Serious error?

[mikeh]

Hmm. Maybe what you are missing is the entire discussion, including your own early post.

you missed dake's point: he screwed up the quote function: he wasn't doubling :D I think

[johnu]

By the way, pulling sh*t like 5 to one odds totally out of your ass is the very definition of drivel.

 

Look at it this way. 1NT (15-17) to your right you have 16 pts and you pass and LHO bid 3nt.

 

Do you think its way more likely that LHO has 7-9 with a long minors that hew expect to run or that he has exactly 9 pts ?

 

maybe 20-80% is too much but 25-75% is about right. Its quite rare that you can bid and expect to make 6NT without a running suit and its even less likely when you see the defender hand.

 

If the 6NT bidder has a long minor and less than expected points, what are the odds that they would check for aces first?

[RMB1]

Troll Alert!!!!

 

Warning: this thread has now been godwin'd and should be placed off limits lest the contagion spread.

 

Please do not feed the troll :P

 

In the past, I thought the bridge forum equivalent of Godwin's laws was: "As an online bridge discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison to the Buenos Aires affair approaches 1."

 

Thankfully, that seems no longer to be true (or the convergence is now much slower).

[jdeegan]

Just because you haven't seen it happen is no justification for dismissing the evidence of those of us who have. I was playing in the worlds in Verona in 2006 and read the bulletin with my own eyes, and Garozzo did indeed pull from 6N to a making grand when his RHO mistakenly doubled 6N, a act of folly given the imp odds. The result at our table had been more mundane...a small slam in a minor, impregnable.

 

Maybe the bulletin writer lied, but that seems a bit of a stretch since the results were available to check.

:P Wrong to double at IMP's because of risk/reward ratio. Since we both know Garozzo, we can agree that he is/was a feisty and intuitive little dude who might actually do what he reportedly actually did do at Verona. I have seen him do some miraculous things at the bridge table. He may have been, in some ways, the best (and scariest) bridge player in history. If he is my LHO, then I pass even at BAM.

[rhm]

:P Wrong to double at IMP's because of risk/reward ratio. Since we both know Garozzo, we can agree that he is/was a feisty and intuitive little dude who might actually do what he reportedly actually did do at Verona. I have seen him do some miraculous things at the bridge table. He may have been, in some ways, the best (and scariest) bridge player in history. If he is my LHO, then I pass even at BAM.

I am not so sure.

I think the problem is one of perception. Human memory is impressed by the exceptional not by the normal and the exceptional gets reported not the normal.

Man bites dog is news, dog bites man not.

But this makes our experience biased and humans are notoriously bad in evaluating small rewards against small probability losing big or vice versa. For example many safety plays are not worthwhile at IMPs.

 

If

 

a) N-S have a run-out at the seven level and know it and

b) can make North declarer and

c) East will not find the spade lead

 

you have a great story. But this is a parlay. While such deals exist, how likely is it? Deals almost always exist, which can prove you wrong.

 

At BAM I would certainly double and I consider PASS the typical expert error. At BAM the reward is not small nor is the potential loss huge.

Good players often see ghosts, in particular if one of their opponents is a name player like Garozzo. There is also the psychological effect, that no knowledgeable expert likes to look stupid.

 

With regard to IMPs it is true that the reward is small but not tiny, maybe 3 IMPs, but the probability of a big loss so small that DBL is probably the winning action in the long run.

The chance after the bidding started 2NT-6NT, that N-S will not have 13 tricks in 3 suits and will go down even more if they try is substantial.

If you consider the chance that your partner will find the spade lead against 7m is at least 50%, at worst you simply bet a big IMP win against a big loss even if opponents find the run out.

The IMP difference between winning 500 against loosing 2000 is small, looks only impressive on paper.

 

Of course I am not blind that there are many doubles of small slams, which are a mistake, e,g when trumps break badly for declarer, but opponents can correct to 6NT or will play differently after a DBL etc.

But as usual it is wrong to generalize, you have to judge the merits of the specific situation.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[dake50]

They may or may not be. Why are you so sure they aren't? Maybe this is a completely standard auction (or do you know that your team-mates never bid 6NT with less than 34hcp?)

*** Flip your argument. Are your teammates in slam missing SAK - 2 quick tricks?? Some teams are that weak, mine isn't.

[Finch]

They may or may not be. Why are you so sure they aren't? Maybe this is a completely standard auction (or do you know that your team-mates never bid 6NT with less than 34hcp?)

*** Flip your argument. Are your teammates in slam missing SAK - 2 quick tricks?? Some teams are that weak, mine isn't.

 

Really? You have a balanced 13-count, partner opens 2NT, what do you bid?

People tend not to lead away from an A or K against the auction 2NT-6NT, so it makes 50% of the time + 3/4 of the 25% of the time the AK are in the non-leader's hand (unless they play double as asking for a spade lead. Even then it still makes 50% of the time)

 

Even if they work out they are off an ace and a king, slam is likely to be cold or at worse on a finesse if they have a combined 33-count and the A/K are in different suits.

[gordontd]

Are your teammates in slam missing SAK - 2 quick tricks?? Some teams are that weak, mine isn't.

You must have truly remarkable team-mates, and have done well to get them to play with you.

[PhilG007]

If you double, where can the opponents run to? Answer Nowhere

Double,then lead out your two top spades and kill the slam in its cradle... :D

 

Why didn't North check on Aces instead of acting like a bull in a china

shop and barge on to slam??? :(

[ArtK78]

Why didn't North check on Aces instead of acting like a bull in a china

shop and barge on to slam??? :(

So he finds out that the partnership is missing an ace.

 

So what? Should he ask for kings now?

 

In the meantime, he is giving his LHO a chance to double for the lead of the suit in response to the ace asking bid. Or to not double, suggesting that the lead of another suit might be a good idea.

[lamford]

Why didn't North check on Aces instead of acting like a bull in a china shop and barge on to slam??? :(

I am sure your teammates would have bid sliding Gerber and would have been able to stop in 5NT. But not everyone has as good teammates as you.

[barmar]

Why didn't North check on Aces instead of acting like a bull in a china

shop and barge on to slam??? :(

That's not your problem. Just be happy they did and take your plus.

 

Did you see Robson's video? It showed a hand where he recommended blasting to 6NT, and then was able to run to 7♣, which was successful because it put your partner on lead and he didn't guess right, and then you got squeezed. I realize this is an unlikely parlay, but why risk it?

 

Have you forgotten that it's BAM scoring? It doesn't matter how much you beat them by, just that you do better than at the other table. If your teammates avoid the slam, you're winning the board.

[lamford]

Have you forgotten that it's BAM scoring? It doesn't matter how much you beat them by, just that you do better than at the other table. If your teammates avoid the slam, you're winning the board.

The fact that it is BAM makes it more beneficial to double. The two most likely scores in the other room are surely +100 and +200. If this poll is anything to go by, they will be split 50-50. If they are in 6NT and there is no unlikely or no successful runout, if you double you will win the board half the time and tie it half the time, and if you don't double you will lose it half the time and tie it half the time.

[Endymion77]

> If your teammates avoid the slam, you're winning the board.

 

As it was already pointed out, it's far from certain that my teammates would avoid the slam, 2NT - 6NT sounds like a rather standard auction to me. And even in the unlikely case that they do run successfully to 7m, it's far from the disaster it would be at IMPs - just one board lost.

[jogs]

> If your teammates avoid the slam, you're winning the board.

 

As it was already pointed out, it's far from certain that my teammates would avoid the slam, 2NT - 6NT sounds like a rather standard auction to me. And even in the unlikely case that they do run successfully to 7m, it's far from the disaster it would be at IMPs - just one board lost.

 

Maybe it is time partnerships start bidding slams based on

controls rather than HCP.

[aguahombre]

I got a good chuckle the other day.

 

2C-2D

2N-3C

3D-6N followed by p p (X).

 

I ran to 7C on AKX AKX XX AKJXXX, blissfully remembering the Stayman bid, but forgetting I was the first to bid clubs.

 

7CX down two was infinitely better than 6NTX down six (and a push with 6N undoubled). Had we been vulnerable, the Double would have cost them the board at BAM for 500 vs. 600

[mycroft]

You're off an ace and a king and that's it. More often than not, you're making 6NT - unless they're in the same suit. And they're led.

 

You're off 7 high. More often than not, you're making 6NT - unless they're AK same suit. And they're led.

 

Not always, by any stretch of the imagination. But 33-35 high has been the standard for two balanced hands for a long time, because it works.

 

Finding out what controls are missing means that you miss the "unmakeable" slams - but you're +660 against many +1440s that *could be*, but *weren't*, set.