Two hands

[paulg]

[hv=pc=n&s=st92hk4dt983ck632&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1h2sppdp]133|200|IMPs[/hv]

 

What is your call?

 

Feel free to discuss whether 2NT should be natural, scramble or Lebensohl variant!

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skq6hj65dt64caj85&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2n(20-21)p]133|200|IMPs[/hv]

 

Is this worth a slam invite opposite a 20-21 2NT? You are playing 4-card Stayman so 4NT is probably the easiest slam invite if you decide to make it.

[mikestar13]

Hand #1: 2NT should be scrambling, and my choice.

 

Hand #2: clearly not worth an invite.

[ninja89]

Scrambling should be reserved for auctions where we clearly have no game interest, in my opinion. It helps to have some way of showing some constructive values. I would treat 2NT here as natural, since the most likely reason we couldn't do something constructive in the previous round is because of our spade holding. This smattering of stuff (Kxxx xx Kxx Qxxx for example) can be quite common. The problem is tricky on the given hand, since we were quite close to doubling on the first round; lebensohl could work a treat now. I'll bid 3♥, which might be enough for partner to kick if strongish, 5/5 or 6/4, and may play as well as anywhere, especially considering partner's potential 1633.

 

Settling for 3NT on the second. Some good 19s do the trick, while some good 21s fail. Would need a simulation, I think.

[mtvesuvius]

1) 2NT - Scrambling. Barring that I'd bid 3♣.

2) 3NT - Not enough spots for me to consider worth a slam try. I expect partner to upgrade responsibly.

[andy_h]

Agree with mikestar. Disagree with ninja about being close to doubling on the first round.

[ninja89]

Sorry, my expression was poor. The hand is not far from being strong enough to double, not that doubling is a consideration with the given hand.

[Fluffy]

There is a small problem with scrambling, partner might have doubled with a big 3♥ bid planning to invite us over 3m. But 2NT jams the auction then. I think I'd still bid 2NT though.

 

Second one is not remotelly close to 4NT, even on a 20-22 NT

[dboxley]

1. 2NT scrambling

2. Probably pass. If I can use my own toy I would bid 4S saying bid 4NT unless you are on a super max.

[paulg]

2. Probably pass. If I can use my own toy I would bid 4S saying bid 4NT unless you are on a super max.

An example of what some of us know as a 'Bailey Pass' :)

 

 

 

[paulg]

I think the first hand is close, whether to bid a scrambling 2NT or 3♥. Bidding 2NT works best when it is a partscore hand, 3♥ works best when partner is 1633. At the table 3♥ won the pot, but I think 2NT is more likely to be right in the long run.

 

On the second hand I thought it was right to just bid 3NT. However a double-dummy simulation says that 6NT will make just over 50% of the time, which suggests that the hand is probably worth an invite. This was a surprise, which is why I posted the problem.

[dboxley]

An example of what some of us know as a 'Bailey Pass' :)

 

Have not heard of Bailey Pass but then I haven't played regularly for about 20 yrs.

[ajm218]

On the second hand I thought it was right to just bid 3NT. However a double-dummy simulation says that 6NT will make just over 50% of the time, which suggests that the hand is probably worth an invite. This was a surprise, which is why I posted the problem.

If its cold DD just over 50% of the time; doesn't that mean that in practice it will make much less than 50% of time (assuming we're playing good opponents who make normal leads and can defend properly)?

 

I mean some hands will need us to know to play for a particular squeeze, or an endplay etc. Others will require us to get a two way finesse right and others will even require us to pick up suits that we won't in practice like a backwards finesse with AJx opp K9x and playing to the J if we have 9xx opp AJ8x and there is KQx onside etc?

 

Any feeling on what % we should remove because they won't be made in practice?

[paulg]

If its cold DD just over 50% of the time; doesn't that mean that in practice it will make much less than 50% of time (assuming we're playing good opponents who make normal leads and can defend properly)?

 

I mean some hands will need us to know to play for a particular squeeze, or an endplay etc. Others will require us to get a two way finesse right and others will even require us to pick up suits that we won't in practice like a backwards finesse with AJx opp K9x and playing to the J if we have 9xx opp AJ8x and there is KQx onside etc?

 

Any feeling on what % we should remove because they won't be made in practice?

My feeling is that double-dummy is pretty close to what you'd achieve at the table when it comes to slams. Although you will not always declarer perfectly, typically it is easier to declare a slam than defend it.

 

I was suggesting that the hand is far closer to an invitation than I, and some others, actually thought. Presumably a fair number of the slams that fail will be avoided when partner declines an invitation, so the chances of being in a makeable slam is significantly higher than I perceived.

[paulg]

Have not heard of Bailey Pass but then I haven't played regularly for about 20 yrs.

About your era although perhaps not your country. It was named after Phil Bailey, still a very good player, and perhaps coined during his time at Cambridge University. Always very thoughtful, he was one to consider his options at length. The Bailey Pass would typically occur in a Blackwood sequence where he would consider whether to bid the slam or not - having decided not to bid the slam he would then pass, forgetting to return to the original trump suit.

[Phil]

1 - I play Lebensohl here when I've discussed this auction with my partners. Its much more useful to break up the ranges for the initial pass and see if we have game than to play the perfect fit when we run out. I pay off on hands like this.

 

2. 3N. Not close.