Place the contract

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&s=s98532hk963da7caq&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2n(good%2019-21)p3c(5%20card%20major%20enq)p3d(Not%205M%2C%20not%202-3%20or%202-2%20M)p3hp4hp4s(kickback)p5h(2%2BQ)p]133|200[/hv]

 

Matchpoints, you know partner has good 19-21 with 4 hearts, ♠A, ♥ AQ, set the contract, 6♥, 6N ?

[DavidKok]

With two doubletons and partner having shorter spades than we do I expect to take more tricks in hearts than in NT, so isn't it between 6NT and 7♥? Also do we have to decide immediately, can we not ask for more information instead? And do we have inferences from partner's failure to superaccept over 3♥ and show a control?

[Cyberyeti]

With two doubletons and partner having shorter spades than we do I expect to take more tricks in hearts than in NT, so isn't it between 6NT and 7♥? Also do we have to decide immediately, can we not ask for more information instead? And do we have inferences from partner's failure to superaccept over 3♥ and show a control?

 

We are most of the time just bidding game here so not leaking info, he has the option of superaccepting, prob doesn't have a good 21.

[mw64ahw]

Any reason you don't have the strong hand declaring?

[pescetom]

With two doubletons and partner having shorter spades than we do I expect to take more tricks in hearts than in NT, so isn't it between 6NT and 7♥? Also do we have to decide immediately, can we not ask for more information instead? And do we have inferences from partner's failure to superaccept over 3♥ and show a control?

I agree with DavidKok, both about the choice of slam and having doubts about what an immediate 4♥ denied.

FWIW I also dislike wrongsiding hearts in the first place, plus the existence of a bid to panic with shortage :)

[DavidKok]

OK, I'll admit it. I expected to frequently not leak information over 3♥, and with that in mind I think this is a guess. At IMPs I always pick the safe slam, and at MPs that is also my preferred strategy but with 32-34 combined HCP, 5 keycards and the queen of trumps I think most people will be in slam. At the table I would probably try 5NT (asking for extras) then bid 6♥, allowing partner to bid on with a maximum with a long suit. There are layouts where 6NT is best (for example, protecting partner's potential ♠AQ if we have to set up a minor suit, losing the lead once) but I don't see a good way to find out about it.

 

I'm worried that this might be a blame transfer though. Maybe I should just guess 6/7♥ and be done with it.

[steve2005]

In book Matchpoints by Kit Woolsey he suggests playing in 6♥ with all the keycards + Q because of the possibility of making 7♥

[mikeh]

Don’t like the methods, but presumably they gain on some layouts…obviously not this one.

 

As for notrump, you’ve got to be joking.

 

Yes, one can construct hands on which one takes as many tricks in notrump as in hearts, but the smart money has hearts playing a trick better most of the time…and matchpoints is not about taking anti percentage positions in the auction in a desperate attempt to get a top…unless one feels one needs it (as can happen with barometer scoring, as an example).

 

I can’t think of any way to find out whether this is one of those hands for notrump. I need more than just ‘which kings do you have?’ I also need shape and queens…I used to play a relay method that would have made this trivial, but absent that sort of method, we’re guessing.

 

I can’t find out whether grand is reasonable. Say AK AQ10x Kxx KJxx

 

Or hopeless. AQx AQxx KQx KJx

 

When you see that second example, you understand why most good pairs design methods to let the strong hand declare. Were opener playing the hand, and trump behaved, he could eliminate the minors and hope to duck a spade into east…if he has AQ10, it’s cold under those conditions….here, 6H might fail on a spade lead. Note that this endplay doesn’t work in notrump…which is a clue as to why notrump is usually inferior on these sorts of hands.

 

I bid 6H. I’m not screwing around telling the opps anymore than I have already and I’m never playing tops and bottoms with 6N.

[Cyberyeti]

Any reason you don't have the strong hand declaring?

 

That is the way the method we use works, yes we could change it, in this case we have a tenace in the weak hand that needs protecting. It's cost us once in the 25+ years of the partnership.

[Cyberyeti]

Don’t like the methods, but presumably they gain on some layouts…obviously not this one.

 

As for notrump, you’ve got to be joking.

 

Yes, one can construct hands on which one takes as many tricks in notrump as in hearts, but the smart money has hearts playing a trick better most of the time…and matchpoints is not about taking anti percentage positions in the auction in a desperate attempt to get a top…unless one feels one needs it (as can happen with barometer scoring, as an example).

 

I can’t think of any way to find out whether this is one of those hands for notrump. I need more than just ‘which kings do you have?’ I also need shape and queens…I used to play a relay method that would have made this trivial, but absent that sort of method, we’re guessing.

 

I can’t find out whether grand is reasonable. Say AK AQ10x Kxx KJxx

 

Or hopeless. AQx AQxx KQx KJx

 

When you see that second example, you understand why most good pairs design methods to let the strong hand declare. Were opener playing the hand, and trump behaved, he could eliminate the minors and hope to duck a spade into east…if he has AQ10, it’s cold under those conditions….here, 6H might fail on a spade lead. Note that this endplay doesn’t work in notrump…which is a clue as to why notrump is usually inferior on these sorts of hands.

 

I bid 6H. I’m not screwing around telling the opps anymore than I have already and I’m never playing tops and bottoms with 6N.

 

I felt I wanted to be in hearts unless partner had precisely ♠AKQ most of the time, NT also may protect you if partner has AQxx and they're 4-1.

 

Partner of course has:

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sakqhaqj2dk86cj62]133|100[/hv]

 

so: (ignoring the 5-0s at this stage, they're rare, some people played 6♠ which is the same as 6N as far as what makes)

 

both majors 3-2 - 6♥ has 13 tricks, 6N has 12 with a finesse for 13

hearts 3-2 spades 4-1 - 6♥ 12 finesse for 13, 6N 11 finesse for 12

hearts 4-1 spades 3-2 - 6♥ 13 unless the diamonds break terribly, NT 12 and a finesse for 13

both 4-1 - both 11 and a finesse for 12

 

I bid 6♥, of course the club finesse worked (in fact both suits were 4-1).

[mw64ahw]

That is the way the method we use works, yes we could change it, in this case we have a tenace in the weak hand that needs protecting. It's cost us once in the 25+ years of the partnership.

It works well in this case on a ♠ lead.

I often wonder what the stats are on having the strong hand declare as often double dummy suggests it makes no difference and when it does, I've seen it work both ways.

This goes for information leakage as well; how often does it make a difference statistically versus DD compared to say a guess versus a more educated guess?

[DavidKok]

Opposite that hand I think all roads lead to 6♥, that is a lousy minimum.

 

I'm not too worried about wrongsiding the contract. I think you will run into warnings (from other players) of protecting a tenace far more often than actual tenaces to be protected. I do put great value on making opener captain of the auction though, and not letting them judge the value of their hand until the 6-level (and even then it is extremely reasonable to ignore it since it is too little too late) is not ideal.

[Cyberyeti]

Opposite that hand I think all roads lead to 6♥, that is a lousy minimum.

 

I'm not too worried about wrongsiding the contract. I think you will run into warnings (from other players) of protecting a tenace far more often than actual tenaces to be protected. I do put great value on making opener captain of the auction though, and not letting them judge the value of their hand until the 6-level (and even then it is extremely reasonable to ignore it since it is too little too late) is not ideal.

 

We got an average for 6♥=, there were as many people not in a slam (it wasn't the finest field I've played in) as played in 6N.

 

5♠/4♥ can be awkward over 2N.

 

It's a minimum but not a lousy one given that we open about half of our 19 counts 2N.

[DavidKok]

I am a big fan of narrow range 2NT's, and opening 19's at the 1-level (even if you think they are worth an upgrade). Modern response structures such as Gazzilli over 1M and (T-)Walsh over 1♣ can handle strong hands just fine, and we save nearly two levels of bidding space. They don't call 2NT the slam killer for nothing.

 

I also play frequent superaccepts, even with 'just' an 8-card fit. I think on balance it is worth it.

[Cyberyeti]

I am a big fan of narrow range 2NT's, and opening 19's at the 1-level (even if you think they are worth an upgrade). Modern response structures such as Gazzilli over 1M and (T-)Walsh over 1♣ can handle strong hands just fine, and we save nearly two levels of bidding space. They don't call 2NT the slam killer for nothing.

 

I also play frequent superaccepts, even with 'just' an 8-card fit. I think on balance it is worth it.

 

We play a lot of superaccepts and have them available here, we just don't use them often.

 

We open good 19s 2N because of where they'd have to go otherwise in the system (we don't have 1x-1y-2N available for balanced hands), we frequently upgrade good 21s so we play about a 2.25 point range

[DavidKok]

I think that is not good at all.

 

Having multiple bids that rarely see use is the opposite of what I want, which is to have multiple calls, each with a clear definition and reasonable frequency. That way we can assess the strength of the combined hands.

 

A 2NT opener, and even the 1x-1y; 2NT auction, are big old brutes for covering strong hands. It is not at all comfortable to jump with strong hands while responder might still be very weak (not to mention the weakness of most followups over 1x-1y; 2NT). One of the big ways that systems like T-Walsh, Polish Club, Dutch Doubleton and Gazzilli win is by clarifying 17-19 hands at a low level. Upgrading 19-counts into the 2NT opener is the exact opposite of what I want to do.

[Cyberyeti]

I think that is not good at all.

 

Having multiple bids that rarely see use is the opposite of what I want, which is to have multiple calls, each with a clear definition and reasonable frequency. That way we can assess the strength of the combined hands.

 

A 2NT opener, and even the 1x-1y; 2NT auction, are big old brutes for covering strong hands. It is not at all comfortable to jump with strong hands while responder might still be very weak (not to mention the weakness of most followups over 1x-1y; 2NT). One of the big ways that systems like T-Walsh, Polish Club, Dutch Doubleton and Gazzilli win is by clarifying 17-19 hands at a low level. Upgrading 19-counts into the 2NT opener is the exact opposite of what I want to do.

 

It's a tradeoff, the 1x-1y-2N bid we gain by the approach is a big winner and clarifies pretty much all the unbalanced big hands without losing the natural NF 2♣ rebid.

[DavidKok]

I think you misread, I also have an artificial 1x-1y; 2NT. I don't think your approach wins over the methods I suggested.

[Cyberyeti]

I think you misread, I also have an artificial 1x-1y; 2NT. I don't think your approach wins over the methods I suggested.

 

What's your 2N rebid ?

[DavidKok]

My 2NT rebids are relatively simple:

 

1♦-1M; 2NT is 6(+)♦, 3M, strong (the BW death hand - it depends on partnership agreements whether you want this to be GF or just forcing to suit agreement at the 3-level. My preference is GF), though with an unbalanced diamond I think it's better to play Gazzilli so that this becomes a specific type 4-card major suit raise.

1♦-1NT; 2NT is stronger than 1♦-1NT; 3♦.

 

1♣-1♦* (Dutch Doubleton); 2NT does not exist (a 1NT rebid would have shown 17-19).

1♣-1M; 2NT is 17-19 balanced GF, since 1M promises 8HCP (although we may upgrade for this bid).

1♣-1NT; 2NT does not exist (17-19 balanced bids 3NT, hands with clubs bid 2/3♣ or their second suit) but I suppose it should be a soft 3♣ rebid.

 

It has become increasingly popular to play 1♣-1M; 2♦ as either 17-19 bal or a real reverse, with 1♣-1M; 2NT showing the BW death hand. I think this is an improvement.

 

But most importantly, the point is not to make some clever use of the 2NT rebid, it is to stay low on the 19 opposite 4-5 point hands. You can fill the 2NT with any artificial hand (GF long minor or GF artificial raise are popular) once it's freed up.

 

Edit: I forgot to include the major suit openings. 1M-1X (so NT or 1♥-1♠); 2NT shows 6M4m GF, part of standard Gazzilli.

[Cyberyeti]

My 2NT rebids are relatively simple:

 

1♦-1M; 2NT is 6(+)♦, 3M, strong (the BW death hand - it depends on partnership agreements whether you want this to be GF or just forcing to suit agreement at the 3-level. My preference is GF), though with an unbalanced diamond I think it's better to play Gazzilli so that this becomes a specific type 4-card major suit raise.

1♦-1NT; 2NT is stronger than 1♦-1NT; 3♦.

 

1♣-1♦* (Dutch Doubleton); 2NT does not exist (a 1NT rebid would have shown 17-19).

1♣-1M; 2NT is 17-19 balanced GF, since 1M promises 8HCP (although we may upgrade for this bid).

1♣-1NT; 2NT does not exist (17-19 balanced bids 3NT, hands with clubs bid 2/3♣ or their second suit) but I suppose it should be a soft 3♣ rebid.

 

It has become increasingly popular to play 1♣-1M; 2♦ as either 17-19 bal or a real reverse, with 1♣-1M; 2NT showing the BW death hand. I think this is an improvement.

 

But most importantly, the point is not to make some clever use of the 2NT rebid, it is to stay low on the 19 opposite 4-5 point hands. You can fill the 2NT with any artificial hand (GF long minor or GF artificial raise are popular) once it's freed up.

 

Edit: I forgot to include the major suit openings. 1M-1X (so NT or 1♥-1♠); 2NT shows 6M4m GF, part of standard Gazzilli.

 

We play 4 card majors so the structure is different, but 1x-1y-2N covers all 4 card GF raises of partner's suit except 4441s, BW death hand and huge 6-4s.

[DavidKok]

As long as you have a way to play your 19-opposite-4 in 2 of a suit it's all fine, like I said.

[mw64ahw]

Using a Transfer Walsh approach

 

1♣-1R-2NT for me shows a strong hand with

a) 6+♣ 3M

b) 6+♣ stronger than 1♣-1R-3♣

c) 5+♣ 4M GF not balanced

while

1♣-1R-2D is a strong hand without the other major or an intermediate hand with 3-card support, and

1♣-1R-2M is a strong hand with the other Major.

 

1♣-1R-1NT is used to show the semi-balanced (14-16) hand

1♣-1R-1NT

[Cyberyeti]

As long as you have a way to play your 19-opposite-4 in 2 of a suit it's all fine, like I said.

 

We don't, we play it in 1N most of the time unless the 4 count has a long suit in which case we might play it in 2 of their suit

[pescetom]

I often wonder what the stats are on having the strong hand declare as often double dummy suggests it makes no difference and when it does, I've seen it work both ways.

 

I investigated this using double dummy analysis here last year, following similar speculation that right-siding suit contracts after an NT opening might not be important after all.

In a nutshell, when NT opener rather than responder plays in the suit of responder's 5-card major:

11-14 we gain 1+ trick(s) 3.1% and lose 2.7%

15-17 we gain 1+ trick(s) 5.9% and lose 2.6%

20-22 we gain 1+ trick(s) 7.5% and lose 2.6%

 

(unfortunately you won't currently be able to rerun the scripts, because shortly after that BBO took down the version of Dealer that supports double dummy calculation and has not yet restored it).