Who did too much?

[Tramticket]

[hv=pc=n&w=st54hq9dakqcaqj42&e=sak97hk83dj93ck76&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1c(Natural%20%5B4%2B%5D)p1sp2n(18-19)p4np6nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Although one pair made 6NT on the lead of the ace of hearts, it has no play on any other lead.

 

Who (if any) has bid too much?

[ahydra]

It has a tiny amount of play - lead a heart, hope opponents take their ace, and then try for a major-suit squeeze on North (in doing so you can also pick up QJ doubleton in spades).

 

I think this is overall quite unlucky due to the duplication in diamonds. If I had to ATB to anyone I would say West - not because I'm beancounting ("he only has 18") but because of honours in short suits, and the unilateral decision to bid 6NT rather than something to offer a choice with an in-between hand, such as 5C, 5NT, or 6C. (Not that 6C is any better, I guess.)

 

ahydra

[The_Badger]

My view is West has overvalued their hand. What's the point of East using a 4NT quantitative bid when partner just ignores it and bid 6NT. That ♥Q9 isn't necessarily an asset. (After writing this I did a K&R evaluation and West comes out at 17.50 only)

 

For completeness I did a K&R on the East hand and that only comes out at 13.40. But I still blame West. Agree with ahydra's analysis too.

[rmnka447]

I agree with the previous two posts.

 

On the bidding, West also knows something about responder's hand. First of all, responder is marked with an opening hand by inviting with 4 NT. Partner didn't bid 1 ♦ so likely can't have 5 ♦, otherwise a 1 ♦ response followed by a reverse into ♠ would be normal. Responder is also unlikely to have 5 ♠, else 1 ♠ followed by 3 ♠ or NMF over 2NT depending on bidding agreements. Likewise, with 5 ♠/4 ♥ responder would bid 3 ♥ or NMF over 2 NT depending on bidding agreements. With 4-4 in the majors, responder would have bid 1 ♥ instead of 1 ♠.

 

So the following picture emerges of responder's hand 4 ♠, 3 or less ♥, 4 or less ♦, 4 or less ♣. So it looks like no secondary "long" suit tricks except if a 4-3 fit in ♦ and/or ♠ comes in. So slam would seem to depend strictly on total values (i.e., a power slam).

[Stephen Tu]

It's rather unlucky IMO. Consider if West has hj instead of cj, it's 68% + some small squeeze chances. Or if east has hj instead of dj just need 4-1 clubs. Or east could be 4342 with same honors. Or West could have aq tight of hearts and kqx of diamonds. I think you need relay system to really be able to figure out that supposed to stay out.

[Winstonm]

My view is West has overvalued their hand. What's the point of East using a 4NT quantitative bid when partner just ignores it and bid 6NT. That ♥Q9 isn't necessarily an asset. (After writing this I did a K&R evaluation and West comes out at 17.50 only)

 

For completeness I did a K&R on the East hand and that only comes out at 13.40. But I still blame West. Agree with ahydra's analysis too.

 

I agree totally with these sentiments and would only add the East's bidding is strongly suggestive of 4333 shape which further diminishes the chance of 12 tricks.

[bravejason]

I'm of the opposite opinion. I think East did too much. He has a flat hand, 14 HCP, and nothing about his hand suggests that it is worth more than 14 points. Yet, he invited slam despite knowing his partner held less than 20 points and also had a balanced hand. West bid the natural no trump, so his maximum hand value was known to East. I don't think West was wrong to think that he had a maximum for his bid.

 

I think East was did too much with the 4NT invite because even if West has a maximum, the partnership is still missing 7 points, or an ace and king equivalent, so needing a finesse to make the contract was very possible. And as another poster said, the flat hand means that declarer has to take all or nearly all of his tricks with high cards. Also, East is the one with the 4333 distribution so he knew about the poor distribution whereas West can only make educated guesses about East's distribution.

 

All that said, I think the slam was worth a shot. Whether I'm East or West, I'm looking for an excuse to bid the slam.

[Zelandakh]

I'm of the opposite opinion. I think East did too much. He has a flat hand, 14 HCP, and nothing about his hand suggests that it is worth more than 14 points. Yet, he invited slam despite knowing his partner held less than 20 points

In a world in which one would need 34 hcp for a slam you would have a point. In this world though East fully has their bid and West slightly misevalauated. The end result was nonetheless unlucky. In fact everything the first reply said - there really is not any need for anything extra to be written.

[Geldmacher]

For one point the West is missing, he has a fifth ♣. This is a trick!

The chances of such slams seem to be 50%.

I would do it and not complain.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=st54hq9dakqcaqj42&e=sak97hk83dj93ck76&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1c(Natural%20%5B4%2B%5D)p1sp2n(18-19)p4np6nppp]266|200|

Although one pair made 6NT on the lead of the ace of hearts, it has no play on any other lead.

Who (if any) has bid too much?[/hv]

In 6N, you should probably rely on the double ♠ finesse.

Provided you have adequate controls, 32 HCP is usually enough for a slam.

It's the minor-suit duplication that renders 6N a bad contract.

As Stephen Tu points out: If you relocate a minor knave to the ♥ suit, then this auction becomes unremarkable.

[GrahamJson]

It's rather unlucky IMO. Consider if West has hj instead of cj, it's 68% + some small squeeze chances. Or if east has hj instead of dj just need 4-1 clubs. Or east could be 4342 with same honors. Or West could have aq tight of hearts and kqx of diamonds. I think you need relay system to really be able to figure out that supposed to stay out.

I agree completely with these comments. Allocating blame is largely resulting. Yes, you could say that east should devalue his hand for being 4333, or west for having AKQ bare in diamonds, but, as Stephen points out, even a minor change, not related to these defects, makes 6NT an excellent contract.

[yunling]

My evaluator rates west as 17.5 and east 14 so west streched a little too far, with no high card in partner's longest suit, red suit honors aren't fascinating.

[PhilG007]

[hv=pc=n&w=st54hq9dakqcaqj42&e=sak97hk83dj93ck76&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1c(Natural%20%5B4%2B%5D)p1sp2n(18-19)p4np6nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Although one pair made 6NT on the lead of the ace of hearts, it has no play on any other lead.

 

Who (if any) has bid too much?

I cant blame either player on the bidding. It was bad luck Its just one of these things

The pair that made it just got lucky and luck really does play a big part in this game(!)

[gszes]

while the slam has little/no play bidding 6 is hardly the most horrific thing ever done. It appears to me east was being too optimistic. The dia J surely is worth far less than its normal 1 so with a max useful hcp count of around 32, with balanced opposite balanced, it seems quiet 3n is in order vs an invite. I do not blame w for accepting since they have an unexpected 5 card suit even though it contains a probably overvalued jack.

[GrahamJson]

while the slam has little/no play bidding 6 is hardly the most horrific thing ever done. It appears to me east was being too optimistic. The dia J surely is worth far less than its normal 1 so with a max useful hcp count of around 32, with balanced opposite balanced, it seems quiet 3n is in order vs an invite. I do not blame w for accepting since they have an unexpected 5 card suit even though it contains a probably overvalued jack.

Change the west hand to 1054 AQ KQ2 AQJ42 and there is no change in its evaluation yet 6NT is cold, barring a 5-0 club break. If east had settled for a quiet 3NT who would then be to blame for missing the slam?

[Winstonm]

Change the west hand to 1054 AQ KQ2 AQJ42 and there is no change in its evaluation yet 6NT is cold, barring a 5-0 club break. If east had settled for a quiet 3NT who would then be to blame for missing the slam?

 

I would argue that there is a significant change in evaluation between the two hands, whereas Q9 is a much less valuable holding than KQ2, especially on an auction where partner's only biddable suit is opener's weakest. As long as we're changing hands, change responder's hand to AKQJ, xxx, Jxx, Kxx and there is no genuine play. :)

[Zelandakh]

As long as we're changing hands, change responder's hand to AKQJ, xxx, Jxx, Kxx and there is no genuine play.

You can add a point to either hand and come up with a no-play 6NT by the simple method of having a missing AK in a suit. For your hand above, adding ♥J works as the ♥AK is still absent. We can equally remove the ♦AK and add ♥AJ, ♠QJ to the West hand to provide cashing diamonds. It hardly brings us further thought does it?

[RD350LC]

[hv=pc=n&w=st54hq9dakqcaqj42&e=sak97hk83dj93ck76&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1c(Natural%20%5B4%2B%5D)p1sp2n(18-19)p4np6nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Although one pair made 6NT on the lead of the ace of hearts, it has no play on any other lead.

 

Who (if any) has bid too much?

As everybody has stated their opinion, I decided to put in my 2 cents worth. My view is that when west bid 2NT, showing 18-19 hcp, he has shown the FULL value of his hand. When east invited with 4NT, he was a minimum for his bidding, and thus should pass.

However, west had 14 hcp, and even on a maximum for east of 19 hcp, does not really have enough to invite slam. His hand is 4333, and generally 34 hcp are required for slam in that case-and 19 + 14 does not equal 34.

So, in my opinion, both players were optimistic, and this led to a poor slam.

[Winstonm]

You can add a point to either hand and come up with a no-play 6NT by the simple method of having a missing AK in a suit. For your hand above, adding ♥J works as the ♥AK is still absent. We can equally remove the ♦AK and add ♥AJ, ♠QJ to the West hand to provide cashing diamonds. It hardly brings us further thought does it?

 

Exactly. The issue IMO is hand evaluation. Both hands seemed to have added to their values when I would think neither hand worth a promotion - one with Qx and the other 4333.

[Tramticket]

Thank you all.

 

I held the East cards and was in two minds whether to invite. I didn't like the 4333 shape but it was the KXX in partner's suit (always 4+ often 5+ in our system), which persuaded me to go on.

 

I can see why partner accepted the invite, but QX in hearts does look like a downgrade - largely compensating for the 5th club.

[GrahamJson]

Exactly. The issue IMO is hand evaluation. Both hands seemed to have added to their values when I would think neither hand worth a promotion - one with Qx and the other 4333.

There is a bit of a conundrum here. It seems that no 18 point hand is worth 18 points. Either it will have some values in a short suit, so a point or two should be deducted, or it will be 4333, in which case a point should also be deducted. OK if the shortage is in partner's suit maybe you shouldn't deduct points, but you get the idea.

[Winstonm]

There is a bit of a conundrum here. It seems that no 18 point hand is worth 18 points. Either it will have some values in a short suit, so a point or two should be deducted, or it will be 4333, in which case a point should also be deducted. OK if the shortage is in partner's suit maybe you shouldn't deduct points, but you get the idea.

 

I certainly don't advocate slavish rule-following point-counting non-thinking but I also think it fairly important to have an understanding that some hands are better than others.

 

What kinds of cards are located in short suits is critical - Ax is always a trick in NT. Qx is never a trick in NT unless partner can help with the suit. Ergo, when evaluating two hands with short suit holdings of Ax, Qxx and Qx, Axx, the former is a better hand - by only a slight margin - and with no other information, provided all other cards the same.

 

But I am old and I was influenced strongly in my early knowledge of the game by reading books by Charles Goren, who emphasized that repeatedly making the odds-on play separated the expert from the novice as a winning bridge player, that if a queen is missing in a 2-way finesse, and you know that a side suit divided 4-3, absent any other information the expert will consistently take the odds-on play of finessing against the player who held 3.

 

I've always taken that advice and extrapolated it to other uses, hand-evaluation being one, and while it is certainly possible to construct hands where things work out, it is the long-term winning or losing position I always attempted to emulate.

 

FWIW. :D