ATB?

[aguahombre]

Despite the other things we wouldn't have known, we would have known that 4NT by north would be a spade cuebid. Of course while I understand the difficulties in, for example, not knowing if north is 3514, I don't see how cuebidding helps with that either.

If whatever available (4N or 4S) was used as a spade cuebid on this hand with your methods, everything would be the same thereafter.

 

But regardless of the spade/club relative lengths, the cue bidding would have gotten you to a grand if North had the club queen. Same bids by South thru 6C, then North would bid the grand.

[jdonn]

If whatever available (4N or 4S) was used as a spade cuebid on this hand with your methods, everything would be the same thereafter.

 

But regardless of the spade/club relative lengths, the cue bidding would have gotten you to a grand if North had the club queen. Same bids by South thru 6C, then North would bid the grand.

But so would have keycard!

[aguahombre]

Yes. But your decision was not to use it from your side, for some damned good reasons. KC from North's side is more questionable.

 

It was merely an observation that cuebidding would have worked, and amusement that with cuebidding, all South's bids would have been the same, but with different meanings.

[cherdanno]

If whatever available (4N or 4S) was used as a spade cuebid on this hand with your methods, everything would be the same thereafter.

 

But regardless of the spade/club relative lengths, the cue bidding would have gotten you to a grand if North had the club queen.  Same bids by South thru 6C, then North would bid the grand.

But so would have keycard by South!

FYP

I don't think North can bid the grand in the actual auction with the ♣Q - why couldn't South have xx AKxxx AQx AKx? However, when South bids 4S-4N-5C-5N (♥Q and no king), South can try again with 6♣ and North can easily bid the grand with the ♣Q.

 

Anyway, hard to see anyone bidding the grand on the actual hand without one partner knowing the exact shape of the other hand.

[jdonn]

I still don't want to be in a grand in a layout such as this.

I really don't know why, I sure do. But I've sort of come to the conclusion we couldn't get there reasonably given the shaky footing of knowing our agreements in enough detail.

[nige1]

can't say anything new to you, IMO kecard is wrong with a weak hand this is the biggest mistake, if you do splinter, you are the guy who describes, not the guy in control, specially missing ♣AK.

Agree. IMO, after you splinter, you are the server. The client (partner) asks questions and you show what you've got. This conceals the hand of the probable declarer. Also, it saves space because the splinter-bidder has already gone a long way towards describing his hand.

 

Arguably, if the splinter-bidder does have a Blackwood bid available, then it should be exclusion, promising a void in the splinter suit. That might even save space.

[Phil]

I still don't want to be in a grand in a layout such as this.

I really don't know why, I sure do.

I still don't.

 

Maybe my opponents bid small slams less effectively than yours do.

[Jlall]

Using some rough math if the opps play slam more than 22% of the time we need to bid 7 in terms of expected imp value, ignoring all other considerations.

 

It's hard to estimate what % of the time we make 7, I used the number 80 % (slightly better than what a 2-1 break is normally given that they didn't bid over 1H or 3S).

 

Even if the opps were complete novices I would expect 1H p 4H p 6H or something similar to be not that uncommon. If north makes a splinter or a limit raise south will drive, even 2H should work, or our counterparts play strong club... the only auction I see that will not get you there is 1H-4H-p. So not bidding 7 knowing the 2 hands seems absurdly conservative unless you are using match considerations like we are a much better team who will almost always win so that bidding 7 and going down is a huge disaster.

[MFA]

Using some rough math if the opps play slam more than 22% of the time we need to bid 7 in terms of expected imp value, ignoring all other considerations.

 

It's hard to estimate what % of the time we make 7, I used the number 80 % (slightly better than what a 2-1 break is normally given that they didn't bid over 1H or 3S).

 

Even if the opps were complete novices I would expect 1H p 4H p 6H or something similar to be not that uncommon. If north makes a splinter or a limit raise south will drive, even 2H should work, or our counterparts play strong club... the only auction I see that will not get you there is 1H-4H-p. So not bidding 7 knowing the 2 hands seems absurdly conservative unless you are using match considerations like we are a much better team who will almost always win so that bidding 7 and going down is a huge disaster.

I suppose you are relying heavily on the diamond finesse to provide the last trick? We can't even try to ruff out the ♠K before trying the diamond finesse.

 

We are not told how predictable and/or bad our opponents are. But doubling a 4♦ splinter here with a naked king in a situation where NS are otherwise out of space below 4♥ - that's horrendous. I'm wary of trusting east to have the ♦K.

[Free]

I don't have any problems with the auction until 6♣. Now you only have 2 calls left: 6♦ and 6♥. 6♥ is obviously a signoff, so what does 6♦ mean for you?

 

Either way, I think ♠K was already denied but South will probably have a ♠ control since he Blackied, won't he? So if any blame, North could do a little more after 6♣. He knows that his ♣ loser can go on a 2nd ♦ trick, so if 6♦ asks something like that, you can blame North (but just a little bit). Even then it's still a matter of ♦K. Why did East Dbl anyway, North shows shortness and he has at most the K. :) I'm not 100% sure East has the ♦K, but we may expect a ♦ lead nevertheless which solves our problem...

[jdonn]

Using some rough math if the opps play slam more than 22% of the time we need to bid 7 in terms of expected imp value, ignoring all other considerations.

 

It's hard to estimate what % of the time we make 7, I used the number 80 % (slightly better than what a 2-1 break is normally given that they didn't bid over 1H or 3S).

 

Even if the opps were complete novices I would expect 1H p 4H p 6H or something similar to be not that uncommon. If north makes a splinter or a limit raise south will drive, even 2H should work, or our counterparts play strong club... the only auction I see that will not get you there is 1H-4H-p. So not bidding 7 knowing the 2 hands seems absurdly conservative unless you are using match considerations like we are a much better team who will almost always win so that bidding 7 and going down is a huge disaster.

I suppose you are relying heavily on the diamond finesse to provide the last trick? We can't even try to ruff out the ♠K before trying the diamond finesse.

 

We are not told how predictable and/or bad our opponents are. But doubling a 4♦ splinter here with a naked king in a situation where NS are otherwise out of space below 4♥ - that's horrendous. I'm wary of trusting east to have the ♦K.

West might also lead a diamond from the king after the double, especially if he has Q or Qx of hearts.

 

The opponents had a lot of masterpoints but in that context were not good.

[Jlall]

Using some rough math if the opps play slam more than 22% of the time we need to bid 7 in terms of expected imp value, ignoring all other considerations.

 

It's hard to estimate what % of the time we make 7, I used the number 80 % (slightly better than what a 2-1 break is normally given that they didn't bid over 1H or 3S).

 

Even if the opps were complete novices I would expect 1H p 4H p 6H or something similar to be not that uncommon. If north makes a splinter or a limit raise south will drive, even 2H should work, or our counterparts play strong club... the only auction I see that will not get you there is 1H-4H-p. So not bidding 7 knowing the 2 hands seems absurdly conservative unless you are using match considerations like we are a much better team who will almost always win so that bidding 7 and going down is a huge disaster.

I suppose you are relying heavily on the diamond finesse to provide the last trick? We can't even try to ruff out the ♠K before trying the diamond finesse.

 

We are not told how predictable and/or bad our opponents are. But doubling a 4♦ splinter here with a naked king in a situation where NS are otherwise out of space below 4♥ - that's horrendous. I'm wary of trusting east to have the ♦K.

I see, I thought that you and Phil were saying you didn't want to be in a grand on a 2-1 split since the opps might be in game.

 

I understand your point that doubling with the DK is a bad idea, but surely if that is your opinion then doubling without the ace or the queen of diamonds is always a bad idea to you?

 

IMO lots of people do things like double 4D with pretty good diamonds and a hand that can stand no other lead. No one that I've ever met makes psychic lead directing Xs when their partner is going to be on lead. It could just be such a disaster to get partner off to the wrong lead. I mean even in the dream case of the opps bidding slam hoping the D hook is on, I would expect my partner to lead the DK 100 % of the time. I guess not if they bid 7 heh.

 

So I think whatever level RHO is I would assume they have the DK. Perhaps naive, and I will definitely change my view if that ever turns out to be false in this kind of situation.

 

It is not convincing enough to me to say it would be bad to X 4D with the DK ever, so we should assume they don't have it, because imo it's also bad to X 4D w/o the DK, and the former is a much much more common form of bad.

[MFA]

Sure, I also expect the ♦K to be onside most of the time. But not 100%, and not close to 100% if east is a strong, tricky player. We won't get that many honest doubles to outweight completely when he just feels like being clever. Btw a reason to doubling could also be to avoid a trump lead with QTx, just a side remark.

 

In my regular partnerhip, a double of any 4-level splinter in a noncompetitive auction would ask for a lead in the suit below. Unless NV vs. V where it would be a suggestion of a sacrifice, in principle unrelated to the lead. Did we check if they play something like that, btw?

 

If I was playing with a strong partner, I would just about never double a splinter for the lead without a very good excuse. I'm sure that many of my regular strong opponents think the same. I can think of many players from over here I wouldn't trust one bit in this sequence.

 

Anyway, my primary point in this hand is that I wouldn't really worry about missing a grand on such a layout, where partner has ♣xxx. I don't really want to be in it when I also have to rely on the diamond hook, at least not enough to worry about it. :(