Going against the field

[gnasher]

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sa1063h8764da54cj9]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

You've had this sequence:

      1♣ (various)

1♦-2♦ (hearts / a hand that would open 2♣ in a normal system)

2♥-2NT (5+ without a 5-card suit / 23+ balanced)

3♥-4♠ (4 spades / support, but a bad hand in context)

 

With a normal minimum and support, partner would bid 3♠; with a better hand he could cue-bid.

 

You also know:

- The field ranges from BBO "expert" to real-life expert.

- Almost everyone else will have started with the equivalent of 2♣-2♦-2NT, showing 23-24.

- Most of them will then bid a slam.

- Your partner's cardplay is better than that of most of the field.

 

So:

- How good do you think slam will be?

- What do you do?

[nigel_k]

I expect 6♠ to be pretty good. I'll bid keycard and then 6♠ unless we are missing stuff. We could be off two clubs but that's unlikely. 6NT has some appeal but I expect spades will make an extra trick often enough to make 6♠ better.

[jdonn]

I pass. Pedestrian 9 opposite bad 23 doesn't equal slam in a 4-4 fit in my book. Also partner will like hands with a doubleton heart (surely to an honor) after we showed hearts so there is a strong inference he has 3 hearts, which is not good for our hand at all.

[mikeh]

I pass. Pedestrian 9 opposite bad 23 doesn't equal slam in a 4-4 fit in my book. Also partner will like hands with a doubleton heart (surely to an honor) after we showed hearts so there is a strong inference he has 3 hearts, which is not good for our hand at all.

We have 2 Aces...therefore partner has a poor holding for slam purposes...he will not like the fact that he has at most two Aces.

 

We have the spade 10...probably irrelevant, but a plus anyway.

 

Despite Josh's valid points, I think we need to move towards slam here....passing is way too pessimistic when we have these controls. And the club cards could be wonderful.

 

BTW, I am not at all sure that in a good NA field we'd know which way the field was going...I think our methods may have left us at a disadvantage.

 

If we played a more mainstream method, and kokish relay, we'd know if he was 22-23 (stay short) or 24-25 (drive to slam). Instead all we know is that he has a bad in context 23+....and this surely has to include 'bad' 24 counts and all but 'great' 23 counts. Since a 'great' 23 count surely has 3+ Aces, it is no surprise that he is discouraging us.

[OleBerg]

With a normal minimum and support, partner would bid 3♠; with a better hand he could cue-bid.

 

Pass wtp?

 

 

- Your partner's cardplay is better than that of most of the field.

Slams on balanced hands are not the place where superior declarer play are most likely to shine.

[jdonn]

I pass. Pedestrian 9 opposite bad 23 doesn't equal slam in a 4-4 fit in my book. Also partner will like hands with a doubleton heart (surely to an honor) after we showed hearts so there is a strong inference he has 3 hearts, which is not good for our hand at all.

We have 2 Aces...therefore partner has a poor holding for slam purposes...he will not like the fact that he has at most two Aces.

 

We have the spade 10...probably irrelevant, but a plus anyway.

 

Despite Josh's valid points, I think we need to move towards slam here....passing is way too pessimistic when we have these controls. And the club cards could be wonderful.

 

BTW, I am not at all sure that in a good NA field we'd know which way the field was going...I think our methods may have left us at a disadvantage.

 

If we played a more mainstream method, and kokish relay, we'd know if he was 22-23 (stay short) or 24-25 (drive to slam). Instead all we know is that he has a bad in context 23+....and this surely has to include 'bad' 24 counts and all but 'great' 23 counts. Since a 'great' 23 count surely has 3+ Aces, it is no surprise that he is discouraging us.

I read it more like he has a bad 23. "Normal minimums bid 3♠" or something like that? I do admire your optimism though, you pointed out the immense value of everything in our hand that is a 9 or higher :rolleyes: I disagree with you on one point (your main one?), he could easily like his hand for slam purposes. KQJx Ax KJx AKQx or so is much better than the normal minimum he has already denied.

 

In a normal system it seems this would have gone

2♣ 2♦

2NT 3♣

3♠ 4♥

4♠ and we would have passed as partner with his 22-24 rejected our slam invitation with his sub par 23. So for whatever it's worth bidding on here is definitely going against the field.

[paulg]

I'll trust partner and pass expecting him to hold something like KQJx KJ KQJ AQJx.

[gnasher]

I read it more like he has a bad 23.

Yes, that was what I meant. We wouldn't eat a whole level just to show a minimum.

 

In a normal system it seems this would have gone

2♣ 2♦

2NT 3♣

3♠ 4♥

4♠ and we would have passed as partner with his 22-24 rejected our slam invitation with his sub par 23. So for whatever it's worth bidding on here is definitely going against the field.

That would be true in North America. This was an English field, however, where the notrump ranges are different. The field would definitely be facing 23-24, not 22-24.

[gnasher]

- Most of them will then bid a slam.

That was a slight overestimate, according to the traveller - only about 70% of the field were in slam.

[rhm]

This is ideal for a simulation

 

I specified for East

 

4 cards in ♠ less than 4 cards in ♥, balanced, exactly 23 HCP.

Since random dealing (2,5 million) took a long time with these constraints I generated only 100 deals.

 

I consider these constraints conservative, because opener may bid 4♠ with 24 HCP

 

Result:

 

6♠ made on 79% of the deals

An over-trick was available on 16%

6NT made on 62% of the deals

An over-trick was available on 4% deals

 

6 ♠ makes on 21 deals, where 6NT is down (55%)

6 ♠ makes on 58 deals when 6NT makes (94%)

6 NT makes on 4 deals, where 6♠ is down (19%)

6 NT makes on 58 deals when 6♠ makes (73%)

 

When 13 tricks were available in ♠, 6NT made always.

When 13 tricks were available in 6NT, 6♠ also made with an over-trick.

 

So in 50% 6NT will be the top-score assuming nobody will bid a grand.

So in 33% 6♠ will be top-score assuming nobody will bid the grand.

So in 17% you should stay out of slam

 

Depending on what percentage of the field will bid a slam you should either bid 6♠ (conservative) or 6NT (aggressive).

Everything less (even inviting) is far too timid.

 

I do not think that on these deals there is a lot of difference between single and double dummy play.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdanno]

Rainer, Andy specifically said 4S showed a bad 23 hcp hand, not just any 23 hcp hand.

[jdonn]

And of course human play will be worse than double dummy. How many times does partner have KJxx of spades? KJx of hearts? But cherdano's point was more important, it's not even as good as a below average 23, it's worse than a "normal minimum". To me partner has like the worst 30% of 23 counts or so.

[Bbradley62]

4♠=support, but a bad hand in context. Does this mean 4-card support, or is it frequently done on 3-good?

[whereagles]

I'm confused. What did pard show?

 

Anyway, if he is like strong as a 2♣ opener and has fit for one of our suits, I think slam is good.

[gszeszycki]

Dealer: East

Vul: E/W

Scoring: MP

♠ A1063

♥ 8764

♦ A54

♣ J9

 

 

You've had this sequence:

1♣ (various)

1♦-2♦ (hearts / a hand that would open 2♣ in a normal system)

2♥-2NT (5+ without a 5-card suit / 23+ balanced)

3♥-4♠ (4 spades / support, but a bad hand in context)

 

Jdonn making excellent points. Your system has given you a huge edge over the

field as long as you use the information properly. 2n shows 23+ (ie could be very strong) 4s said i have support but just about the worst hand imaginable for my previous bidding (ie i would be shocked to see even a reasonable 23 hit the table)

KQJx KQJx Qxx AKQ or worse. Take advantage of your system information and

stop at a nice safe 4 level contract just in case a really gross 23 hits the table and the most you can make is 4 (like KQJx AQx KQJ KQx)

[NickRW]

I'll trust partner and pass expecting him to hold something like KQJx KJ KQJ AQJx.

Well, for sure, if this is the sort of hand pard's bidding shows, then pass has to be right. However, I'd change my methods straight afterwards, if this is supposed to be a 23 - its questionable calling it a 22 in my mind.

 

Nick

[mikeh]

I read it more like he has a bad 23. "Normal minimums bid 3♠" or something like that?

 

I reread the original post, and see that you were right....I overlooked that qualification about a normal minimum bidding 3♠

 

I change my vote...pass

[rhm]

Rainer, Andy specifically said 4S showed a bad 23 hcp hand, not just any 23 hcp hand.

I think you are reading too much in this comment.

If your bidding showed a minimum of 23 HCP (e.g. you could have 26 HCP) and you had 23 HCP and 4 cards in ♠ and you are missing at least 2 aces, what would you call such a hand???

Well for me such a hand is "support, but a bad hand in context" (what else?).

If I think a hand is not worth 23 HCP I do not bid it like a 23 HCP hand.

 

Nevertheless I think a good strategy is to bid 4NT

In the extremely unlikely event that partner shows 1 keycard give up (5♠).

In the unlikely event that partner shows 2 keycards without the queen of ♠ give up (5♠).

In the event that partner shows 2 keycards with the queen of ♠ bid 6NT (little chance for an over-trick)

In the likely event that partner shows 3 keycards bid 6♠ (chances for an over-trick are good)

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdanno]

Mmmm, if gnasher has a cheap bid to show a minimum, several less cheap bids to show maximums, and a very expensive bid to show a real minimum, then yes, I read a lot into that expensive minimum bid. I trust that gnasher doesn't play fast arrival here, but would bid 4♠ only on the least slam-suitable hands in range.

[MFA]

I think it's close. Opposite a very disciplined partner, who will have real trash, I agree pass is right. But partner is 23+, which covers a lot of ground, and therefore it can quickly become awkward to limit the hand. So perhaps it is tempting to bid 4♠ over 3♥ with more ordinary 23s, just to box the hand, and then slam is suddenly ok.

 

This is ideal for a simulation

I specified for East

4 cards in ♠ less than 4 cards in ♥, balanced, exactly 23 HCP.

 

(...)

 

I consider these constraints conservative, because opener may bid 4♠ with 24 HCP

 

Result:

 

6♠ made on 79% of the deals

 

(...)

 

I do not think that on these deals there is a lot of difference between single and double dummy play.

 

I can't really decide for myself what I feel about those simulations. They are fun, but are they accurate? Here I think 79% is surely too high, because:

 

1) partner is allowed to bid 3♠ with a promising 23

2) double dummy is a big advantage for declarer, who will often need to guess something to make a close slam.

 

But what is the right number? If it is 25-30% for instance, the simulation is grossly misleading. I think it is higher than that though, probably in the range of 40-55 depending on partner's disclipline about making 4♠ an exceptional bid.

[gnasher]

I meant roughly what Cherdano and Jdonn thought I meant - 4♠ showed four spades and a bad 23-count. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

Partner had KQ95 AK5 KQ9 AQ3, so slam is in the low 40s. I think he judged quite well to treat that as a poor hand. Unfortunately, however, it needed good judgment on both sides of the table - I raised to 6♠ and he went down when the club was wrong. Trumps were 4-1 too.

 

My thinking was that if the field was in a slightly below-par slam we should be too, because it's better to avoid the risk of a zero and try to gain an edge in the play instead. I think that makes sense only if slam is very close to 50%, and almost the entire field is going to be in slam. On this hand I was wrong on both counts.

[jdonn]

I don't mean to result or rub anything in but I think the actual hand is very instructive. Partner had 23 with NO JACKS and slam wasn't good. And I still think the inference about him having 3 hearts exactly is very strong which is quite bad for our hand.

 

It was an interesting problem and there were points to be made in favor of bidding on as well. It's unfortunate people got bogged down in the discussion of exactly what range partner showed, which seemed clear to me in the original post and made even more clear by gnasher's next post. (Not referring to anyone who misread it or something, just people who had stubborn comprehension problems.)

[jdonn]

4♠=support, but a bad hand in context.  Does this mean 4-card support, or is it frequently done on 3-good?

Hmmmmm? When you have a balanced 23 count opposite 5+ do you normally bypass 3NT to go for the 4-3 major suit fit?

[OleBerg]

and he went down when the club was wrong. Trumps were 4-1 too.

Not to rub it in, just resulting; it seems I was right, the hand was not one where declarer-skills mattered a lot. :)

[rhm]

I meant roughly what Cherdano and Jdonn thought I meant - 4♠ showed four spades and a bad 23-count.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

Partner had KQ95 AK5 KQ9 AQ3, so slam is in the low 40s.  I think he judged quite well to treat that as a poor hand.  Unfortunately, however, it needed good judgment on both sides of the table - I raised to 6♠ and he went down when the club was wrong.  Trumps were 4-1 too.

 

My thinking was that if the field was in a slightly below-par slam we should be too, because it's better to avoid the risk of a zero and try to gain an edge in the play instead.  I think that makes sense only if slam is very close to 50%, and almost the entire field is going to be in slam.  On this hand I was wrong on both counts.

"If I think a hand is not worth 23 HCP I do not bid it like a 23 HCP hand."

This hand is a good example

If I can differentiate between 22 HCP and 23 HCP, I am sure I would put this hand into the 22 HCP category.

One of the best notrump evaluator is the fifth elevator and this does (contrary to what many believe) not devalue jacks but kings and queens for good reason. Another point is that 4-3-3-3 distribution is a distinct disadvantage when you contract for slam on power (much more than for 3NT).

 

Rainer Herrmann