Why didnt we bid the slam?

[Cascade]

It seems very sloppy to ask for aces with a weak suit when there are good alternatives. Although not knowing the methods since the OP just included this wonder bid of 3♣ without explanation I do not know what methods were in play.

 

It seems to me that if you do not have a forcing way of showing a six-card major in order to initiate cue-bids nor some specialized sequence then a jump new suit should be a cue-bid and not a splinter.

 

Justin I am going to report your posts everytime you get personal and insulting. Hopefully eventually either you will stop this antisocial behaviour or the administrators will ban you.

[gnasher]

To have an uninformative auction to slam without checking for diamond control isn't sloppy: it's a valid attempt to gain IMPs by making slam even when we're off two tricks. If they don't cash the diamonds the slam will probably be cold.

 

The downside is that we have to give LHO a chance to double either 4♣ (Gerber) or 4♥ (transfer). When he doesn't, it becomes more likely that RHO will lead a diamond. Also, people do lead aggressively against slams, so they may well lead a diamond from the ace or king. They may even underlead ♦A, expecting me to have the king.

 

I'd show spades and initiate cue-bidding. If I can't do that at a sensible level, then (1) I dislike the methods. (2) I suppose I'd just Gerber my way to 6NT. 6NT is more likely to attract a passive lead than 6S. (3) If you forced me to invent a suit, I'd bid diamonds as a lead-inhibitor.

 

Edit: the cue-bidding approach also makes it easier to get to seven when it's right. Even Meckwell would struggle to get there via RKC if opener has AJx xx AKxx Axxx. If 1NT-2♥;2♠-3♠ initiates cue-bidding, on a good day we might manage:

1NT-2♥

2♠-3♠

4♣-4♥

5♦-5♥

6♥-7♠

Edited August 30, 2009 by gnasher

[Cascade]

That depends what you mean by valid.

 

Lets assume we get to slam and are missing the ♦ AK (the cases were we get to slam by this gamble and have diamond controls are largely irrelevant since we most likely would get there any way). If we are not getting to slam after keycard then we are finding one key-card missing and bailing - I dislike that approach even more.

 

Nearly 1/4 of the time the person on lead will have the ♦ AK so barring a major accident we are down immediately.

 

Some of the rest of the time there will not be 12 tricks e.g. ♠ AJxx ♥ QJx ♦ QJx ♣ Axx - whatever happens. Probably a reasonably small chance.

 

I would estimate around 1/3 of the rest of the time perhaps more you will get a diamond lead. I would not expect a trump lead on an uninformative auction. Responder thinks there will be 12 tricks and so we better get ours fast.

 

Therefore I would expect this sort of gamble to fail well over half of the time.

 

That might be a valid gamble in some circumstances - state of the match etc - but in general I don't think it is a good and therefore valid gamble.

 

Certainly when I have managed to get to a bad slam which we could have avoided by checking for appropriate controls it almost always doesn't often seem after the fact like partner or I made a valid attempt to win IMPs.

[Wackojack]

the cue-bidding approach also makes it easier to get to seven when it's right.  Even Meckwell would struggle to get there via RKC if opener has AJx xx AKxx Axxx.  If 1NT-2♥;2♠-3♠ initiates cue-bidding, on a good day we might manage:

1NT-2♥

2♠-3♠

4♣-4♥

5♦-5♥

6♥-7♠

Yes, if you play 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♠ as game forcing slam interest, this is possible. This is my agreement most of my f2f partners. (1NT-3♠ invitational) Unfortunately we were playing the "fashionable" 1NT-3♠ = 1445 or 1454, so 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♠ is no longer an option as it is invite only. Incidentally I assumed my partner's bid of 3♣ was a 4 card suit and did not recognise it as a creative way of setting the trump suit so that cue bids could be made below the 4♠ level. Yes perhaps I should have cued 5♦ over 4♠.

 

About 2 months ago in a post I questioned the value of the 1NT- 3M bid to show a singleton with 4 in the other major, calculating that this may never come up in my bridge playing life. Nevertheless I have adopted this method with one on-line partner as it is "BBO Advanced" and immediately its shortcomings are exposed compared with the simpler methods I use with my f2f partners.

[gnasher]

Therefore I would expect this sort of gamble to fail well over half of the time.

 

That might be a valid gamble in some circumstances - state of the match etc - but in general I don't think it is a good and therefore valid gamble.

So, as I understand it, you think that to intentionally follow a route that might lead to slam missing ♦AK is a poor gamble, and therefore ill-judged. Why does that make it "sloppy" to follow this strategy?

[athene]

I think Cascade missed the point about JLall's decision simply to keycard for spades.

 

Yes, if you are off the ♦AK, you are probably losing imps by bidding slam [i.e. it will make less than 50% of the time].

 

But that's not the point.

 

Your main equity from the 'crude' approach comes from keeping the auction simple and getting to slam when all the 'disciplined' / 'scientific' / whatever bidders are fiddling around with strange distortions like 3♣ and not getting anywhere and the slam is cold.

 

You are accepting that you might end up in slam off ♦AK diamonds. That will sometimes - even often - cost you. But you get a good proportion of that back when you actually make the slam anyway.

 

That's all that "making 6♠ off ♦AK" does - it just helps out your percentage.

[Jlall]

Justin I am going to report your posts everytime you get personal and insulting.  Hopefully eventually either you will stop this antisocial behaviour or the administrators will ban you.

Oh no! Is that a threat?!?!?!

 

Lol @ you calling me anti social over and over. That is the funniest thing you ever say, and you say a lot of ridiculous things ;)

 

Where did I get personal and insulting? I call em like I see em, most regular forum posters here also think you troll routinely, and that most of your posts are simply contrarian/trolling for the sake of it. It is not like I just create these beliefs out of nowhere. It is obvious from your posting history.

 

I am sure the moderators will love you clicking the report button every time you are called a troll though. I am sure they are really likely to do anything about that! Will you report me if I say you are not an expert bridge player, and your posts are generally terrible in quality also? Sorry, I am free to say that! Mommy and Daddy can't protect you from that!

 

Troll away

[Winstonm]

I had a bed like this once. You know, a

Troll away

bed. ;)

[pooltuna]

Justin I am going to report your posts everytime you get personal and insulting.  Hopefully eventually either you will stop this antisocial behaviour or the administrators will ban you.

Oh no! Is that a threat?!?!?!

 

Lol @ you calling me anti social over and over. That is the funniest thing you ever say, and you say a lot of ridiculous things ;)

 

Where did I get personal and insulting? I call em like I see em, most regular forum posters here also think you troll routinely, and that most of your posts are simply contrarian/trolling for the sake of it. It is not like I just create these beliefs out of nowhere. It is obvious from your posting history.

 

I am sure the moderators will love you clicking the report button every time you are called a troll though. I am sure they are really likely to do anything about that! Will you report me if I say you are not an expert bridge player, and your posts are generally terrible in quality also? Sorry, I am free to say that! Mommy and Daddy can't protect you from that!

 

Troll away

Hmmm a little thin-skinned. Do you think he would last a week at http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/topics?

[Winstonm]

Cascade wrote,

 

It seems very sloppy to ask for aces with a weak suit when there are good alternatives.

 

What good alternatives are you talking about? The post stipulates you are playing Texas and Jacoby transfers - direct 3-level showed 3154. The point of the post is that you DON'T have good alternatives with this system in play.

[aguahombre]

I was going to say something stupid about using Gerber, then asking for kings.

 

So, I deserve to rat myself out for even thinking about that, since pard would leap to 7NT with AX QXX KQJTXX AX. Silly partner would think we have all the aces when I ask for Kings. While confessing, I admit agreeing with Cascade for a minute about slam missing the Diamond controls, until I realized JLAL wasn't trying for perfect science, just a likely good result.

[ONEferBRID]

[hv=d=w&v=e&w=sa7hqj96dk62caq97&e=skq10985hak5d98ck4]266|100|Scoring: IMP

1nt-2♥

2♠- 5♠

?? [/hv]

 

I find the Meckwell treatment interesting.

 

Since Texas and then a 5-level new suit is Exclusion,

I find it quite novel to make a "simple transfer" and then

5C/5D/5H/5S = RKC "replies" as if 4NT were asked by Opener.

 

We have noted that "normal" blasting might get you to slam off the♦ A K.

 

However, the Meckwell "reply" of 5S ( 2 + sQ ) still leaves Opener in a dilema.

He does have the Diam K, but if he makes the decision to go to 6S, they

could very well be off the ♥ A K if Responder held the following 15 pointer:

 

♠ K Q T 9 8 5

♥ 8 5

♦ A Q J

♣ K 4

[Winstonm]

I was going to say something stupid about using Gerber, then asking for kings.

 

So, I deserve to rat myself out for even thinking about that, since pard would leap to 7NT with AX QXX KQJTXX AX. Silly partner would think we have all the aces when I ask for Kings. While confessing, I admit agreeing with Cascade for a minute about slam missing the Diamond controls, until I realized JLAL wasn't trying for perfect science, just a likely good result.

I nominate this as "post of the year". It is really refreshing to see honest comment like this.

[Cascade]

So, as I understand it, you think that to intentionally follow a route that might lead to slam missing ♦AK is a poor gamble, and therefore ill-judged.  Why does that make it "sloppy" to follow this strategy?

It is sloppy when there are good alternatives.

 

In other words if it is avoidable to not check for a control in this suit or to get information to that affect.

[gnasher]

So, as I understand it, you think that to intentionally follow a route that might lead to slam missing ♦AK is a poor gamble, and therefore ill-judged.  Why does that make it "sloppy" to follow this strategy?

It is sloppy when there are good alternatives.

 

In other words if it is avoidable to not check for a control in this suit or to get information to that affect.

Why would anyone do that if they wanted to be in slam missing ♦AK, because they judged that doing so would on average gain IMPs?

 

And why on earth do you think it "sloppy" to make such a judgement? I can understand that you might think it poor judgement, but I don't see any reason to suggest that it's careless.

[cherdanno]

I think the cuebidders are neglecting the fact that even when we are not off ♦AK, cuebidding might gear opponents to a successful diamond lead - imagine partner with ♦AJx and ♣QJx.

Anyway, in US standard methods, you can't initiate cuebidding with one-suited hands without shortness - and I have to admit I can live with these inferior methods.

 

In any case, if you told me that opponents have ♦AK, I wouldn't want to be in slam (and I bet Justin wouldn't either), but it's close - and that doesn't mean that using an uninformative auction where we occasionally get to a slam off ♦AK is inferior.

(I am sure Cascade could quickly find out what "occasionally" means precisely here - I would think it's way less than 5% of all hands for partner. So if we go down 60% of the time when we are off ♦AK, we are talking about less than a 0.1 IMP loss on average.)

[Cascade]

In 1000 hands the ♦ AK were missing 46 times.

 

The issue isn't the size of the loss but whether or not it is avoidable.

[mike777]

[hv=d=w&v=e&w=sa7hqj96dk62caq97&e=skq10985hak5d98ck4]266|100|Scoring: IMP

1nt-2♥

2♠- 3♣

3NT- 4♠ [/hv]

 

This hand came up on BBO yesterday. We were playing Texas, normal transfers and 3M 3154 as per BBO Adv. I held the opening 1NT hand. We had no agreement on what 3♦ would mean after 3♣ but normally I would like it to mean agreeing spades and a control. Why didnt we bid the slam?

I could see three options"

 

1nt=2h

2s=4s( mild slam try)

 

 

1nt=4h

4s=4nt(rkc)

 

 

 

 

1nt=4h

4s=5c(cue, spades are trumps.)

[ONEferBRID]

Anyway, in US standard methods, you can't initiate cuebidding with one-suited hands without shortness - and I have to admit I can live with these inferior methods.

 

It was Winstonm on his 4th post on page 1 where he suggested a "least lie" sort of bid for this hand.... and that was a Cl Splinter with the K x doubleton.

( He said he would not be alone with this bid ).

 

It is not too far off... afterall, there is a 2nd Rnd Ctrl. :rolleyes: It may solicit a Diam cue which is the only thing you need before RKC:

 

Dealer: West

 

West

♠ A7

♥ QJ96

♦ K62

♣ AQ97

 

East

♠ KQ10985

♥ AK5

♦ 98

♣ K4

 

1nt-2♥!

2♠- 4♣! ( splinter w/6+cds Sp )

4♦- 4NT, etc to 6♠

[neilkaz]

In 1000 hands the ♦ AK were missing 46 times.

 

The issue isn't the size of the loss but whether or not it is avoidable.

Great thread here and certainly two sides of the RKC now or take a slow route arguement.

 

Of interest would be too look at those 46 hands and honestly assess how often after a RKC sequence and a jump to 6♠ how often will the killing ♦ lead be made ? How often would it be made vs a jump to 6N rather than 6♠?

 

On the rest of the 954 hands, how often does slam make if bid and how often is a cold slam missed if you take a slower but more informative route.

 

Texas then 5♣ gets you to this slam, but also helps pinpoint the ♦ lead if pard cannot cue 5♦ or bid slam directly. 5♠ should still have fine play, but it will be tragic if 10 tricks are the limit on said ♦ lead.

[Cascade]

Anyway, in US standard methods, you can't initiate cuebidding with one-suited hands without shortness - and I have to admit I can live with these inferior methods.

I know the opening post was not using SAYC. However SAYC certainly has a standard method of initiating cue-bids - a jump to 3Major.

 

It seems a little weird that there is no standard method for a relatively common hand type given we have slam values.

[Cascade]

In 1000 hands the ♦ AK were missing 46 times.

 

The issue isn't the size of the loss but whether or not it is avoidable.

Great thread here and certainly two sides of the RKC now or take a slow route arguement.

 

Of interest would be too look at those 46 hands and honestly assess how often after a RKC sequence and a jump to 6♠ how often will the killing ♦ lead be made ? How often would it be made vs a jump to 6N rather than 6♠?

 

On the rest of the 954 hands, how often does slam make if bid and how often is a cold slam missed if you take a slower but more informative route.

 

Texas then 5♣ gets you to this slam, but also helps pinpoint the ♦ lead if pard cannot cue 5♦ or bid slam directly. 5♠ should still have fine play, but it will be tragic if 10 tricks are the limit on said ♦ lead.

Including the 46 hands missing the ♦ AK here are the double dummy numbers for tricks available:

 

9 2

10 5

11 150

12 532

13 311

[neilkaz]

[hv=d=w&v=e&w=sa7hqj96dk62caq97&e=skq10985hak5d98ck4]266|100|Scoring: IMP

1nt-2♥

2♠- 3♣

3NT- 4♠ [/hv]

 

This hand came up on BBO yesterday. We were playing Texas, normal transfers and 3M 3154 as per BBO Adv. I held the opening 1NT hand. We had no agreement on what 3♦ would mean after 3♣ but normally I would like it to mean agreeing spades and a control. Why didnt we bid the slam?

Sounds like you weren't sure of your meaning for 3♣. Standard is that bidding 3♣ here shows a 2nd suit and at least a slam invite. After that, opener has to love his hand with the AJ in PD's major and the Aqxx in PD's minor.

 

However, if 3♣ actually showed a ♣ control and S/I with long ♠ opener's hand becomes stunning !

 

OTB I think opener wasn't quite sure what 3♣ meant so he was afraid to raise past 3NT with only two ♠ and afraid to cue 3♦ with only 2♠ ?!?

 

However, after responder pulls to 4♠ opener has to be certain that responder has 6♠ and something in ♣ and can simply move forward towards slam.

 

Big blame to opener here, but I'll only give him 50% since he was confused by pard's less than standard bidding.

 

As other's have pointed out it isn't unreasonable for responder to jump straight into RKC and hope to avoid a ♦ lead in the rare times they get to slam and are off AK. It also isn't unreasonable to Texas and then cue 5♣ or to Jacoby and then bid 4♠ as a mild slam try (standard playing Texas)

 

50% blame to responder for a funny 3♣ bid and for being rather cowardly also.

[neilkaz]

Wayne "Including the 46 hands missing the ♦ AK here are the double dummy numbers for tricks available:

 

9 2

10 5

11 150

12 532

13 311 "

 

WOW !! This does seem like slam makes alot and that responder was too cautious.

 

Were your sim parameters using responders hand opposite any normal 15-17 NT ?

 

If that is the case, I think responder should just Texas and RKCB although there will be some inference to the opening leader when 4♥ isn't doubled for lead and perhaps a slight inference that an ace maybe missing when responder stops in 6

[Cascade]

Yes the east hand from the opening post opposite any 4333, 4432 or 5332. I did not include other shapes.

 

The numbers are double dummy.

 

However good the numbers look. The real question is can we do better.