Less than Grand Grands

[jmunday]

A common problem that seems eminently fixable is when GIB is planning to bid a grand

slam (usually after a 2N opener or rebid) as responder but doesn't bother to check

if we have all the aces. This is not a matter of "knowing" we have 37+ HCP -- it is

a matter of an ace not being missing in the random deals it uses to make its decision.

 

Having decided to bid 7; seems easy enough to check for aces on the way.

[1eyedjack]

You have a point, but it is usually better with examples. To add some context, over the course of May 2014 and the first week of June to date, partnering GIB you have been in 3 failing grand slams in which there was no check on aces. On one of them all 4 aces were in fact held, and the grand depended on a failing finesse. Not a good grand to be in, but not disgraceful either. In all three you had substantially fewer total values than promised, but that may not excuse the failure to check for aces.

 

[hv=lin=pn|jmunday,~~M27833,~~M27831,~~M27832|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S368KHQAD4JC37JQA%2CS9H4568TKD35AC68T%2CS27TJQAH3D28QKC2K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2N%7Can%7CTwo%20NT%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%21%7Can%7CTexas%20--%206%2B%20%21S%3B%205%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4S%7Can%7C2-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2020-21%20HC%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C7S%7Can%7C6%2B%20%21S%3B%2020%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cmc%7C12%7C]380|270[/hv]

 

On the above hand it is JUST POSSIBLE to construct a genuine 2N opener that is missing one of S:K, H:A and D:A. And missing S:K would still be on a finesse. Is "just possible" enough to criticise GIB? Maybe.

 

[hv=lin=pn|jmunday,~~M4520,~~M4518,~~M4519|st%7C%7Cmd%7C1SQH2TAD29TQKAC89J%2CS289TJHJD57C37TQK%2CS345KAH456QKD48C2%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%203%7Csv%7Ce%7Cmb%7C2N%7Can%7CTwo%20NT%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%21%7Can%7CJacoby%20transfer%20--%205%2B%20%21H%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7CSuperaccept%3B%20doubleton%3B%20support%20--%202-5%20%21%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C7H%7Can%7C5%2B%20%21H%3B%2018%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CSA%7C]380|270[/hv]

 

Again, possible. Here you have shown a maximum 2N opener with H support and doubleton Diamond. Give yourself S:QJ, H:J, D:KQ and C:KQJ, that is 15 points out of 21, and missing 3 Aces, Or 17 points if you have D:AK instead of D:KQ and missing 2 aces.

 

The third, perhaps irrelevant example, is

 

[hv=lin=pn|jmunday,~~M44132,~~M44130,~~M44131|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S3JH7KAD46QC345KA%2CS467H3469TD378C67%2CS589QAH5D9KAC89JQ%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%206%7Csv%7Ce%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2N%7Can%7CTwo%20NT%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C7N%7Can%7C16%2B%20HCP%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cmc%7C12%7C]380|270[/hv]

 

What MAY be happening, and others will be able to confirm or correct, is that GIB is dealing some sample hands, none of which (understandably, given their rarety) contain the fringe examples in which there is a missing ace, and on the strength of that (rather than on the strength of 37+ points as suggested in your OP) deciding on the futility of checking for aces.

[Antrax]

On one hand, you're not wrong that checking aces along the way seems right on these hands. On the other, it sort of looks like you want GIB to use Gerber as a sort of control for your 2NT psyches. Do you have an example where you had a 2NT opening and GIB leaped to slam off cashing aces?

[Fluffy]

You want opponents to think you ahve a real 2ÇNT opener but your partner not to

[iandayre]

Having known Jmunday as a strong player in So Cal years ago, I have checked out his bidding with GIB on a few occasions. I just couldn't bid that way. Even if it worked, I would be afraid of developing bad habits and I would just rather bid normally and hope for the best. Yes, I have learned to promote NT hands a bit but not 3-4 HCP!!!

[Bbradley62]

Since this is the GIB discussion forum, we should be concentrating on GIB's actions, not on the human's idiosyncrasies. On Board #2, the first one posted, swap West's ♥K with South's ♣7. Now, South has a clear 2N opener, and the bidding progresses as shown. N/S is still missing ♦A, and North could very easily have checked for this before blasted to grand. Clearly enough, not "just possible" to criticize GIB. Edit: Similar swaps can be done on Board 3, still off the cashing ♣A. There's no reason to bypass RKC. Edited June 5, 2014 by Bbradley62

[1eyedjack]

I didn't post the hands in order to embarrass or criticise the OP, nor to focus on his technique. Lord knows I do the same sort of thing often enough.

 

There are two fundamentally different approaches that GIB might take, if so programmed.

 

Approach 1:

 

Am I slamming? If yes,

Do I have an ace ask available? (for simplicity, let's not get into the question of whether it is the most appropriate slam try) If yes,

Ask about aces, not matter how confident I am of the answer.

 

Approach 2:

 

Do I trust my partner? If yes

Is his bidding consistent with our possibly missing the requisite controls? If no,

slam ahoy.

 

GIB clearly adopts approach 2, but there is more to it than that. There are at least three ways that it might resolve the question "is his bidding consistent with our missing the requisite controls?"

 

Method 1: Add up combined points and deduct from 40 or whatever. If the result is less than some limit, bingo. Not a great method, not least because total points including distribution may be relevant but then hard to know what's what.

 

Method 2: Cram partner's hand with as many of the unseen quacks as possible consistent with his bidding to date, then with Kings, and so on until his total announced strength is reached, and then work out how many missing aces there are. This may be close to the human approach.

 

Method 3: Mentally deal some random hands consistent with the bidding to date and missing cards, - as many deals as you can afford in the time, and see whether any of them have sufficient missing controls to justify asking about them. This may be close to the way that GIB works. I am not certain.

 

I stand by my "just possible" comment earlier. In order to be missing the Ace of diamonds, you pretty much have to cram South with all the other missing honours. So I find it quite credible that you would have to deal quite a large number of random hands before one materialised that was missing an Ace (giving South a proper 2N opener in the first place).

 

As I read the OP objection, he prefers the Approach 1. Well that would be a huge change in GIB philosophy, not just I think restricted to Ace-asks, but introducing the whole concept of fielding human psychs in a range of areas. Maybe one day that will come.

 

 

 

 

 

[iandayre]

By no means was my intention to be critical of Jmunday. He is plenty good enough to know what works for him and I am sure he is very successful playing GIB tournaments. Just saying it's not a style I could be comfortable with.

[Antrax]

On Board #2, the first one posted, swap West's ♥K with South's ♣7. Now, South has a clear 2N opener, and the bidding progresses as shown. N/S is still missing ♦A, and North could very easily have checked for this before blasted to grand. Clearly enough, not "just possible" to criticize GIB. Edit: Similar swaps can be done on Board 3, still off the cashing ♣A. There's no reason to bypass RKC.

Yes, there is, it gives the opponents a chance to double for the lead. That's why it's important to know how often a real 2NT opener reaches slam off cashing aces, to gauge that against the times the opponents were able to find the killing lead thanks to the partnership making sure, first.