Route to slam?

[manudude03]

1D-1H-3D-3S-3NT-4D-4S-4NT-5C-6D i guess.... slightly hopeful, may stop in 3NT.

[han]

Could some administrator close this thread please? Almost all of the suggested sequences are offensive.

[Cascade]

Some variation on

 

2NT 4NT

6♦ looks reasonable to me

 

We might bid

 

2NT 3♣

3♦ 4NT

6♦

 

Where 3♣ is our version of puppet Stayman and 4NT would promise both majors and be too strong for 3NT.

What? What's your 2N range? If it is a normal 20-21 then I can't see inviting with 30-31 and no fit.

our range is good 20 - 22

[jdonn]

Some variation on

 

2NT 4NT

6♦ looks reasonable to me

 

We might bid

 

2NT 3♣

3♦ 4NT

6♦

 

Where 3♣ is our version of puppet Stayman and 4NT would promise both majors and be too strong for 3NT.

What? What's your 2N range? If it is a normal 20-21 then I can't see inviting with 30-31 and no fit.

our range is good 20 - 22

Then I think it's fast approaching the point where accepting the invitation (indeed, opening 2NT at all) is really overbidding and double-dummying the problem. Not to mention inviting as well since the combined range is now 30-32. You are taking amazingly aggressive actions on both hands, to say the least.

[Guest Jlall]

Some variation on

 

2NT 4NT

6♦ looks reasonable to me

 

We might bid

 

2NT 3♣

3♦ 4NT

6♦

 

Where 3♣ is our version of puppet Stayman and 4NT would promise both majors and be too strong for 3NT.

What? What's your 2N range? If it is a normal 20-21 then I can't see inviting with 30-31 and no fit.

our range is good 20 - 22

You realize this is the equivalent of opening a 15+-17 NT with 14, partner inviting with a 4432 15 count after discovering there was no fit in either 4 card suit, then accepting with 14? It doesn't seem like a very realistic to me.

 

edit: ok jdonn beat me.

[zasanya]

I think this is one of those slams that precision people will find fairly easily and 2/1 or SAYC players will really struggle with. Not saying omg precision > all else, but this is definitely one hand where that system wins. opening 2♣ might get you there.. but its a tad light in uberness for me to open 2♣ on it personally. I've had 15 hcp hands that were much stronger.

 

Eric

Even the precision boys would find this tough because there is bound to be interference.One example : 1♣-1♠=♠ and ♣. Can N bid 1NT?or would he double? and if he doubles and advancer bids 3♣ then how would N/S procede?

[Cascade]

Some variation on

 

2NT 4NT

6♦ looks reasonable to me

 

We might bid

 

2NT 3♣

3♦ 4NT

6♦

 

Where 3♣ is our version of puppet Stayman and 4NT would promise both majors and be too strong for 3NT.

What? What's your 2N range? If it is a normal 20-21 then I can't see inviting with 30-31 and no fit.

our range is good 20 - 22

You realize this is the equivalent of opening a 15+-17 NT with 14, partner inviting with a 4432 15 count after discovering there was no fit in either 4 card suit, then accepting with 14? It doesn't seem like a very realistic to me.

 

edit: ok jdonn beat me.

Not at all:

 

1. After 2NT 3♣; 3♦ ... we have not yet discovered we have no fit. For us 3♦ could and often will contain a four-card major. There is also the possibility of a 5-3 diamond fit (excluding the possibility of partner having six of a minor). I would often want to be in 6-Major with 31-32 hcp and a good fit. My simulations suggest there is over a 60% chance that we have a fit at the point that responder bids 4NT.

 

2. Both hands have extras above the walrus point count. The strong hand has the fifth and sixth diamonds - these must make up for some high card points especially when offering diamonds as an alternative contract with we accept the invite. The weaker hand has four controls and two tens.

 

I am not actually yet convinced that getting to six is right i appreciate that I was somewhat optimistic when making my initial post. However simulations I have done suggest it is not to silly.

 

Double dummy (which may be a problem and I have not had a chance to check these single dummy):

 

1. If there is a 4-4 major fit over 80% of the time opposite a maximum 2NT we can make slam;

 

2. If there is no major fit then around 65% of the time opposite a maximum 2NT we can make 6NT. I would expect partner to be a little less inclined to bid slam with no 4-4 major fit so in practice this might be a little higher (double dummy). When I forced the simulation to only accept on control rich 21 counts rather than any 21 count 6NT made (double dummy) around 85% of the time.

 

3. From the other side of the table - opposite 11 hcp or a good (4-controls) 10 hcp with 4-4 in the majors and without a long minor 6♦ made over 60% of the time.

 

I really need to do some single dummy analysis to get a feel for the double dummy error but my experience is that in most cases it will only be a small amount out. Suggesting that at worst aggressive action is marginal with these cards.

[Guest Jlall]

You don't play stayman? Surely even if you play puppet stayman you could find out whether you have a 4-4 major suit fit before inviting slam?

[jdonn]

I echo his comment, you can have your sims and I'll take stayman thanks. Seems more useful to find out if there is a major suit fit instead of calculating the odds of there being one when you are making decisions.

 

Your arguments about upgrading the hands are true as general statements but where is the cutoff? What if slam was making on a point less, is inviting with 9 and a bunch of tens ok, or accepting an invite (showing a max!) with 18 and a 6 card suit? I still find your auction implausible, neither player had any idea there could be a 9 card fit or that 100% of the high cards would be needed for slam to be so good (yes, every single one was working overtime). I mean no one has shown a single suit, could your north not be 4414 with 11?

 

I bet there might be a lot of different auctions presented if north had xx KQx in the minors instead of ATx xx.

[effervesce]

I think this is one of those slams that precision people will find fairly easily and 2/1 or SAYC players will really struggle with. Not saying omg precision > all else, but this is definitely one hand where that system wins. opening 2♣ might get you there.. but its a tad light in uberness for me to open 2♣ on it personally. I've had 15 hcp hands that were much stronger.

 

Eric

Even the precision boys would find this tough because there is bound to be interference.One example : 1♣-1♠=♠ and ♣. Can N bid 1NT?or would he double? and if he doubles and advancer bids 3♣ then how would N/S procede?

Okay, I'll bite. A possible auction

 

1♣ - (1♠)* - X** - (3♣)

p# - (p) - X## (p)

3♦ - (p) - 3♥ - p

3♠ - (p) - 4♦ - p

4NT - (p) - 5♥ - p

5NT - (p) 6♦ - all p

 

* spades and clubs

** GF balanced

# forcing

## takeout

 

Just an example, not sure how likely we'd have done this at the table. The forcing pass then bid showed extras.

[Cascade]

You don't play stayman? Surely even if you play puppet stayman you could find out whether you have a 4-4 major suit fit before inviting slam?

I alluded to this in my first post ...

 

"Where 3♣ is our version of puppet Stayman and 4NT would promise both majors and be too strong for 3NT."

 

Our method is

 

2NT 3♣ Puppet Stayman

 

3♦ no five-card major and not 2♠s and 3♥s (or worse) - so 4-card major or 3-3 in majors or 3=2 in the majors

 

...

 

over this

 

... 3♥ asks for four spades (but does not promise them)

 

... 3♠ promises four hearts

 

... 3NT promises both majors

 

... 4NT promises both majors and is better than 3NT

[Vilgan]

I think this is one of those slams that precision people will find fairly easily and 2/1 or SAYC players will really struggle with. Not saying omg precision > all else, but this is definitely one hand where that system wins. opening 2♣ might get you there.. but its a tad light in uberness for me to open 2♣ on it personally. I've had 15 hcp hands that were much stronger.

 

Eric

Even the precision boys would find this tough because there is bound to be interference.One example : 1♣-1♠=♠ and ♣. Can N bid 1NT?or would he double? and if he doubles and advancer bids 3♣ then how would N/S procede?

Pretty easy with the interference suggested. Auction in the system I played would go:

 

1♣(1) 1♠(2) 2♠(3) 3♣

3♦(4) p 4♦(5) p

4♥(6) p 5♣(7) p

6♦ all check

 

1: 16+

2: spades/clubs

3: good 8 hcp or better (max 13), flat hand, spade stopper

4: natural, either nervous about NT or has some slam interest

5: diamond support, slam interest

6: kickback

7: 2 w/o Q

 

I dunno. Interference sucks sometimes, but since their suit is clubs and ours is diamonds it is fairly manageable on this hand. Playing through sequences in my head.. most roads lead to 6♦ unless they bid 5♣ before we get much communication done.

[jtfanclub]

Playing through sequences in my head.. most roads lead to 6♦ unless they bid 5♣ before we get much communication done.

Even then you may find it. I think it's a lot easier to bid slam on this hand if the opponents interfere.

[Vilgan]

Our method is

...

 

 

... 3♥ asks for four spades (but does not promise them)

 

... 3♠ promises four hearts

 

... 3NT promises both majors

 

... 4NT promises both majors and is better than 3NT

So when you are 3 3 1 6 or 3 3 2 5 (or flip the minors) and have 5 points opposite a 2 NT opener you don't check for a 5 card major?

 

Edit: Nm, I see the point of 3♥ ask now. Can use that to stop in 3 NT whether or not opener has 4 spades. Duh :P

[Cascade]

I echo his comment, you can have your sims and I'll take stayman thanks. Seems more useful to find out if there is a major suit fit instead of calculating the odds of there being one when you are making decisions.

 

Your arguments about upgrading the hands are true as general statements but where is the cutoff? What if slam was making on a point less, is inviting with 9 and a bunch of tens ok, or accepting an invite (showing a max!) with 18 and a 6 card suit? I still find your auction implausible, neither player had any idea there could be a 9 card fit or that 100% of the high cards would be needed for slam to be so good (yes, every single one was working overtime). I mean no one has shown a single suit, could your north not be 4414 with 11?

 

I bet there might be a lot of different auctions presented if north had xx KQx in the minors instead of ATx xx.

I really do not understand this view.

 

I assume you play some sort of standard Stayman. You can have it. I concede it is a reasonable approach and might even be better than Puppet Stayman - I don't really know the answer to this and I suspect that you do not either. It certainly will be better for some hands and an alternative method may be better on other specific hands.

 

I don't have my eyes closed on the value of simulations and their limitations. However they have some major advantages over thought experiments about how the hand will play opposite some few example hands chosen by a biased analyst. Not least of which is that a 1000 or more hands chosen at random will on average be better (more representative) than one or a few hands chosen by the biased analyst.

 

In the end I am happy to strive towards bidding slams that are likely to be significantly better than 50% based on a large simulation.

 

In this case the example that you gave xx KQx in the minors is hardly representative. I suppose given our six diamonds and two clubs that 2=3 is more likely than 3=2 . However xx is much less likely than honour-x. Given we have KQ98xx there are four small cards and three honours (10 included which improves our chances in the suit). There are 4C2 = 6 ways of choosing two small cards out of 7C2 = 21 doubletons. It is much more likely that we have an honour (or two). And this analysis does not take into account that partner has shown more than a fair share of the outstanding high cards increasing the liklihood that the diamond holding is honour-small rather than two small. On average partner will have slightly more than two diamonds. In my simulations two small diamonds were held somewhere between 5% and 10%.

 

Its not surprising that when you choose a poor holding in your example for a marginal slam that slam will no longer be good. In making our bidding judgements it would be wrong to assume partner has the worst possible holding. A better example would be a holding like Jx and maybe the reality is that an average holding in this case is more like 1/4 Ax and 3/4 Jx or similar.

 

I am sure you would make the same sort of argument if I justified the bid based on partner holding an unlikely three or four diamonds. A simulation on the other hand takes account of both possibilities in approximately their relative frequencies.

 

Yes 4=4=1=4 is possible in our system. Even 4=4=0=5 might be possible although partner might choose something else with that hand. Somewhere between 25% and 30% of hands had one or no diamonds. Even so slam was still reasonable on average (double dummy). I am sure if our methods were better suited to this particular hand so that 4NT guaranteed a "balanced" hand then slam would be an even better proposition.

 

The cut-off for a bidding decision is where we on average get a better score by making the decision. In my experience it is best not to be prejudiced in where this cut-off is.

[Finch]

I would have bid 1D - 1H - 2NT - (checkback) - 3NT

 

I don't think it is worth a 2NT opening bid. Yes, it's got a 6th diamond but other than that the honour structure is pretty poor and it has only average controls.

 

And if I opened it 2C I would have finished in either 6NT or 7D depending on my choice of rebid, which would be worse than playing 3NT.

[Cascade]

I would have bid 1D - 1H - 2NT - (checkback) - 3NT

 

I don't think it is worth a 2NT opening bid. Yes, it's got a 6th diamond but other than that the honour structure is pretty poor and it has only average controls.

 

And if I opened it 2C I would have finished in either 6NT or 7D depending on my choice of rebid, which would be worse than playing 3NT.

Assuming the 2NT rebid shows 18-19 balanced I think the two extra diamonds mean that you have a much better hand than partner will ever imagine.

[brianshark]

The opening is an interesting problem in isolation. I guess it's a decision between:

1♦-...-3♦,

1♦-...-2NT, and

2NT

 

But I don't think any of those openings will get to slam.

[Finch]

I would have bid 1D - 1H - 2NT - (checkback) - 3NT

 

I don't think it is worth a 2NT opening bid. Yes, it's got a 6th diamond but other than that the honour structure is pretty poor and it has only average controls.

 

And if I opened it 2C I would have finished in either 6NT or 7D depending on my choice of rebid, which would be worse than playing 3NT.

Assuming the 2NT rebid shows 18-19 balanced I think the two extra diamonds mean that you have a much better hand than partner will ever imagine.

I would look at it a different way:

 

Q: If I open 2NT and partner passes, will I have missed game?

A: almost certainly not

Q: If I open 2NT and partner makes slam moves, will I get too high?

A: probably not (or no more so than if I had a more normal 2NT opening)

Q: If I open 1D, will I miss a slam that I would otherwise reach opening 2NT?

A: I don't think so

Q: If I open 1D, will I reach slams that I might miss by opening 2NT?

A: Yes, quite possibly: we'll reach some 10-card diamond fit slams we would miss otherwise

 

That seems to be 3 reasons to open 1D and 1 neutral.

 

p.s. partner knows I am allowed to have 6 diamonds for this sequence, of course he can 'imagine' it. The two extra diamonds are good cards when partner has the ace (or the Jack). If partner has some other form of slam try they may turn out to be useless.

 

Give partner, say

 

Kxxx

Axxxx

x

KQx

 

which is close to a slam drive opposite a 2NT opening, and 4NT is actually a bit high.

 

Alternatively, give partner, say

 

x

Axxxx

Jxxx

Kxx

 

and (i) we have some chance of reaching 6D by opening 1D, and (ii) at least we'll play 5D rather than the worse contract of 3NT.

[Wackojack]

Forgive me:

Route 1

1♦-1♥-3NT-6NT

[joshs]

In my methods it would go: (Opps Silent)

P-1D

1H-2N(ART,6+D, either 19+, or 16-18 with 6D and 3H)

3C(Relay)-3N(6+D, 19-21, semibalanced with stoppers)

4D-4H(rkc)

etc.

 

Or in more standard methods:

P-1D

1H-2S

3S-3N(spades was not a real suit)

4D-etc

 

But in standard I might just open 2N and miss slam....

[goodwintr]

I cannot for the life of me see the attraction of a 2NT opening bid on this hand. It doesn't have a single one of the "must-declare" holdings (Kx, AQ, A10, Qx, that sort of thing); it has a good six-card suit that might well not come to light in the bidding after opening 2NT (I suspect the 2NTers are hoping to wow unsuspecting opponents in the play of 3NT, and maybe nobody will notice that they've missed a good slam in diamonds); and it has one truly terrible holding, a doubleton KQ. Opening 2NT is just a confession that you don't have good methods (starting with a forcing rebid in diamonds) after opening 1D.