4414 powerhouse after 4h-opening by partner

[jvage]

AJxx

ATxx

A

AK9x

 

At favourable partner opened 4♥ in second seat. We only had the meta-agreements that 4M is always to play after preempts (maybe suboptimal after 4♥), 4NT is RKCB and 5♣/♦ are cues (first/second).

 

Tor Helness just leaped to 7, but he and Geir H. play more constructive preempts than most.

 

I discussed this with another top player (Hoftaniska), in their national team partnership they had discussed the sequence, "Hoffa" bid 4NT (RKCB), got the expected 1 ace answer and could then ask for shortness with 5NT. He jumped to 7♥ over 6♣ showing 0-1 club.

 

At the table I considered 2 other strategies, both seemingly strange. One was to cuebid 5♣ and if partner denied diamondshortage by replying 5♥ I could jump to seven. Another was to cuebid 5♦ expecting partner to jump to 6♥ with a clubcontrol (shortness), effectively discovering the same as Hoffa, and I could also raise to grand.

 

Having a very good card (we would get 25VP's even with a loss here) I finally just settled for a cowardly 6♥, which was duplicated at the other table. Partner had xx, KQJ9xxx, xxx, x and the grand was laydown.

 

How would you bid, du you have any suggested methods to bid the grand with control?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

My 4M preempts in 1st/2nd are normally 8 cards and no outside A or K .

If partner has at least 2 cards Diam, that comes to 13 tricks with a ruff.

 

If partner has 7 cards Hts, you need 2 Diam ruffs, not implausible, and hopefully he has at least the Ht K.

[Free]

Obviously it depends a little bit on opening style. However, the chance of partner having 0-1♦ are very small so I wouldn't try to be a hero and just bid grand. I have 5 bullets and probably some ruffs.

[gnasher]

One was to cuebid 5♣ and if partner denied diamondshortage by replying 5♥ I could jump to seven.

That's clever, and works unless partner can be as bad as x KQJxxxx xx xxx. Even if that's possible, it would be unlucky to find him with that shape rather than 1732.

 

Another was to cuebid 5♦ expecting partner to jump to 6♥ with a clubcontrol (shortness), effectively discovering the same as Hoffa, and I could also raise to grand.

That doesn't work if partner is 1822, so I prefer your first idea.

[lamford]

Obviously it depends a little bit on opening style. However, the chance of partner having 0-1♦ are very small so I wouldn't try to be a hero and just bid grand. I have 5 bullets and probably some ruffs.

But that is just lazy, given that we are told we can bid 4NT, RKCB, and then ask for shortage with 5NT, when we will know to play only 6 opposite diamond shortage. As a matter of principle, should we not use 5S to ask for shortage, and partner can bid 5NT with a singleton spade? Presumably in the OP methods, he cannot show a singleton spade.

[pooltuna]

I would just gamble that partner has at least 7♥ so the expected 1-1 split (i.e. >50%), a side king and a second ♦ would produce 13 winners. Of course this would be a pretty bad 4♥ call so basically even with an ugly preempt partner has a shot.

[han]

Partner can have an 8-card suit, or 3 diamonds, or the club queen, or the spade king, or the grand could be on a finesse or a squeeze. Settling for 6 seems wrong, whether you have a good or a bad card.

[xcurt]

Furthermore, although 7 is laying IMP odds, it seems impossible for anyone to stop in game here so the required edge for grand is less than usual. I would not object to teammates bringing back an unlucky -1 after adopting one of the plans that doewnt work (as in tell you unambiguously 6 vs 7) and taking the high road.

[mikestar13]

7♥ for me. It will make a very healthy percentage of the time and saves the wear a tear on the grey matter. Also, if you don't tip the lead by investigating, it may make when it shouldn't.

[gnasher]

If we played 4♠ as a cue-bid here (which I think is normal), I'd start with that. Then opposite 5♣, 5♥ or an unlikely 4NT I'd bid 7♥.

 

If partner bid 5♦, which might be either the king (good) or a singleton (bad), I'd try 6♣, denying ♠K, to try to get him to look favourably at a spade shortage or a black-suit honour.

[Free]

But that is just lazy, given that we are told we can bid 4NT, RKCB, and then ask for shortage with 5NT, when we will know to play only 6 opposite diamond shortage. As a matter of principle, should we not use 5S to ask for shortage, and partner can bid 5NT with a singleton spade? Presumably in the OP methods, he cannot show a singleton spade.

Well yeah, it's a little bit lazy, but it's not because partner has a singleton/void ♦ that we can't make grand. ♣Q(xx) is also nice, even ♣JT or ♠Q makes it 50% at worst, ♣Jx still has chances,... I bet you can't ask about shortage AND ♣Q AND ♠Q AND ... ;) So I just make the practical bid.

[gnasher]

Free, suppose that you knew you were facing diamond shortage. Would you still want to be in seven?

[Free]

Free, suppose that you knew you were facing diamond shortage. Would you still want to be in seven?

No, not really. But also look at it from another perspective.

 

Basically you need to find one of the following for a laydown seven (in order of likelyhood I think):

- 2+♦

- ♣Q

- ♠K

For 50% chances you need one of:

- ♠Q

- ♣JT

For 25% chance you need ♣Jx (-> ♣QT onside).

You can also find partner with a 5 card ♣ which has huge chances (♣2-2 / ♣3-1 with a favorable lead)

 

Granted, you can find out if the most likely (by far) scenario is valid. But if you actually do find out that partner has short ♦, the chances of finding any of the other useful holdings in partner's hand go up. To me, looking for shortness ♦ is more like trying to convince ourselves of a reason not to bid a decent grand. A grand slam doesn't need to be 100% to make bidding it a winner in the long run.

[gnasher]

Suppose that you judge that opposite a singleton diamond there is a 40% chance of finding the right cards and layout to make seven.

 

Given the choice of:

(a) Bid seven

(b) Ask about the singleton, then play in six opposite a singleton diamond and seven otherwise.

 

On the hands where partner has 2+ diamonds, both methods get you to seven.

 

On the hands where partner has one diamond, (a) means you make seven 40% of the time and go down 60% of the time; (b) means you make six all of the time.

 

Why would you choose (a) over (b)?

Edited November 8, 2011 by gnasher

[Free]

Suppose that you judge that opposite a singleton diamond there is a 40% chance of finding the right cards and layout to make seven.

 

Given the choice of:

(a) Bid seven

(b) Ask about the singleton, then play in six opposite a singleton diamond and seven otherwise.

 

On the hands where partner has 2+ diamonds, both methods get you to seven.

 

On the hands where partner has one diamond, (a) means you make seven 40% of the time and go down 60% of the time; (b) means you make six all of the time.

 

Why would you choose (b)(a) over (a)(b)?

FYP :)

 

You have a valid point, but who says it's only 40%? What if it's 51%?

[gnasher]

FYP :)

Thanks. I'll correct the original.

 

You have a valid point, but who says it's only 40%? What if it's 51%?

On the hands where partner has a singleton diamond, bidding seven would stand to lose 14 or gain 10, so you would still have a bad deal. The threshold for bidding a non-vulnerable grand slam is 56%.

 

I thought we'd already established (see post #13) that you think that if partner has a singleton diamond, we're below that threshhold. If so, the exact percentage is irrelevant.

Edited November 8, 2011 by gnasher

[Free]

On the hands where partner has a singleton diamond, bidding seven would stand to lose 14 or gain 10, so you would still have a bad deal. The threshold for bidding a non-vulnerable grand slam is 56%.

 

I thought we'd already established (see post #13) that you think that if partner has a singleton diamond, we're below that threshhold. If so, the exact percentage is irrelevant.

Hmmm, I was mistaken about the odds of non-vulnerable grand slams. Btw, I think it's 67% (gain 500 opposite lose 1030), not 56%, which makes my previous arguments even worse. So yeah, you're right, I won't get to 67% by adding a lot of small chances together.

[whereagles]

I think this one is simple. If pard had, say,

 

xxx

KQJxxxx

xx

x

 

or similar, he would probably have opened 3H and this is a cold 6. So pard should have something more to boot, as in 8 hearts or a side honor or a side suit. In any of those cases 7 should be cold so a straight leap to 7 is in order.

[Cyberyeti]

I think this one is simple. If pard had, say,

 

xxx

KQJxxxx

xx

x

 

or similar, he would probably have opened 3H and this is a cold 6. So pard should have something more to boot, as in 8 hearts or a side honor or a side suit. In any of those cases 7 should be cold so a straight leap to 7 is in order.

Missing the point entirely.

 

xx, KQJxxxxx, x, xx is close to no play while xx, KQJxxxxx, xx, x is cold, hence if you can ask about diamond shortage, you do so and bid the grand without it. If you have means to enquire about other high cards too, all the better.

[gnasher]

Hmmm, I was mistaken about the odds of non-vulnerable grand slams. Btw, I think it's 67% (gain 500 opposite lose 1030), not 56%, which makes my previous arguments even worse. So yeah, you're right, I won't get to 67% by adding a lot of small chances together.

 

That would be correct at aggregate. At IMPs, we gain 11 or lose 14. 14/(11+14) = 0.56

[whereagles]

I'm not missing the point. I know perfectly well that A/x of diamonds across kills the grand. But unless you have methods to gauge that (not many do), you should just play the odds and the odds are that singletons repel each other, i.e. if pard has a singleton, it will be in one of the blacks, not diamonds.