The mirror top honors situation

[Lovera]

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|barbs1234,Lovera,spiksplint,kippetje29|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S289AH4JD29C345QK%2CS5KH27QKD56TQKC8J%2CS46JH56TD478JC67T%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%20429%7Csv%7Cb%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1C%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1D%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CCT%7C

[Lovera]

We are in eight to realize : 4 with a top and 4 with a half-top and more one pair bid 2♥+4 and one ended in 6NT (down) bidding the yet used old-Blackwood. Than :why not to get to 6 ? There are three friendly suit but ..don't eat the daises (en passant can be a difficult to see lead for defense in spade).

[Lovera]

http://tinyurl.com/o4stb9s

[Stephen Tu]

I don't understand the question. (I don't understand most of your posts for that matter). Why would you ever want to be in 6? Against 6 (or against 4 for that matter) South has a pretty natural club honor lead and holds to 5.

 

When you need a friendly lead and a bunch of favorable breaks, you aren't supposed to be questioning why you didn't bid 6. Ask yourself why more South's aren't finding a club honor lead. Maybe against 4 it isn't quite as attractive a lead vs. against 6.

 

Generally you aren't supposed to be in 28 HCP slams with balanced hands facing each other so I don't understand why you are posting this. A harder problem would be how to get to slam if West's CJ were the DJ instead, which makes slam a much better contract. Maybe west then could then take a slower route over 1♥, GF artificial then set hearts at a lower level, and find out if East has the minor aces. But the actual hand, there's really nothing of interest here?

[lycier]

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|,Lovera,,|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S289AH4JD29C345QK%2CS5KH27QKD56TQKC8J%2CS46JH56TD478JC67T%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%20429%7Csv%7Cb%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1C%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1D%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CCT%7C]400|300[/hv]

We are in eight to realize : 4 with a top and 4 with a half-top and more one pair bid 2♥+4 and one ended in 6NT (down) bidding the yet used old-Blackwood. Than :why not to get to 6 ? There are three friendly suit but ..don't eat the daises (en passant can be a difficult to see lead for defense in spade).

 

Lovera :

Ciao

 

First of all I perfectly agree with Stephen Tu opinion,even now I don't know what you said.

I know you maybe lose slam,however the blame should be you instead of your partner !

Let's say fairly that 4♥ should be sign off and 4♥ never probe for slam since 4♥ says I have 5 card plus ♦ suit and 4-card ♥ with enough values of GF,I have no extra values to tell you,4♥ is just all my story.

[lycier]

why not to get to 6 ? There are three friendly suit but ..don't eat the daises (en passant can be a difficult to see lead for defense in spade).

Ciao,Lovera :

 

I don't agree with you.Whether opps lead ♠,that is opps defensive problem, your hand has nothing to do with "en passant can be a difficult to see lead for defense in spade".

Your attitude is not correct.

 

 

[lycier]

We are in eight to realize : 4 with a top and 4 with a half-top and more one pair bid 2♥+4 and one ended in 6NT (down) bidding the yet used old-Blackwood. Than :why not to get to 6 ? There are three friendly suit but ..don't eat the daises (en passant can be a difficult to see lead for defense in spade).

http://tinyurl.com/o4stb9s

 

 

 

Lovera,of course,I sympathize with you,sometimes our English is poor indeed,sometimes we are difficult to understand North American reviews on the threads.Keep calm,we should need " always learning", I think this should be a correct attitude.

please remember the rule of BBO Forums:

1- The default language is English on BBO forums.

2- Obey the rule of BBO and its forums,the exact rule is " Be nice to others".

So following this rule,you can't blame others,we must obey bbo rule and should know exactly that we would only discuss "hand" friendly,never discuss "other players". And when you wanna to post the hand from BBO,you would better delete the usernames of 4 of players at the table because we only care about hand problems,never care about "who plays that badly".

So here I suggest that you would better delete your hand link.

 

If any ideas,would you tell me? I can try my best to help you.

 

[Lovera]

Hi lycier. I want avoid misanderstanding. I never said my partner has played not good because realized 4+2. I wonder that with three Aces and my jump meaning force can bid Rkb and subsequently reaches six factible with all opening leads but club (only a pair if i don't remember wrong). But my aptention was captured by this "mirror" situation of 3Aces opposite 3Kings that i consider not usual :the first time i saw it was in "How not to get to 7" but i've encountered already (almost) two times on my tables (one of this yesterday night at the end). Obviously i cannot bid Rkb yet because i have only a King of trump so topic title is right to "focus" this one that seems to me to be more frequent i thought. Can be interesting to find conditions about. With the occasion, many wishes for Christmas.

[lycier]

Hi Lovera, I suggest you would better save room to probe for potential slam,a pity that you gave up rooms of both of two level and three level and bid up to 4♥ directly,it is sign off sequences instead of slammish exploration.

Your method in this hand is not good.

 

If wanna to describe the hand precisely,you would better employ modern bidding gadgets,i.e. two way stayman and XYZ etc.

[Lovera]

Perhaps you have right to say i had to bid 3♥ or maybe i have tried to show force in a similar way of topic citated. Although i don't leave Stayman system because is a good one that i already know, used and integrated with adjuntive conventions (i have suggested the hand valutation basic to get a good final contract), bye.

[Lovera]

About honors concentration i has wanted (finding in My Hands database one mounth back-hands played on December) the frequence and i have found this : Hands with only one conc. (3 or also 4 honors) (the number is referred as number of order of the hand) balanced n. 10,17(4h),35(halfbal.),37,43,44(4h),57(halfbal.),58,70,71,90,92,102(halfbal.),106,122 (=tot.14); unbalanced n. 1,8,33,59,65(4h),80(4h),113,120,131,136 (=tot.10). Whit two concetrations on the same line or with an hand of opp: both balanced 4,20*,31,77(halfbalanced/balanced)*(=tot. 4) unbal/bal :62,69,100,137*(=tot.4)(*=on the same line). The percentage upon 137 hands played seems high to me if we consider that honors had to be distributed (hoping can be usefull), bye. Edited December 25, 2015 by Lovera

[Lovera]

Let's say that consider 24% a (prudential ?) percentage with 2(=no) vs 1 that you can have it on yours line when visualize 3/4 honors. I have wanted to controll upon many hands having different rescountring for 1 concentration whilest few for 2 on same line. Today i have experiment on my home mixing sevent times cards every time i deal : first time 4/10 for 1 concentration, second time always upon 10 dealing all three possibilities are exited. I think it had to be considered and if anyone has already noticed it precedently if can talk about. When at table i saw three Kings i though that partner cannot have three Ace (infact ..!) than i ended in game. But probably i must review it, bye.

[Stephen Tu]

What are you proposing the problem is? Are you saying that a hand with 3 kings tends to miss slam opposite minimum opening hand with 3 aces? This really isn't an issue; if the hand with the kings is otherwise strong enough to make a slam move (having sufficient shape, lots of QJ, long running suits etc.), they can GF, then make a control showing bid of some sort, or made a splinter bid at some point in the auction. The hand with 3 aces being control rich will tend to cooperate and off you go. Weaker hands without as many aces will tend to sign off, and the kings hand gives up. In between hands, you might reach the 5 level, but RKC will tell you that partner has 2 aces not 3, and hopefully you have stopped in time.

 

On your original hand, with both hands only slightly above minimum, you do miss slam, but this is a very poor slam opposite a fairly obvious club lead, and even without the club lead requires favorable suit splits, so it shouldn't be one you should be concerned about missing. With better hands there are slower routes than just jumping to game. Jumping to game limits one's hand to minimum GF types not interested in slam unless partner has significant undisclosed extras.

[PhantomSac]

I am impressed that Stephen is able to read and respond to an otherwise solely lycier/lovera thread.

[Lovera]

What are you proposing the problem is? Are you saying that a hand with 3 kings tends to miss slam opposite minimum opening hand with 3 aces? This really isn't an issue; if the hand with the kings is otherwise strong enough to make a slam move (having sufficient shape, lots of QJ, long running suits etc.), they can GF, then make a control showing bid of some sort, or made a splinter bid at some point in the auction. The hand with 3 aces being control rich will tend to cooperate and off you go. Weaker hands without as many aces will tend to sign off, and the kings hand gives up. In between hands, you might reach the 5 level, but RKC will tell you that partner has 2 aces not 3, and hopefully you have stopped in time.

 

On your original hand, with both hands only slightly above minimum, you do miss slam, but this is a very poor slam opposite a fairly obvious club lead, and even without the club lead requires favorable suit splits, so it shouldn't be one you should be concerned about missing. With better hands there are slower routes than just jumping to game. Jumping to game limits one's hand to minimum GF types not interested in slam unless partner has significant undisclosed extras.

As i have told i though partner had not three Aces having i three Kings (but now ..). About Rkb : i cannot with only a key whilest if partner do after query for Q we are on. But the problem that i try to focus is :how to manage(=read signal) these three honors (by both side) to consider ?Then is right that we had to have favoureble add but also we have a 4-4 fit and King of spade. Thanks for dialogue that always helpfull for informations and many wishes for these days, bye.

[Stephen Tu]

On *the posted hand*, it is not sensible for either hand to bid RKC. If either hand does, I suppose you bid the slam, then go down on the club honor lead. You are supposed to be happy you stopped, I don't know why you keep on posting like you want to be there! The kings hand is simply not strong enough to make a slam try. If it were stronger, and partner cooperated, it *is* OK to keycard with only one key when holding the Q of trumps. Partner with only 2 won't bypass the 5H level so you are OK. West bidding RKC isn't bad because of holding only one keycard + q of trumps. It's because the hand isn't overall strong enough to force slam, or even invite, opposite a min.

 

The key for you is to learn about slower bidding and cue-bidding to slams. By establish GF at a lower level, then one hand showing extra value by cue-bidding, then you can elicit cooperation between the partners. A stronger west keeps the bidding lower and tries cue-bidding. East with 3 aces cooperates. After you are reasonably sure that E-W have enough stuff for 12 tricks then one of the two can RKC as a safety check against missing two keycards.

 

East, on the actual hand, opposite a minimum GF, should not ever bid on when partner made no slam tries. RKC is not a slam try tool. It is a slam avoidance tool. The key is for the partners to communicate *below game*, that together have enough extras that slam is in the picture. West on a different hand than the one posted, stronger, shows extra strength by GF at a lower level, setting trumps, then cue bidding, as opposed to simply jumping to game. East can then cooperate by cue bidding the aces.

[lycier]

 

RKC is not a slam try tool. It is a slam avoidance tool.

 

I first heard this point of view,your comments are wonderful.

[Lovera]

On *the posted hand*, it is not sensible for either hand to bid RKC. If either hand does, I suppose you bid the slam, then go down on the club honor lead. You are supposed to be happy you stopped, I don't know why you keep on posting like you want to be there! The kings hand is simply not strong enough to make a slam try. If it were stronger, and partner cooperated, it *is* OK to keycard with only one key when holding the Q of trumps. Partner with only 2 won't bypass the 5H level so you are OK. West bidding RKC isn't bad because of holding only one keycard + q of trumps. It's because the hand isn't overall strong enough to force slam, or even invite, opposite a min.

 

The key for you is to learn about slower bidding and cue-bidding to slams. By establish GF at a lower level, then one hand showing extra value by cue-bidding, then you can elicit cooperation between the partners. A stronger west keeps the bidding lower and tries cue-bidding. East with 3 aces cooperates. After you are reasonably sure that E-W have enough stuff for 12 tricks then one of the two can RKC as a safety check against missing two keycards.

 

East, on the actual hand, opposite a minimum GF, should not ever bid on when partner made no slam tries. RKC is not a slam try tool. It is a slam avoidance tool. The key is for the partners to communicate *below game*, that together have enough extras that slam is in the picture. West on a different hand than the one posted, stronger, shows extra strength by GF at a lower level, setting trumps, then cue bidding, as opposed to simply jumping to game. East can then cooperate by cue bidding the aces.

As cards lie to make slam needs trump 3-2 and that Ace of spade is leading before club suit. About requirement for RKB by W i actually don't think (but i'll consider subsequently) is possibile iniziate it. You are talking that if had bidded 3♥(=forcing 14-18) probably partner that has my same problem (i have 3 Aces partner cannot have 3 Kings..) to indicate force(=15-16) cuebidding diamond for have informations in spade with my cue(=17-18) and starting Rkb knowing after Kitng of spade get to six. Rightly now is easier to N to find club than it is riskyous. Although seems that cue is the way to indicate and signal for both the presence of three honors (E not has KQ in club). Infact only a pair has bidded slam (in NT although), bye.

[lycier]

As cards lie to make slam needs trump 3-2 and that Ace of spade is leading before club suit. About requirement for RKB by W i actually don't think (but i'll consider subsequently) is possibile iniziate it. You are talking that if had bidded 3♥(=forcing 14-18) probably partner that has my same problem (i have 3 Aces partner cannot have 3 Kings..) to indicate force(=15-16) cuebidding diamond for have informations in spade with my cue(=17-18) and starting Rkb knowing after Kitng of spade get to six. Rightly now is easier to N to find club than it is riskyous. Although seems that cue is the way to indicate and signal for both the presence of three honors (E not has KQ in club). Infact only a pair has bidded slam (in NT although), bye.

 

Strangely you wouldn't understand your bidding issues.

If you wanna to probe for potential slam,why do you employ "Fast Arrivel" principle to directly bid up to 4♥ game instead of cuebid at lower level?

It should know "Fast Arrivel" is equal to deny slammish interest,so slower bidding at lower level is slammish tries.

[Stephen Tu]

As cards lie to make slam needs trump 3-2 and that Ace of spade is leading before club suit.

You also need diamonds to not be horrible. Actually as cards lie you don't need defender to lead ace of spades, just need a non club-honor lead, as declarer can play on spades himself, needing the SJ onside to get his club pitch. But it doesn't seem to be sinking in that *this is a BAD slam*. Only a really bad player leads SA in preference to honor from CKQ vs. slam. So for bidding discussion I am only recommending different bidding for some hypothetical other hand, where West is stronger, where you actually do want to be in slam. On this hand you want to stop in 4!

 

About requirement for RKB by W i actually don't think (but i'll consider subsequently) is possibile iniziate it. You are talking that if had bidded 3♥(=forcing 14-18)

Keep in mind that:

1. These days it's rare for 3♥ in 1♣-1♦-1♥-3♥ to be played as forcing. Most people play this sequence as 10-12 invitational non-forcing, so to force they have to stick in another artificial bid in between (usu 1♠, 2♠, or 2♦) to make it forcing. Playing the direct jump to 3♥ forcing is considered old-fashioned (although I personally kind of like it).

2. If you do play it as forcing, normally there is no upper limit, there is no reason to restrict it to 18-. One does not jump shift immediately with all 19+ hands as this robs your own bidding space on some hard to describe hands (two-suiters, hands that want to find out more about opener's holdings); players playing strong jump shifts usually limit it to certain hand types.

 

probably partner that has my same problem (i have 3 Aces partner cannot have 3 Kings..)

There is no logic to your assumption "I have 3 aces therefore partner cannot have 3 kings", or vice versa. The bidding puts certain constraints on partner, puts certain minimums on their total strength. If you are looking at 3 aces, and partner is known to be strong enough to have slam interest, it is quite likely he has a large # of kings! He has at most one ace, so to have enough strength to be interested in slam and show extras, it is very likely that a large # of kings are held, as with lots of QJs instead, these are supposed to be overvalued honors and he isn't supposed to be making slam moves holding quacks instead of kings. On the other hand, if you have all the kings, and partner opened the bidding, by the same logic he rates to have a couple aces, as it's hard to have enough QJs to add up to an opening bid. Now having 3 aces rather than 2, no guarantees, but that's what cue bidding is for. Hands with all 3 aces will tend to be maximum and cooperate, while with only 2 will less likely be max.

 

But the main thing on this hand for you to digest is:

1. You should be happy not to be in slam, the hands aren't strong enough.

2. If you were actually stronger, then take a lower route.

 

 

Infact only a pair has bidded slam (in NT although), bye.

And rightly so, most people should not bid slam, it is a bad slam! It is a bad field if 12 tricks are making most of the time.

[Lovera]

As Stephen Tu has pointed in his long and datailed post this slam is fragile and doesn't convein to bid it either for conditions to make that has to be sured reducing percentage or for information that partnership needs to have if approach and give at opp and this one i looked for (i did not want necessary in slam). About bidding forcing (1♥-3♥) a question :if i will use it and "alert" indicating "14-18 forcing " in box (in yellow) partner read it before make his bidding ruleing than consequently ? Yes, the assumption " if i have 3 ..." is a sillogism and this one often get off-road but, considering cards distribution already to have 3 honors seems to me a "lucky strike" let's figure two ones. To respond also to lycier, i have bidded four not thinking partner had more of two Aces and because anytime after having bidded 3.. pass. This honors situation happens where bidding is 1NT or 2♣ or 2NT, double etc than bidding showing force and this the aim to insert cue to indicate this "sort" of extra if you will grow up probabilities to consider it with success.

[nullve]

It may not be sufficient to get you to slam, but East should definitely open 1N (15-17) using any decent hand evaluator (i.e. not Milton Work) that has been normalised to yield a total of 10 points for an ace, a king, a queen and a jack.

[lorddarryl]

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|barbs1234,Lovera,spiksplint,kippetje29|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S289AH4JD29C345QK%2CS5KH27QKD56TQKC8J%2CS46JH56TD478JC67T%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%20429%7Csv%7Cb%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1C%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1D%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CCT%7C

This is all in code

[Lovera]

Infact other pairs had opened and closed 1NT-3NT. But partner may have considered a major room for bidding with 1♣ and having Aces and 9. I infact was on going to reverse heart when fit was revealed.

[Lovera]

Because this topic is on the stage "work-in-progress" and anyone that can integrate it for indication of "force" is welcome, yet 'cause few days ago i have realized 13 tricks in a spade contract (i have not declared it having QJxx in club suit of opp in a competitive bidding whilest at another table a pair will get six via cue bidds) realizing subsequently that in my hand i had three Jacks ..of the type "mirror top honors" style for another slam to play. Than, reviewing my list indicated previously the hands 17*,20,37*,77,80,100,106,120,122,131* get slam and those one with "*" had also direct slam bidding (why/how ?!). Fourthemore we can add at these the hands by MrAce board 12 and that of oryctolagi in topic "I call Shenanigans". It is an interesting situation that, off of any consideration, if it should represent in future, i think can be usefull and indicative to "rule" for an eventual slam bidding, bye.