problem hand

[deep]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjhaq74d8632ck7&n=sk2hkj2dak94caq42]133|200[/hv]

SOUTH 1NT North 6NT

 

How should you play to make 7NT? thanks for help me.

[Cyberyeti]

You have 12 off the top, better hope the same hand has 4+♣/3+♦, cash off 3 spades, 4 hearts, 2 diamonds and hope that with ♣AQ42 opposite ♦86 ♣K7 the guy who controlled both suits was squeezed. This is a N/B squeeze really rather than an I/A one.

[Tramticket]

The squeeze described by Cyberyeti is automatic (it will succeed if either opponent has both 4+ clubs and 3+ diamonds). But it is less than a 50:50 chance

 

The duplicated spade values is a little unfortunate. Assuming that the 1NT opening was 15-17, I might have bid 5NT - inviting a raise to 7NT with a maximum.

[Cyberyeti]

The squeeze described by Cyberyeti is automatic (it will succeed if either opponent has both 4+ clubs and 3+ diamonds). But it is less than a 50:50 chance

 

The duplicated spade values is a little unfortunate. Assuming that the 1NT opening was 15-17, I might have bid 5NT - inviting a raise to 7NT with a maximum.

 

Then the black Js will be swapped with small ones and 7 will be laydown with a less attractive 16.

[Tramticket]

Then the black Js will be swapped with small ones and 7 will be laydown with a less attractive 16.

 

Are you arguing that they should respond 7NT immediately rather than invite 7NT?

[pescetom]

This is a N/B squeeze really rather than an I/A one.

Most N/B players go hazy eyed even at the concept of squeeze, let alone the idea of intentionally executing one.

If they know that 20 + 15 = 6NT and 20 + 17 = 7NT then they are already doing well.

[Cyberyeti]

Are you arguing that they should respond 7NT immediately rather than invite 7NT?

 

No, I'm just saying 5N doesn't really help if AQJ/Kx in the blacks is not good AQx/KJ is, it does however mean you will be there opposite all 17s so it may be the best option absent decent tech. Staying out of it opposite 15s needn't be great either, Axx, AQxx, Qxxx, Kx is a very decent grand, and the same with 3 hearts and Q109xx diamonds is cold.

 

We would bid this much more slowly anyway to see if south has 5 hearts where a spade ruff might be the 13th trick, or 7m is possible. We play 1N-2♣

-2♥-2♠ as MSS so would start that way, agree diamonds, discover the Q is missing and probably settle for 6N, we at least know we're opposite a 2443 or 3442.

[FelicityR]

It's more of a problem bidding than it is to play as it stands. As both Cyberyeti and Tramticket have constructively commented, changing some small honour cards over can make all the difference between 6NT being available and 7NT or 7♦.

 

Given South the ♦Q instead of the ♠Q and except if you have a way of finding out all the controls, red queens and 4-4 ♦ fit available between the two hands after a 1NT opening bid, then you are going to be unsure whether a grand slam is available.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saj3haq74dq632ck7&n=sk2hkj2dak94caq42]133|200[/hv]

[Cyberyeti]

It's more of a problem bidding than it is to play as it stands. As both Cyberyeti and Tramticket have constructively commented, changing some small honour cards over can make all the difference between 6NT being available and 7NT or 7♦.

 

Given South the ♦Q instead of the ♠Q and except if you have a way of finding out all the controls, red queens and 4-4 ♦ fit available between the two hands after a 1NT opening bid, then you are going to be unsure whether a grand slam is available.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saj3haq74dq632ck7&n=sk2hkj2dak94caq42]133|200[/hv]

 

We bid that one:

 

1N-2♣

2♥-2♠(minor suit stayman)

3♦-4♥(Keycard, you'd never bid 2♠ with a 4 card heart fit)

5♦(2+Q)-5♥K)

5N(♥Q)-6♣("I have ♣ K or Q, bid 7 with the other")

7♦-7N(if diamonds come in you can count 13, if not you may have other chances)

[FelicityR]

We bid that one:

 

1N-2♣

2♥-2♠(minor suit stayman)

3♦-4♥(Keycard, you'd never bid 2♠ with a 4 card heart fit)

5♦(2+Q)-5♥K)

5N(♥Q)-6♣("I have ♣ K or Q, bid 7 with the other")

7♦-7N(if diamonds come in you can count 13, if not you may have other chances)

 

Which proves that in an experienced partnership, if you have the range of conventional bids available, you will always outscore players who haven't got these conventions and gadgets at their disposal.

 

I read in an American bridge magazine recently that many players - a poll was conducted amongst top American players - consider bidding to more important than declarer play and defence put together, some even rating it at 80%, though the usual figure was nearer 60-70%.

[Cyberyeti]

Which proves that in an experienced partnership, if you have the range of conventional bids available, you will always outscore players who haven't got these conventions and gadgets at their disposal.

 

I read in an American bridge magazine recently that many players - a poll was conducted amongst top American players - consider bidding to more important than declarer play and defence put together, some even rating it at 80%, though the usual figure was nearer 60-70%.

 

Among top experts maybe, among intermediates, avoiding errors in defence will probably net quicker wins in most partnerships.

[mikeh]

Which proves that in an experienced partnership, if you have the range of conventional bids available, you will always outscore players who haven't got these conventions and gadgets at their disposal.

 

I read in an American bridge magazine recently that many players - a poll was conducted amongst top American players - consider bidding to more important than declarer play and defence put together, some even rating it at 80%, though the usual figure was nearer 60-70%.

My guess is that if one took say the top 500 pairs in the world (tho identifying the bottom 300 of those would be problematic :rolleyes: ), and gave each member a set of not-exotic but challenging hands to declare, with identical opposition bidding and opening leads, 8-900 or more of the 1000 players would adopt essentially the same line of play. A few would get it 'wrong', but very few, and a slightly greater number would find a slight edge, if there were one.

 

Give those same pairs a set of complex bidding hands, again not exotic but challenging, and you'd get scores and maybe hundreds of auctions, since almost all top expert partnerships have many idiosyncratic variations in their methods.

 

Put another way: it is mathematically possible to demonstrate the best single dummy line: where variations may arise is usually because of the inferences a player may draw from the auction, or the defence, but the starting point will be the same for everyone. By contrast, it is impossible (or as close to impossible as to make no difference) to mathematically prove the superiority of one complex well designed method over another. One method may be clearly better on some hand types, but will inevitably be worse on others. One may deal better with interference than another, but be worse on unobstructed auctions, and so on.

 

Also different players have different tastes and willingness to memorize system...some will believe that it is better to cut down on complexity to minimize accidents, at the cost of making the system less comprehensive, while others will gladly take on the memory load.

 

Now, go down to the club level and my view is that the average player bids terribly and plays/defends no better.

 

I have watched non-expert games on BBO, usually when a friend or friends are playing, and I have also looked at the bidding and play of hands when I have been playing imps against friends, scored against the greater field...seeing how it came about that we won or lost a surprising number of imps. Many is the time when the result was average, but the players got there by a combination of errors that ended up cancelling each other out.

 

I think bidding may still be more important for average players than either defence or declarer, because players tend to be in the auction on more than half the hands, but defend only 50% of the time, on average, and declare only about 25% of the time. Thus there is simply more opportunity to screw up the bidding.

[pescetom]

Among top experts maybe, among intermediates, avoiding errors in defence will probably net quicker wins in most partnerships.

Misunderstandings in bidding can cost even more dearly than errors in defence, so for intermediates it is important to balance the power of their methods with memory and comprehension constraints. The most important defensive error is a bad initial lead, but that doesn't seem particularly correlated with focus on bidding.

 

 

I think bidding may still be more important for average players than either defence or declarer, because players tend to be in the auction on more than half the hands, but defend only 50% of the time, on average, and declare only about 25% of the time. Thus there is simply more opportunity to screw up the bidding.

There is a lot of truth here, but I suspect that you both undervalue the importance of (poor) declarer play in the club context. In the average club there are probably more pairs competent (not by your standards, but all things being relative) in defence than in bidding or in declarer play. The prevelance of MP scoring changes things too.

[deep]

this is a quiz for me to solve only on how to do 7 Nt

Ty at all for help me

[AL78]

I think bidding may still be more important for average players than either defence or declarer, because players tend to be in the auction on more than half the hands, but defend only 50% of the time, on average, and declare only about 25% of the time. Thus there is simply more opportunity to screw up the bidding.

 

Going by my own personal experience, I think sharpening the defence is more important than bidding or declarer play. I typically only declare three or four hands out of 26, and over two years have defended over 70% of hands, so minimising careless mistakes in defence for partner and I will very likely reap the greatest rewards, especially at matchpoints, where blowing a defensive trick can easily net the same bottom as a bidding cock up to a silly contract. It should also be noted that many bidding sequences, competitive or otherwise, can be done using fundamental principles taught to beginners, where there is far less chance of a misunderstanding.

[pescetom]

Going by my own personal experience, I think sharpening the defence is more important than bidding or declarer play. I typically only declare three or four hands out of 26, and over two years have defended over 70% of hands, so minimising careless mistakes in defence for partner and I will very likely reap the greatest rewards, especially at matchpoints, where blowing a defensive trick can easily net the same bottom as a bidding cock up to a silly contract.

 

Defending over 70% of hands sounds more like a need to sharpen bidding than a reason to sharpen defence.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjhaq74d8632ck7&n=sk2hkj2dak94caq42&d=S&a=1NP6NPPP]200|200|

Deep asks how should you play to make 7NT?[/hv][hv=pc=n&s=D86C7&n=CAQ4&d=S&a=1NP6NPPP]200|200|

After cashing 4♥s, 3♠s, 2♦s, and ♣K,

declarer reaches Cyberyeti's 3-card ending on the left.

If either defender started with 4+ ♣s and 3+ ♦s

he has been automatically squeezed.[/hv] Rehearsing the obvious ...

• Declarer skills are important but are relevant only to about 25% of hands. Also, for many of us, there's a low ceiling on how much we can improve by learning and practice.
• Defence skills are needed on about 50% of hands. Play skills are relevant here but carding-agreements are equally important. After "Killing Defence At Bridge" (1966) and "More Killing Defence" (1972), Hugh Kelsey wrote the seminal "Improve Your Partner's Defence" (1988), showing you how you can ease partner's defensive problems..
• Bidding skills are exercised on most hands. There are considerable rewards from agreeing sensible methods, especially if you keep conventions simple and generic. It's fun designing your own system but John Matheson recommends that you cannibalize the American, Italian, and Polish methods, honed by top experts, rather than re-invent the wheel.

Edited December 24, 2019 by nige1

[mycroft]

And if it isn't obvious to you what "automatically squeezed" means, look at the constraints:

 

One defender starts with 4 clubs and the third diamond (if they have the fourth diamond as well, it doesn't matter, they pitch one).

 

North has ♣AQ4, the king having been played, and South has ♦86 and a club.

 

West (it doesn't matter here, but some squeezes only work against one opponent) is irrelevant, because he had 2 or fewer diamonds and 3 at most clubs (which will drop under the KAQ). East has to keep three clubs (or the 4 sets up) and the good diamond (or the 86 set up). But that's 4 cards - and there's only room for three. South will be able to see if the diamonds have been pitched and if the ♦8 is good; if it is, play it and then the club AQ (or be a smart**** and play the ♦6 and pitch the ♣A, winning the last club with the Q). If it's not, then play the club - if the distribution is the way you want it, East will have had to pitch down to two clubs and the good diamond, and your 4 will win. If it's not - if the length is split between the opponents - then it won't work, as West keeps three clubs and East keeps the good diamond and two random cards.

 

Unless they mispitched on the run of the major suits. Which can happen, and which is why you try this even if it's not going to work - sometimes it does anyway. Defense is hard. Interestingly, it's easier to cash the ♦AK before the hearts, because it's easier to look for however many cards are left than specifically the QJT9. But that gives the game away, and they're less likely to mispitch on the run of the hearts. Better to play them out, looking specifically for the ♦QJT9 on them or the AK.