mgoetze Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 [hv=nn=mgoetze&n=SKJ543HA5DK53C743&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2NP?]133|200[/hv] What's your plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 If I can transfer and know right away whether partner has a fit for spades or not, that'll be great. With a fit I'll try to get to slam; without a fit I'll stop at 3NT. If I have not talked with partner about how to show deny a fit I'll just transfer and invite to slam via 4NT which hopefully works as a quantitative bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 It's quite tempting to bid 2N-3H-3S-3N, then make a slam try if partner corrects to 4♠, isn't it?Maybe 4N over 4♠ should be non-forcing with a balanced slam try? It obviously doesn't make sense that we'd suddenly bid RKCB after signing off in 3N. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gszes Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 3h transfer to 3s followed by 3n and settle for 4s if p merely converts.Imagine AQx(x) Kxx(x) Axx(x) AKx(x) a beautiful 20 yet 11 tricks is thepractical limit. That means we should only really look for slam when opener can show some sort of special hand. A special hand will almostsurely have a side 5 card suit and lots of controls. Another alternativeis opener has a doubleton (dia or club). The problem is which bid is more practical (showing a long suit or a ruffingvalue) (and a max but not super accept)--Imho it would be more beneficial to beable to show a long suit since that would still leave open the possibility ofa grand. Imagine AQx Kxx AQJxx Ax once opener bids 4d over 3n it really is not toughto imagine 7s. If opener super accepts over 3h (hopefully by showing a long suit) we should try to see if 7s is the best place to settle and bid slam for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 I think this depends if we are swinging or not and also how often partner will super accept and also partners range (and upgrade style) for 2nt. I think transfer and bid 3nt is normal. Transfer and bid 4nt over 3♠ doesn't seem horrid if swinging, especially if partner is conservative about upgrading 19 counts and also about super accepting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted February 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 It's quite tempting to bid 2N-3H-3S-3NNo, underbidding is rarely tempting to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 No, underbidding is rarely tempting to me. You have two balanced hands with <= 32 hcp, and no fit for your main suit. What makes you think slam is likely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted February 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 You have two balanced hands with <= 32 hcp, and no fit for your main suit. What makes you think slam is likely?This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 It's quite tempting to bid 2N-3H-3S-3N, then make a slam try if partner corrects to 4♠, isn't it? After 2N - 3♥ - 3♠ - 3N, If opener has 3♠ then he might cue-bid, show a trick-source, or board the last train, with a slam-suitable hand. Otherwise, If opener merely corrects to 4♠, then responder might pass. But Pavlicek's analysis is eye-opening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 2NT-3♥3♠-4NT shows exactly this hand, this strength and a balanced hand usually. I really do not understand 3 NT and totally bypassing pd and his judgement with AKK prime values. Making a bid that they would do with 5-6 hcp. It is not even close imho. Michael, I do not understand your argument, first you sound like you disagree with Arend and then you totally agree with his comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted February 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 Michael, I do not understand your argument, first you sound like you disagree with Arend and then you totally agree with his comment.I realize that in colloquial English "This" means "I agree", but that is not the original meaning of the term, and I think it still isn't when it's a hyperlink. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 I realize that in colloquial English "This" means "I agree", but that is not the original meaning of the term, and I think it still isn't when it's a hyperlink. ;) LOL sorry I now see it is a link. My bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 This. So I got curious about this one, and ran a simulation. I gave partner 21 hcp, 2 spades, and no other doubleton. Double dummy, 6NT was making about 80% of the time. Then I generated 20 hands until I got a sample where exactly 16 of them were making 6NT, and looked through each of them whether I believed that declarer would actually make them; I assumed RHO trying to find the safest possible lead. I thought that declarer would clearly make 10 times, probably make 2 times, unclear 2 times, and go down 6 times. (I assumed declare to go down when he had to drop Qx doubleton or similar; unclear means I thought delcarer pretty much had a 50-50 guess, etc.) Then I looked through the hands again, and it seemed to me seven of the hands were upgrades to 2C (strong 5-card suit and no negative feature like AQ doubleton). Five of those seven were "makes", one a "probable make", one "go down". So that leaves 5 clear makes, one probable make, two unclear, and 5 hands to go down. You may disagree with my analysis on individual hands (I didn't think hard about them). But I do think the difference between double dummy and single dummy is big - especially so in 6NT with two balanced hands, and with a KJxxx suit opposite a doubleton. All 20 hands in the spoiler below. ("North makes..." is the double dummy result; the ----- line contains my evaluation. North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ AQ ♥ KQ843 ♦ AQ7 ♣ KJ9 ♠ T98 ♠ 762 ♥ JT72 ♥ 96 ♦ 962 ♦ JT84 ♣ AT5 ♣ Q862 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- unclear North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ A2 ♥ K843 ♦ AJ2 ♣ AKQ9 ♠ QT ♠ 9876 ♥ JT76 ♥ Q92 ♦ QT87 ♦ 964 ♣ J62 ♣ T85 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- down North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ A9 ♥ KQ763 ♦ AQT ♣ AQ8 ♠ QT ♠ 8762 ♥ JT84 ♥ 92 ♦ J842 ♦ 976 ♣ K62 ♣ JT95 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- down North makes 11 tricks in NT ♠ A2 ♥ KQ987 ♦ AQ6 ♣ AQ5 ♠ Q97 ♠ T86 ♥ T432 ♥ J6 ♦ J8742 ♦ T9 ♣ T ♣ KJ9862 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- down - upgrade North makes 13 tricks in NT ♠ AQ ♥ KJT87 ♦ A72 ♣ AKT ♠ T982 ♠ 76 ♥ Q94 ♥ 632 ♦ J9864 ♦ QT ♣ 9 ♣ QJ8652 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- make - upgrade North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ AQ ♥ K76 ♦ Q82 ♣ AKQJ2 ♠ T9762 ♠ 8 ♥ 943 ♥ QJT82 ♦ A76 ♦ JT94 ♣ 96 ♣ T85 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- make - upgrade North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ A9 ♥ Q72 ♦ AQJ96 ♣ AKJ ♠ 86 ♠ QT72 ♥ K43 ♥ JT986 ♦ T7 ♦ 842 ♣ QT9865 ♣ 2 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- make - upgrade North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ AT ♥ KQ9 ♦ AJ8 ♣ AKT86 ♠ 82 ♠ Q976 ♥ J8763 ♥ T42 ♦ T974 ♦ Q62 ♣ 52 ♣ QJ9 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- make - upgrade North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ Q6 ♥ KQ8 ♦ AJ2 ♣ AKQ65 ♠ A82 ♠ T97 ♥ JT764 ♥ 932 ♦ Q874 ♦ T96 ♣ T ♣ J982 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- make - upgrade North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ QT ♥ KQ8 ♦ AQ97 ♣ AKJ2 ♠ A862 ♠ 97 ♥ J964 ♥ T732 ♦ 82 ♦ JT64 ♣ Q65 ♣ T98 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- make North makes 11 tricks in NT ♠ AQ ♥ KQJ ♦ AQ96 ♣ QJ52 ♠ T9872 ♠ 6 ♥ 7632 ♥ T984 ♦ JT82 ♦ 74 ♣ --- ♣ AKT986 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- down North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ A8 ♥ QJ86 ♦ AJT8 ♣ AKQ ♠ 96 ♠ QT72 ♥ T73 ♥ K942 ♦ Q942 ♦ 76 ♣ 9862 ♣ JT5 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- make North makes 11 tricks in NT ♠ A6 ♥ KQ94 ♦ AT72 ♣ AKJ ♠ QT987 ♠ 2 ♥ T2 ♥ J8763 ♦ 98 ♦ QJ64 ♣ Q982 ♣ T65 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- down North makes 11 tricks in NT ♠ A8 ♥ KJ872 ♦ AQ8 ♣ AK8 ♠ QT62 ♠ 97 ♥ T9 ♥ Q643 ♦ T976 ♦ J42 ♣ QJ6 ♣ T952 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- down North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ A2 ♥ QJT3 ♦ AQJ ♣ AKT9 ♠ QT87 ♠ 96 ♥ K6 ♥ 98742 ♦ T874 ♦ 962 ♣ QJ8 ♣ 652 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- unclear North makes 13 tricks in NT ♠ A6 ♥ KQT98 ♦ AJ7 ♣ AK8 ♠ T972 ♠ Q8 ♥ 63 ♥ J742 ♦ Q942 ♦ T86 ♣ Q95 ♣ JT62 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- probably make - upgrade North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ A2 ♥ KJ9 ♦ A986 ♣ AKQ9 ♠ T976 ♠ Q8 ♥ Q62 ♥ T8743 ♦ QT42 ♦ J7 ♣ J8 ♣ T652 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- probably make North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ AQ ♥ KQJ4 ♦ 976 ♣ AKQ9 ♠ 9862 ♠ T7 ♥ T862 ♥ 973 ♦ T4 ♦ AQJ82 ♣ 652 ♣ JT8 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- make North makes 13 tricks in NT ♠ AQ ♥ K762 ♦ AT4 ♣ AKJT ♠ T ♠ 98762 ♥ QT983 ♥ J4 ♦ Q876 ♦ J92 ♣ Q85 ♣ 962 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- make North makes 12 tricks in NT ♠ AQ ♥ JT4 ♦ AQJ82 ♣ AK6 ♠ T98762 ♠ --- ♥ K63 ♥ Q9872 ♦ T4 ♦ 976 ♣ 98 ♣ QJT52 ♠ KJ543 ♥ A5 ♦ K53 ♣ 743 -------------------------- make And the code for Thomas Andrews' "deal": source format/none south is "KJ543 A5 K53 743" sdev make6n global results global counts main { reject unless {[hcp north] == 21} reject unless {[spades north] == 2} reject unless {[clubs north] > 2 && [diamonds north] > 2 && [hearts north] > 2} set tricks [deal::tricks north nt] puts "North makes $tricks tricks in NT" if {$tricks > 11} { make6n add 1 } else { make6n add 0 } accept } deal_finished { puts "We make 6N [make6n average] out of [make6n count] times" } Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 2NT-3♥3♠-4NT shows exactly this hand, this strength and a balanced hand usually. I gave Mgoetze's hand to John Matheson and he duplicated Mr Ace's start. He explained that if opener now introduced 6♣ or 6♦ he would be happy to play in that strain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 So it seems only very few people would endorse the action at table 1: [hv=sn=JEC&s=SATHKQ2DAJT98CAJ2&wn=Derric&w=SQ98H9863DQ74CK98&nn=BridgeGoth&n=SKJ543HA5DK53C743&en=suokko&e=S762HJT74D62CQT65&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2NP3HP3SP4NPPP&p=H3HAH4H2D3D6DJDQH6H5HTHKSAS8S3S2STSQSKS6SJS7C2S9&c=12]400|300[/hv] And certainly noone would endorse what I did: [hv=sn=phil&s=SATHKQ2DAJT98CAJ2&wn=sillafu&w=SQ98H9863DQ74CK98&nn=mgoetze&n=SKJ543HA5DK53C743&en=tsadek&e=S762HJT74D62CQT65&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2NP6NPPP&p=H8HAH4H2S3S6STSQH6H5HTHKSAS8S4S7DJD4D3D2D8D7D5D6HQH3C3&c=12]400|300[/hv] In hindsight, I should perhaps have bid it differently - maybe this would have been a good time to use Gerber for the first time in my life. ;) My general experience with JEC matches is that negative IMPs are easy to come by, positive IMPs are pretty hard. So yes, I did want to swing a bit and give our best player a chance to get some IMPs in the left column, which he successfully converted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suokko Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 This. That is double dummy. At slam level DD makes about 0.2 tricks more than top level players. Also those are averages where hands with fit produce on average more tricks than once without fit. That why knowing about fit is the key when you can start bidding 31 hcp slams with balanced hands. Statistics are way too hard to read as simple guide for profitable bidding level. But I would have probably made quantitative slam try like Jay did against us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 So it seems only very few people would endorse the action at table 1: Actually despite what I wrote above, I do think bidding 3H-3S-4N is the best option - but it's close to just bidding 3N. And I always find it tempting when going against the book (making a slam try over 4S after seemingly signing off in 3N) might be the right thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Im on record as already saying that I would accept the slam invite. My ♠AT are fantastic and I have a side ♦AJT98. Uncharacteristically I guessed the diamond. Characteristically for the wrong reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Im on record as already saying that I would accept the slam invite. My ♠AT are fantastic and I have a side ♦AJT98. Uncharacteristically I guessed the diamond. Characteristically for the wrong reason. Actually when Michael posted his 6 NT bid, I wasreplying on my Iphone saying that Phil would accept it and I was not even using "I think" I was confident that you would. Then again a phone call messed it and I forgot to post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.