[nullve]

Or 4♠ if partner is allowed to raise to 2♥ with 4315.

(For some,

1♣-1♥
1♠-1N
2♥

promises extras, so with a bad minimum (11-13 hcp, say) Opener might have to raise directly if at all. (And if he doesn't, a 5-3 heart fit might be missed.))

[DavidKok]

Not my personal style, and also 2♠ would not get me there unfortunately (although I could get there by bidding 2NT), but if partner can still hold that hand I definitely want to keep that option open.

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2021-November-24, 03:08, said:

You can bid 3♠ slowly, by first making another bid between 2♥ and 3♥. I strongly prefer that the jump shows a clear direction and is tightly defined - in this case a splinter bid - and that the slower route is used on more generic hand types. Your treatment does not win any space (and in fact may well cost some), so I don't understand this 'lowest level possible'. What happened to 2♠-3♦? Aren't those lower? And how does North deduce that partner has the ace of spades, and not a splinter (opposite which Kx is horrible)? Your comment implies that partner would also bid 3♠ with a splinter hand.

Our 3S jump does show a clear direction (control-bid please) and is tightly defined (first or second level control, at least mild slam interest). I might argue that a splinter is over-tightly defined and a waste of useful space, but to each his own. 3D would be a short suit game try, most likely with invitational values only. Partner can figure out that a singleton is fairly unlikely, as opps with a ten card major fit often make it known. But in any case he isn't worried as it will soon become obvious whether it was an Ace or not once keycards are declared, in this case he only had to wait for 4NT which "has" to be 4 Aces.

[DavidKok]

 pescetom, on 2021-November-24, 14:06, said:

Our 3S jump [...] is tightly defined (first or second level control, at least mild slam interest).

I'm arguing that this is not tight enough by a long shot, since neither side knows enough about partner's distribution.

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2021-November-24, 14:33, said:

I'm arguing that this is not tight enough by a long shot, since neither side knows enough about partner's distribution.

Any system has its own tradeoffs in terms of how precisely distribution is defined versus other advantages.
And nobody obliges S to use this jump if she doesn't feel it is the best bid in the circumstances, distribution seeking bids are available.

In this case bear in mind that N with minors 4-4 would have opened 1D, so at worst he is 3433 or 3424 or 2434 and more likely 2425, still interesting propositions given S hand and the possibility to nail down controls early.

[DavidKok]

 pescetom, on 2021-November-24, 16:06, said:

Any system has its own tradeoffs in terms of how precisely distribution is defined versus other advantages.
And nobody obliges S to use this jump if she doesn't feel it is the best bid in the circumstances, distribution seeking bids are available.

In this case bear in mind that N with minors 4-4 would have opened 1D, so at worst he is 3433 or 3424 or 2434 and more likely 2425, still interesting propositions given S hand and the possibility to nail down controls early.

I understand tradeoffs, but what are you gaining from this treatment? Taking the slow route still allows you to initiate control bids at the 3♠ level. Also why can partner not have raised on 3-card support, say with 1=3=4=5, or a suitable 2=3=3=5?

But even worse, say I give partner a 3=4=2=4, just to pluck a random shape from your list (not even the dreaded 3=4=3=3!). I'll give partner all the kings, and you can pick a queen for free. More than that would be cheating as you'd enter 1NT opening range. How are you staying out of slam, or, if you are in slam, how are you taking 12 tricks? I think you need partner to have the queen of hearts, and then the hearts to split 3-2 and spades to split 3-3, or maybe there's a double trump squeeze or the likes? Quite the slam opposite a maximum.

[akwoo]

 pilowsky, on 2021-November-23, 04:05, said:

I generated 64 random hands with the NS holding you describe.
Double-dummy, 3 made 5H. For the other 61, it was ~50% 6H and 50% 7H.

What is it about the South hand that should make me want to investigate slam?

Double dummy is dumb here. Double dummy you will always find the ♣Q, whereas single dummy you'll only find it a little more than half the time.

[pilowsky]

 akwoo, on 2021-November-25, 01:10, said:

Double dummy is dumb here. Double dummy you will always find the ♣Q, whereas single dummy you'll only find it a little more than half the time.

Hitting the nail on the head and missing the point completely.
I am saying that the combined hands are such that most combinations of opponent holdings result in NS being able to make 6 or 7. 61 out of 64 as it happens.
Obviously, it may be the case that in many of these situations it is hard to make or depends on this being here or that being there.


Are you suggesting that you should only try to make a slam when it is colder than an ice cube in a refrigerator in the arctic and you have a glass of Scotch that can't do without it?

[kgr]

I would probably open the N hand 1NT 15-17 (With 4=2=2=5 I would also open 1C)

[mycroft]

"Double dummy cold" is one of the ugliest things at the table, because the results are totally random. Skill might get you to 60% on those hands, if you're really good and lucky - over time. But in a 6-board match, where the swings are +/-10 to 13 IMPs, having a 60% edge on that hand (that you keep on the other hands as well) still means the match is little better than a coin-flip. And it doesn't matter if you're in it and use your skill to try to guess right, or use your skill to not be in it and hope they don't guess right. You'd much rather that board didn't show up, not against *this* team.

You should only try to *be in* slams that you can make. That is a very different proposition from "slams that can be made" - either "slams that can be made by akwoo" or "by Rodwell" or "by peeking in the opponents' hands". The barrier is not "icy cold", or "there's a line (but you might have to first-round finesse the ♠7)" or anything else. You lose less if you stay out of slams *you* can't make, even if you still lose to people who can make them (or who guess right, on the day).

And that's why naive double-dummy analysis is so dangerous and frequently just wrong. Because it's not "slams that you can make", it's "slams that GIB can make", and it takes a large amount of bridge skill, and time, to look at the DD results and convert to "would I make that?". Sometimes, it takes a large amount of bridge skill to work out, seeing all 52 cards, how GIB makes it (these are called "double-dummy problems" and can be fiendish if created; can be just truly frustrating in the bar after if created randomly).

Do you want to be in any slam that requires a two-way guess for the Queen? I don't, because I can't tell if there are other issues that will doom the slam even if I guess right (Monday it was a 5-1 trump break with a 4-2 off-suit break that would have doomed 6NT as well). Playing keycard, you don't bid slam if you're "Off one keycard and the trump Q" (granted, there isn't always a two-way guess, but still) - that's one of keycard's strengths over straight-ace Blackwood. Why would I want to do that with any other Queen? Plus, if my Q guessing is 60%, it's 60% when I don't bid slam as well. That can also be an advantage, in time.

Note: I know that *my* two-way Q guessing isn't 60%.

[mikeh]

Late to the thread

As I’m wont to say, every method has flaws.

Here, if playing a strong 1N, opener’s 2H raise is limited….if 15-17 for 1N then he has at most 14 hcp. If 14-16, an increasingly popular method (for a number of reasons…it arises far more frequently than 15-17 and it makes opening 11 counts easier since the 1N rebid is 11-13, more manageable than 11-14), then 2H is going to be at most 13 if balanced…possibly a not super 14 with shape…which is a flaw but part of the price of the method.

Opposite a hand limited to 14 hcp, I’d not even look for slam.

My shape is sterile and, most importantly, my trumps are horrible.

However, if one plays a weak 1N, and north opens 1C (either because, as for me, he’s too strong for our range or because of being only semi-balanced), the 2H raise promises either more hcp than the 1N opening or shape…and either turn the south hand into something with some interest

Reports on important team games often describe swings arising from ranges. Thus a player facing a 14-16 1N may pass with his nice 8 count or bad 9 count only to find opener with a maximum. At the other table, a 15-17 1N is enough for responder to invite and opener bids game with his good 16.

If it makes, such a result makes 15-17 look good. Had the contract failed, it would make 14-16 look good, and so on.

Here, the same sort of thing is happening. In a strong 1N context, north has an unexpectedly good hand (since it’s maximum in hcp, has great trump and a potential source of tricks). South also has a maximum for not being interested. In a weak 1N method, south expects north to hold a hand at least as good as he does and potentially quite a bit better, so he’ll try.

When both sides have maximums contracts tend to be missed, especially when poorly fitting minimums can turn pluses into minuses because the partnership can’t stop in time.

In short, which I rarely am, I don’t think blame attaches

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Do you need to find the Queen of clubs?
My declarer play is sub optimal, to put it mildly, but my take is, that you need trumps 3-2,
and clubs 4-2 or 3-3, with the club of 9 or Queen droping, you have the AKJT8, and you will
throw a diamond on the 3rd club.

Basically, you need clubs to provide 4 tricks, 5 Trumps, 2 Spades, 1 Diamond makes it 12?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Winstonm]

 mikeh, on 2021-November-25, 12:16, said:

Late to the thread

As I’m wont to say, every method has flaws.

Here, if playing a strong 1N, opener’s 2H raise is limited….if 15-17 for 1N then he has at most 14 hcp. If 14-16, an increasingly popular method (for a number of reasons…it arises far more frequently than 15-17 and it makes opening 11 counts easier since the 1N rebid is 11-13, more manageable than 11-14), then 2H is going to be at most 13 if balanced…possibly a not super 14 with shape…which is a flaw but part of the price of the method.

Opposite a hand limited to 14 hcp, I’d not even look for slam.

My shape is sterile and, most importantly, my trumps are horrible.

However, if one plays a weak 1N, and north opens 1C (either because, as for me, he’s too strong for our range or because of being only semi-balanced), the 2H raise promises either more hcp than the 1N opening or shape…and either turn the south hand into something with some interest

Reports on important team games often describe swings arising from ranges. Thus a player facing a 14-16 1N may pass with his nice 8 count or bad 9 count only to find opener with a maximum. At the other table, a 15-17 1N is enough for responder to invite and opener bids game with his good 16.

If it makes, such a result makes 15-17 look good. Had the contract failed, it would make 14-16 look good, and so on.

Here, the same sort of thing is happening. In a strong 1N context, north has an unexpectedly good hand (since it’s maximum in hcp, has great trump and a potential source of tricks). South also has a maximum for not being interested. In a weak 1N method, south expects north to hold a hand at least as good as he does and potentially quite a bit better, so he’ll try.

When both sides have maximums contracts tend to be missed, especially when poorly fitting minimums can turn pluses into minuses because the partnership can’t stop in time.

In short, which I rarely am, I don’t think blame attaches

FWIW this is my take as well - that the south hand really has no reason to look for slam opposite a simple raise.

[Winstonm]

 P_Marlowe, on 2021-November-25, 13:41, said:

Hi,

Do you need to find the Queen of clubs?
My declarer play is sub optimal, to put it mildly, but my take is, that you need trumps 3-2,
and clubs 4-2 or 3-3, with the club of 9 or Queen droping, you have the AKJT8, and you will
throw a diamond on the 3rd club.

Basically, you need clubs to provide 4 tricks, 5 Trumps, 2 Spades, 1 Diamond makes it 12?

With kind regards
Marlowe

I think in 6 with a diamond lead I would win it, play a low heart to dummy and play a second high heart in dummy then play on clubs if the hearts are 3/2.

[akwoo]

 Winstonm, on 2021-November-25, 14:00, said:

I think in 6 with a diamond lead I would win it, play a low heart to dummy and play a second high heart in dummy then play on clubs if the hearts are 3/2.

It's what I'm doing too. I don't think it's much more than 50%, if even that, on that line though.

[Cyberyeti]

 Winstonm, on 2021-November-25, 13:52, said:

FWIW this is my take as well - that the south hand really has no reason to look for slam opposite a simple raise.

I think I would look unless partner does something else with KQxx/KQxxxx maybe with one or both jacks or 10s (we don't splinter with that) or KQJx/Kxxxxx and a K.

[Winstonm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2021-November-26, 01:55, said:

I think I would look unless partner does something else with KQxx/KQxxxx maybe with one or both jacks or 10s (we don't splinter with that) or KQJx/Kxxxxx and a K.

Our choices may be influenced by no trumps as almost everyone on this side of the pond uses strong nt. This hand as Mike pointed out is the hole in that method.