[mike777]

If the bidding had gone:

2C=2D
2NT=3C
3D=4NT

Would you change your rebid now? If so to what?

[EricK]

At MPs I definitely pass, as I would rather be 4N+2 with a few bidding slam than 6N-1 with most making 3N+2. I estimate that slam is never going to be much more than 50% anyway.

At IMPs I probably pass too, but might hazard 5♦ (as long as we had the agreement that this shows 4) and pass 5NT if that is all partner can muster. It depends how confident I am feeling - I would have to play the hand after all.

I find that going negative when I hold a huge hand (especially when bidding to a hopeless contract) is one of the worst feelings in bridge, so this probably colours my thoughts on this one.

Eric

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Sep 21 2005, 08:56 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 21 2005, 08:36 PM, said:

I don't understand hand evaluation by counting tricks. Given that ♣Kxxxx is 3½ tricks by your count, and ♥KQ is two, and ♦xxxx is one, it seems very well possible that 8 hcp produce 5.5 tricks (I would rather give partner 9-10 hcp).

I am not claiming it is clear to bid, but I just don't think this is a very bad 23 count. (I guess in part we are having the old debate whether 4-3-2-1 count undervalues aces even at notrump play.)

Arend

If hand evaluation is what you want to discuss, then perhaps you will care to tell me which hand you would rather want. Your 23 count above or my 20 count below:

♠ Ax
♥ Axx
♦ Ax
♣ AKJ10xx

I sincerely hope that no one treats this as 20 high card points.

Roland

If you are starting to make silly examples, then so can I. Which hand would you rather have on the given bidding,
♠AKx
♥Jxx
♦AKQx
♣AQx
or
♠AKQx
♥KJx
♦KQx
♣AJx?
The first hand has a better honor location, and a better chance for a fit. (And please give me some credit for not introducing any total wasted honor combinations like KQJ or AKJ or AKQ or AJ tight ) The latter is a clear pass, while the first hand is close IMO.

Anyway, as I have said before, I don't feel so strongly about this, and I will let Roland have the last word .

Arend

[Walddk]

Fine, since you didn't answer my question, I will answer yours:

The first one obviously, but it is still not worth a raise opposite a quantitative 4NT. If, on the other hand, I got a slam invite with my hand (yes, I'll treat it as at least 24 hcp), then there would be no doubt in my mind. A clear raise to 6NT.

Roland

[mikeh]

I am very, very disappointed in Roland's pass. Slam has to be at least 11%, and I had always believed that Roland loved such contracts

I like 5♦. I will pass 5N, and bid 5N (non-forcing and probably down 1 ) over 5Major. Partner could have a 4 card major, but he will then be 4333 and I will wish I could retreat with a subtle 4N rebid.

This hand is on the cusp. But while I dislike 4333 hands, I love Aces and Kings and I do have 23, count them, 23 hcp on an auction in which I showed 22-23 and partner asked me if I have a maximum or a minimum. If 0 was a minimum and 4 a max, such that 2 was average, this is a 2.5.... okay, for Roland's sake, I will be more precise: a 2.47639.

[Walddk]

mikeh, on Sep 21 2005, 09:56 PM, said:

I showed 22-23

Did you? Why did you not show 22-24? Do you force to game with 24 balanced?

Roland

[Brandal]

luke warm, on Sep 21 2005, 01:46 PM, said:

if 4nt is quantitative, i'll bid 6nt with my 8 controls

Am I the only one who don't like the jump to 4NT
without having tried to find a fit?

If it's quantitative I would pass

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Sep 21 2005, 10:08 PM, said:

Walddk, on Sep 21 2005, 03:06 PM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 21 2005, 09:56 PM, said:

I showed 22-23

Did you? Why did you not show 22-24? Do you force to game with 24 balanced?

Roland

Well the problem stipulated the bidding showed 22-23, so that is what we must assume.

Indeed Justin, so my main concern is what you do with 24 balanced. Force to game I take it. Seems unsound to me.

Roland

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Sep 21 2005, 10:11 PM, said:

Jlall, on Sep 21 2005, 10:08 PM, said:

Walddk, on Sep 21 2005, 03:06 PM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 21 2005, 09:56 PM, said:

I showed 22-23

Did you? Why did you not show 22-24? Do you force to game with 24 balanced?

Roland

Well the problem stipulated the bidding showed 22-23, so that is what we must assume.

Indeed Justin, so my main concern is what you do with 24 balanced. Force to game I take it. Seems unsound to me.

Roland

Multi? Kokish relay? Anyway, I think it is more productive to answer the given question, instead of assuming that the question must be a different one, because otherwise there MUST be a hole in a system that we otherwise don't know at all.

Arend

[inquiry]

Playing a 2 point range (22-23) hardly is enough to make an intellegent decision on an invite based upon "Stregth" as determined by hcp's. Partner can not really be sitting there thinking, if partner has 23 hcp we should be in slam and if he has 22 we should stop in four. Sorry, I don't buy that.

So while quantitative (no other explaination fits for me), I think this 4NT also has to carry more of a request. IT has to be looking for an extra-ordinary 2NT opener. One with a source of tricks. True this one is a little heavy from a control standpoint (8 controls is probably one more than normal for this range opening bid... you have more than half the deck, you should have more than half the controls (12 in all, so 6 is half).

I can't get overly excited about that extra control. Now give me a juicy five card suit, that I can imagine winning five tricks in and 22 or 23 points, off I go. Give me 4432 so I can search for a 4-4 fit and have some decent chance for ruffing value, fine I will take a chance. This hand, for all its "beauty" is minimum for this auction and I see nothing remotely encouraging me to bid again.

[mike777]

thank you all for your responses. Great points by all.

BTW I hope you get a chance to respond to where I added stayman to this auction:

2C=2D
2NT=3C
3D=4NT
?

BTW2 please note 2d=game force...so 2nt is just assumed to be 22-23

[cherdano]

mike777, on Sep 21 2005, 11:15 PM, said:

thank you all for your responses. Great points by all.

BTW I hope you get a chance to respond to where I added stayman to this auction:

2C=2D
2NT=3C
3D=4NT
?

BTW2 please note 2d=game force...so 2nt is just assumed to be 22-23

I pass this one.

Arend

[Fluffy]

Pass without stayman, pass with stayman even more .

I was taught that over a quantitative you only bid 5 card suits, at the 5 level they are not forcing, so bidding 6 is just stronger.

[Chamaco]

cherdano, on Sep 21 2005, 06:19 PM, said:

Walddk, on Sep 21 2005, 08:14 PM, said:

If there is such a thing as a bad 23 count, this must be it. 3343 and no intermediates.

Hmm. On the upside, I have 3 aces, two kings supported by an ace, and two queens supported by an ace. I don't think the hand is as bad as you make it.

Arend

I tend to agree with Arend here: the fact opener has all prime values, means that they cluster well with any quacks provided by responder.

I think that, even in balanced hands, AK in the same suits are worth at least 7.5 hcp, and even downgrading by say, 0.75 hcp the hand for 4333 shape, I'll reevaluate it for all the prime values held.

[Walddk]

Just goes to show how hopeless the Milton 4321 scale is.

KQ opposite x in a suit contract. 5 hcp, 1 loser.
Ax opposite x in a suit contract. 4 hcp, no loser.

QJ opposite xx. 3 hcp, no trick.
Kx opposite xx. 3 hcp, 50% chance of 1 trick.
KJ opposite xx, 4 hcp, 50% chance of 1 trick.
Ax opposite xx, 4 hcp, 100% chance of 1 trick.

AKQ opposite xxx. 9 hcp, 3 tricks in a NT contract.
AKQxxxx opposite xxx. 9 hcp, 7 tricks in a NT contract.

AJ10 opposite xxx. 5 hcp, 76% chance of 2 tricks.
AJx opposite xxx. 5 hcp, 25% chance of 2 tricks.
AQ10 opposite xxx. 6 hcp. 75% chance of 2 tricks.
AQx opposite xxx. 6 hcp, 50% chance of 2 tricks.

Someone should change the scale as soon as possible and at least give the 10 something, if supported by one or more honours.

Roland

[Jurek S]

I'm 5♦ bidder. Partner won't bid 6♦ without 4 or 3+ ruffing value in major and we can even find 6♣ - this is for 1st part,
After Stayman - pass

[kgr]

Openers range is very limited (22-23). Does it make sense to play 4NT as quantitative in that case?

[Chamaco]

kgr, on Sep 23 2005, 12:22 PM, said:

Openers range is very limited (22-23). Does it make sense to play 4NT as quantitative in that case?

Yes, just as over a 2NT opener.

2NT (20-21) - 4NT is quant invite.

20-21 and 22-23 is a 2 hcp range, so the system is the same.
(Or, if we think it does not make sense, then the system should change , for sake of consistency, also over the 2NT opener)

Of course when the range is so small,, the criteria for accepting is not so much point count but the overcall quality of the hand and specifically:

- shape (4333 is a minus, a 5 bagger is a plus)
- honors clustering is a lus, and AK clustering is a HUGE plus, worth close to 1 full extra hcp for each AK cluster
- presence/lack of intermediates (T9s), not accounted for in the point count