls for sixteen count is a bit over five.

 

We play a method where with marginal hands opener will show controls over 4NT which allows us to get out in 5NT if three or more controls are missing for slam. Actually we also play another method that allows us to ask for controls at the three-level and get to only 3NT if we have too many controls missing and even invite slam if we have enough.

 

For us:

 

1NT 2♣

any 3♣ is a control ask in a 'balanced' slam try

...

 

then

 

any 4NT would be yes we have enough controls but I also need you to have a maximum (or possibly a good minimum with a five-card suit).

[the hog]

2S. Range probe. Pd bids her 4 card suits up the line with a max.

[jdonn]

So unlikely I would downgrade 16 but I will here, I just don't think this is worth it. AKQ tight, the shape, no spot cards, my judgment tells me 3NT is enough.