JLOL Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 There were 38 possible hands. On 5 of them 7N is cold. On 13 of them 7N is 90 % (really more since you will get a count, but these hand patterns are slightly less likely to occur so it probably evens out). On 6 of them you need 32 spades or picking up diamonds. If you very conservatively only pick up diamonds 60 % of the time then this is and 87 % grand. On 9 of them we have squeeze chances with varying degrees of success, but we will conservatively estimate these hands to make 70 % of the time On 5 of the you need to pick up diamonds which we are estimating conservatively at 60 % So we are making 7N about 82.1 % of the time, that is ignoring the chance of ever getting a hopeful "safe" diamond lead, and estimating pretty conservatively. Really if you are a good declarer I'm sure you'll make more often than that. Failing to bid an 82 % grand when you have 35 HCP and a double fit (meaning the opps might just power into it at the other table, and will never ever miss 6) would be completely criminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 It seems to me like you are overvaluing how much a count on the hand will help, since so often we can't get a full count on hearts or clubs or both. I really think the chances they lead diamonds against diamonds but not against notrump supercede the improvement in the odds a count on the hand will give us. On that basis I think you have shown there are enough hands that require picking up diamonds to make it worth playing in diamonds. Or at least making it reasonable enough to play in diamonds that "mind bogglingly bad" seems like quite an overbid. It definitely applies to bidding a small slam though. You definitely convinced me I was stupid to not bid 7NT at mps. Frances did state the problem is at imps (I think she edited it after you started posting.) LOL If you expect them to lead a diamond 100 % of the time they have xx, and never with a stiff then you pick up diamonds about 79 % of the time. So you make 82.7 % of the time. That is if they ALWAYS lead from xx, you can't get much better than that! I think they are not leading diamonds close to that often but w/e. Even if you assume best case conditions you are about equal to 7N, and even then probably worse (I don't know about you but I would like my chances to guess the endgame against people who are that bad! if I was a good declarer). Also, as far as me "overstimating" how often a count helps us, I gave us a whopping 5 % extra (and gave 0 % extra when we have a 55 fit, just enough to offset the fact that those combinations are a little less likely). In reality it is often much more than that (and sometimes doesn't help that much as you said). Also of course the odds that they lead a diamond will supercede the count we get. It is not going to supercede the amount of times we are cold without guessing diamonds, or cold when spades split without guessing diaonds, or cold on a squeeze without guessing diaonds, for 7N! That is the main point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I'm not going to weigh in on the actual hand. However, I'd like to provide some annectdotal information. Three weeks back TimG and I were playing in a KO teams event in a pretty weak field. We got mauled in the first half of the finals when the opponents bid a pair of grands against my table that Tim and his partner didn't find. (I also went down in 6N when 7♦ would have made, but let's not go there) There seems to be a general assumption that weak players don't bid grands (and that good players can be conservative in bidding grands in a weak field). I don't believe that this is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I would have assumed, maybe in error, that we could and would have found out if partner held 4 hearts and that knowing that he had 4 or 5 diamonds told us that he lacked 4♥, but on reflection maybe that was a poor assumption... but for the purposes of analysis I will, as did justin, ignore the prospects of 4 heart tricks. Anyway, it did occur to me that 7N might come home without the diamond suit.. admittedly I only counted the tricks after my original post which was made pre-coffee. xxx Jxx Kxxx AKxx still needs a crucial Jack to be an opening bid on the conditions of contest...put that J in either black suit and we either don't need the diamonds (ignoring 5-0 spades and no J10x for partner) or we have, at the least, substantial extra chances. xxx Qxx Kxxx AKxx is more like it, in terms of a minimum and now 7N makes if either pointed suit behaves... so change my vote to 7N. My apologies if my original post caused others to make the same mistake I did :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 If you expect them to lead a diamond 100 % of the time they have xx, and never with a stiff then you pick up diamonds about 79 % of the time. I expect them to lead a stiff diamond against 7♦ a lot more than never! Obviously if I only expected them to lead a diamond from xx or xxx then I would be mentally deficient to bid 7♦ since if I have to guess diamonds in 7NT I'm going to play for 2-2 anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 OK, if you expect them to lead a stiff trump you can bid 7D, not sure I would expect that vs anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiddity Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Against truly weak opposition, 7♦ has another chance: if trumps break badly someone might double. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 ahem... how about bidding only 6? If opps are that weak, the other table might not even bid a small slam... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 ahem... how about bidding only 6? If opps are that weak, the other table might not even bid a small slam... I think there are more chances that they play partscore than that they stay away from slam. Come on, partner opened and you have double fit and 23 HCP!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilgan Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 ahem... how about bidding only 6? If opps are that weak, the other table might not even bid a small slam... I think there are more chances that they play partscore than that they stay away from slam. Come on, partner opened and you have double fit and 23 HCP!!!! Aye. The only way this doesn't end in slam is if opener passes a forcing bid. I had a similar situation where my partner and I were killing ourselves for stopping in 6NT when we should have pushed to 7♦... just to find out that the opener at the other table passed his partner's forcing 2♦ response. As for the actual choice, I'd have to go with 7NT. It seems like we'll always make 7NT if we get the diamonds right, and there are chances to make 7 without diamonds if we play in NT. If I do play in diamonds though and a diamond isn't led, I'll be very tempted to finesse the opening leader for the Q. I don't really get playing this in a small grand though. Long suits, sources of tricks, all kinds of power. If the opps know they are slightly outmatched, they will probably be even more likely to take the push to grand in an attempt to make up for losses elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatchett Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Agree with LOL (whoever he/she is LOL). 7NT is obvious and as to those who think weak oppo might not bid slam...please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Give me full marks for feeble thinking here thank you very much. I did not consider 7N because I thought we needed the diamonds and I thought our chances of taking 7 tricks there without the queen were close to break even for IMPS. Will try constructing some actual hands next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted January 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 At least I've generated some debate. And it's always fun to see other people's disasters rather than the clever plays that worked. On the question about the DQ: you made a bid which asked about the KQ of diamonds, and partner responded showing the king but not the queen. So it's quite possible you have the queen yourself. As for 'they might not bid slam', you do have a 23-count opposite an opening bid, the opponents aren't so weak that they won't think of getting to at least the 6-level. I think the right bid is 7NT and let partner get on with making 13 tricks. While I agree you are more likely to pick diamonds up playing in 7D, there's also quite a good chance you have 13 tricks without the diamonds at all. And they don't always lead trumps. Sometimes they like to lead "through" dummy's suit instead. My partner (who had this hand) was worried that I might have had something like as xxx Qxx Kxxxx AK when 7D is clearly best. So, he bid 7D on the basis that it might be the right spot and anyway I'd be able to pick up trumps. Our hands were AKQxxAKAJ10xxQ JxxQxxK9xxAKx so the 7NT bidders are right all along. It now gets worse. In 7D, I got a club lead. As a consequence, I planned to play the opening leader for the queen of diamonds, so I won with the queen in dummy, crossed to the king of diamonds, and... West showed out. Of course, if I was going to play the hand on the basis that West would always lead a diamond without the queen then I should have won the club lead in hand and played a low diamond towards the Ace, and all would have been well. At the other table they bid 1NT (weak) - 2H (xfer) - 2S - 3D - 3S - Blackwood - 7S. Played by the short hand, with the diamond void on lead. It's a while since I've lost 20 imps on one board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Score for JLOL. I'll admit it, he convinced me. 7♦ without the club queen or heart king, but 7NT on the given hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichMor Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Score for JLOL. I'll admit it, he convinced me. 7♦ without the club queen or heart king, but 7NT on the given hand.Actually, score me. See page 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Score for JLOL. I'll admit it, he convinced me. 7♦ without the club queen or heart king, but 7NT on the given hand.Actually, score me. See page 1. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sathyab Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 I have sympathy for the side bid 7♦ only to find that the other side blasted into a better and more importantly, an easily makeable slam. But I don't agree with the "moral" of the story about avoiding bad teams. You would have landed in 7♦ regardless of who the opponents were. If you were playing a superior team, there's no guarantee that they'd bid the same way, as has been pointed out more than one poster here. I find it a lot more aggravating when good players or good teams get lucky than weaker ones. If this happened to my team I'd be glad it didn't happen when playing a crucial match against a better team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.