[fred]

kenrexford, on Jan 25 2006, 07:39 PM, said:

Revisit the example I posted earlier.  Eric Rodwell and Jeff Meckstroth missed this slam, as did their opponents.  The contract is about 100%.  Yet, no one even sniffed it.  What judgment tools do y'all have that Jeff and Eric lack?

Perhaps Rodwell judged that the chances of Meckstroth having a hand that would produce a slam were less than 5%. Perhaps he further judged that, in trying to find out if his partner had the perfect hand, that in 75% of the other 95% of the time he would help the opponents find an opening lead that would reduce his chances for overtricks or, on a really bad day, defeat 4H. Perhaps numbers like these made him decide that the IMP odds were against trying for slam.

Perhaps he just made a bad bid, but I don't think so. If my explanation is right, it suggests that Rodwell's judgment was at an level that your average player is not even capable of using (or even comprehending in many cases).

I have no doubt that Meckwell had the methods to find this slam and that Rodwell simply judged not to use them. He was wrong on this deal, but my judgment suggests that his action would be a net IMP winner over time.

Many many people do not understand that science has a serious downside:

The opponents get to listen to your delicate scientific auction as well and this often makes it easier for them to lead and defend.

I suspect that your study of slam bidding in major tournaments did not attempt to take this factor into account (which is just as well since this would be close to impossible to measure).

I do agree with you that slam bidding at the highest levels is not especially impressive, but in my opinion the main reason for this is because slam bidding is difficult regardless of the methods you play. The 6-level is a very narrow target.

I agree with the posters who claim that judgment and knowing your methods are far far more important that the particular methods you choose to play. Furthermore, I am not impressed when people suggest "my methods and judgment are better than those of Meckwell" (whose methods and judgment are better than any pair in history and who have the record to prove this).

Finally let me say that without good judgment it does not matter what methods you use. If you don't have good judgment you are not going to be able to use these methods effectively.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

Fred, you seem to be missing my point here. I am far from claiming that Eric Rodwell lacks bridge judgment. Rather, I am holding out Eric Rodwell as perhaps one of the greatest minds ever as far as bridge judgment goes. The point was to counter those who claim that their judgment somehow leads them to slams with 99% reliability. If Eric and Jeff can miss slams, this is because, as you note, finding slams is a VERY difficult matter, with the obvious weighing of science (and accompanying disclosure) against a slam bash theory (equivalent with game bash theory, somewhat).

One noteworthy "statistic" from my personal investigation was that far fewer overbids (five, down one) occurred than underbids (slams missed), perhaps by a factor of 40:1. Hence, it appears that the expert judgment default seems to be in not pursuing the "fit" slams as much as one might otherwise explore these, to protect games. Notably, very few slams in this category of close-to-slam deals would be in jeopardy by disclosure of information. The bash to slam, on slams that made, would gain almost never. Further, fewer games were in jeopardy from precise leads than hands existed where technique would lead to a good slam.

This "technique" is not so much science as is often thought. You know this more than most, as your writings in this area are unparalleled. "Cuebidding" is not so much a science. It is logical and natural. The specific type of cuebidding is no more "science" than is the difference between five-card and four-card majors, with some limited exceptions. Cuebidding is simply bidding "values" with a purpose (slam aspirational), with agreed definitions for various "value" bids. LTTC and Serious 3NT are, in a sense, "conventions," but only marginally. They are far different in type from things like Puppet Stayman, Jacoby 2NT, and the like, as context and tactics determine the "definition" and as no structure "responses" follow from the calls.

All of this bolsters your theoretical position that these conventions, and cuebidding generally, is rather difficult to explain outside of the task of explaining bridge theory in general, and slam approach theory specifically. None of this is to say that Meckwell is a failing pair. That would be absurd. My noting this is not meant to claim superiority over these gentlemen.

When one claims 99% success, then one claims something world champions cannot claim. If 99% success means that only a very rare slam is missed when the opposition finds that slam, or if the claim is that total IMP grabs (missed slams countered by games protected) is maximized, then judgment is great. The sneakers... That is NOT what most mean by this. Most mean that they find the slams that are there.

My personal research convinces me that a huge number of slams are unbiddable without sound cuebidding theory but biddable with good theory, and that the slams missed far outweighs the games forfeited by using the better techniques and theory. I have no idea how this relates to lesser events, where perhaps none of these slams are bid. Granted, I have never had opportunity to test this analysis in actual play, myself at the table with a competent partner and this level of opposition, and perhaps may never have that chance. But, are these posts meant to discuss theory or to exchange credentials?

Your theory and practice appears to support the exact same cuebidding style that I myself advocate. Thus, we are on the same page, and probably for similar reasons. Some science is necessary to express judgment, to allow judgment to thrive.

Sure, on the actual example, Eric might have opted to sign off at 4H because the chances of a slam making (the ideal Jeff hand) were outweighed by the risk of directing the defense further, in his opinion. However, who among the lesser mortals would sniff this slam? Certainly no one who believed that 15 plus a maximum of 15 makes slam impossible (not 32-33). However, understanding "serious interest" as a limited opening requires that very sniffing. Chamaco's post cannot be truly answered without explaining this concept. This example, albeit possibly flawed (especially since a serious 3NT will never be part of my personal sequence), does accomplish the goal of explaining a great "limited" opener from a normal or below-average "maximum."

[csdenmark]

1D(nebulous)-P-1H-P-2H

Ken - hoping not to miss your point. To me it looks like the 2♥ is the devil here for missing a possible slam as I understand you. Acc. to Meckwell Club system the basic principles are:

1st step : Raise with xtra
3rd step: Limit raise
5th step: Preempt

You see 2♥ is 5th step and it is defined in Meckwell system as 4♥,poor.
4th step here(2♦) is defined as 4+♥,GF and 3rd step might be 3-suiter.

2♥ is discouraging for responder, indicating minimum(10-12,bal for) for an opening hand.

[fred]

Forgive me if I missed something, but I don't think anyone in this thread suggested that any combination of methods/judgment would result in anywhere close to 99% accuracy in slam bidding. Such a claim would be laughable and I can virtually guarantee that not a single player in the study you conducted would ever make such a statement.

I do agree with you that making agreements with respect to cuebidding auctions will help a partnership to improve their slam bidding accuracy. However, I also believe that good judgment is much more important than good agreements.

In other words, I think I would do better in a slam bidding contest with Bob Hamman as my partner and with no agreements than 2 average players with very sophisticated agreements.

I certainly do not mean any disrespect to you (or any other players who lack "credentials") when I make claims like this. In fact, I think it is great that you are serious enough about the game to attempt to gain knowledge through reading and studying the world's most successful players.

But I think you should be more careful about the conclusions you draw. The world's most successful players are successful for a reason. These people as a group play a wide variety of methods. Some prefer a very structured style of cuebidding while others do not. The only thing they all have in common (besides their success) is that they all have excellent judgment.

Judgment is a necessary condition for success at bridge. Having a lot of structure in the bidding is not.

Really I am flattered that a truly serious student like you (there are not many of these) has been impacted so deeply by these articles I wrote many years ago.

Since the time I wrote these articles, however, I have learned a lot (mostly as a result of playing a lot of hands with and against more experienced players). I now believe that a less structured approach combined with good judgment is more effective in practice.

Of course the time may come when I change my mind again....

Right now I strongly believe that less experienced players will benefit greatly from keeping the bidding simple and focusing as much of their energy as possible on developing their raw bridge skills.

I do understand that many less experienced players get a lot of fun and satisfaction out of science (which is just another word for "structure") and really I am happy for these people. But if long term results are what you are after, my opinion is that these tools are tools are going to hurt you more than they will help you (until you are ready for them that is).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

csdenmark, on Jan 26 2006, 01:17 AM, said:

1D(nebulous)-P-1H-P-2H

Ken - hoping not to miss your point. To me it looks like the 2♥ is the devil here for missing a possible slam as I understand you. Acc. to Meckwell Club system the basic principles are:

1st step : Raise with xtra
3rd step: Limit raise
5th step: Preempt

You see 2♥ is 5th step and it is defined in Meckwell system as 4♥,poor.
4th step here(2♦) is defined as 4+♥,GF and 3rd step might be 3-suiter.

2♥ is discouraging for responder, indicating minimum(10-12,bal for) for an opening hand.

I don't think that Meckstroth miscounted his points or forgot a basic bid in his system.

What happened here is that Rodwell intentionally did not try for slam even though he surely knew that 12 tricks were possible opposite some hands. Probably Rodwell's reasons for this decision were similar to those that I suggested in an previous post in this thread:

He made a tactical decision that turned out to be a loser opposite the actual hand that Meckstroth held.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[luke warm]

i sorta like fred's first response regarding meckwell missing the slam... i'm 100% convinced they had both the tools and judgment to find the slam, but i'm also convinced that some overriding factor kept him/them from looking for it... and fred's reasons seem imminently logical to me... odds on right hand being held vs. odds opps get a lead directing clue vs. chance of getting too high when other table is snug in game, etc

[han]

There's a balance somewhere: if I stopped playing negative doubles I imagine my results would be noticeably worse. I suppose I wanted to make the point that there seem to be a large number of conventions that some people (and I'm not referring to the OP here) seem to think are virtually indispensible, but they really are only the icing on the cake. The self-raising flour and butter is about having really sound detailed agreements about what things mean in competitive auctions.

Anyway, time for my Dutch lesson.

Frances,

Ik ben het natuurlijk helemaal met je algemene strekking eens. Het is ook duidelijk dat serious 3SA lang niet zo belangrijk is als het negatieve doublet, maar is het echt de slagroom op de taart? Een aantal jaren terug schreef Fred over serious 3SA in een reeks artikelen voor een brede doelgroep, wat mij deed denken dat dit toch wel een nuttige conventie was. Sindsdien speel ik het met verschillende partners, en hoewel het niet erg vaak voorkomt denk ik dat het mijn slembieden beter maakt. Ik ben benieuwd of Fred nog steeds denkt dat serious 3SA nuttig is voor veel bridge spelers, maar jammer genoeg spreekt hij geen Nederlands...

Hidden translation (don't peak Frances!):

Spoiler

Frances,

I of course completely agree with your general point. It is also clear that serious 3NT is not nearly as important as the negative double, but is it really the wipping cream on the cake? A couple of years ago Fred wrote about serious 3NT in a series of articles for a broad audience, which made me think that this was in fact a useful convention. Since then I play it with several partners, and even though it doesn't come up very often I think it improves my slam bidding. I wonder whether Fred still thinks that serious 3NT is a useful convention for many bridge players, but unfortunately he doesn't speak Dutch...

[csdenmark]

fred, on Jan 26 2006, 04:07 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Jan 26 2006, 01:17 AM, said:

1D(nebulous)-P-1H-P-2H

Ken - hoping not to miss your point. To me it looks like the 2♥ is the devil here for missing a possible slam as I understand you. Acc. to Meckwell Club system the basic principles are:

1st step : Raise with xtra
3rd step: Limit raise
5th step: Preempt

You see 2♥ is 5th step and it is defined in Meckwell system as 4♥,poor.
4th step here(2♦) is defined as 4+♥,GF and 3rd step might be 3-suiter.

2♥ is discouraging for responder, indicating minimum(10-12,bal for) for an opening hand.

I don't think that Meckstroth miscounted his points or forgot a basic bid in his system.

What happened here is that Rodwell intentionally did not try for slam even though he surely knew that 12 tricks were possible opposite some hands. Probably Rodwell's reasons for this decision were similar to those that I suggested in an previous post in this thread:

He made a tactical decision that turned out to be a loser opposite the actual hand that Meckstroth held.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I don't want to interfere with your conclusions Fred and I dont know the holding. But I know in Precision in general and Meckwell incl. 1♦ is an Achilles-heel though normally fairly precise due to playing weak NT catching the somewhat stronger balanced hands.

Meckstroth seems to have opened either of these: 3-4-3-3, 2-4-4-2, 2-4-2-4, 2-4-5-2. They are all opened in Meckwell Club as 1NT if range was 13-16HcP.

Holding any short
rebid would have been 2♣: a 3-suiter or 2-suit/minors or
rebid would have been 2♦ : 4♥,GF(undisclosed values)
rebid would have been 3♣: Limit 4♥,0-1♠

From above I think the rebid of 2♥ simply means nothing else than a minimum balanced hand. Thats the one they earlier gambled with in favorable VULN. as 1NT opening. Then the sequence 1D(nebulous)-P-1H-P-2H in favorable would instead mean range 13-15HcP.

Playing Precision your mind after 1♦ is mostly focussed on a partscore battle lucky if you can find values for a game. I think Rodwell had that in mind too.

I think we who tried to watch most of their Vugraph for last Bermuda all noticed that 2005 was no brilliant performance. We hope to see them in better shape. After all I think thats the difference between human beings and computers. Nice to see that also the highest stars sometimes have a human face.

[kenrexford]

One need not assume that the lesser mortals lack judgment. Perhaps judgment is there? Is that possible? Actually good judgment?

Whether one particular hand was bid properly or poorly for the methods used and state of the match and expectations of opponents, or what, the hand with the missed slam illustrates a rather sound principle -- a "minimum" is not a "minimum."

I would also agree that Meckwell may have missed this slam because of a correct guess that their specific opponents missed that slam. However, as one can see from the hands, this is as close to 100% as you ever face. Outside of state-of-the-match, I find it hard to explain this missed slam, frankly. I could assume a lack of error, but this is hard on the actual hand. Eric needs Jeff to have some non-4333 with two Aces and two Kings for 100%; change something slightly and it is 50% (on a finesse). This is far from remote.

I have my suspicions on the problem. I believe that a likely problem is that there is no way to assess the value of a Qx in clubs, because of the Nebulous Diamond. I suspect that there is no emergence of clarity principle on 3C or 3D rebids after 2S by Eric's hand, which would leave this slam, even if present, actually unbiddable in their methods. That missing solution might have weighed into the judgment analysis. I may be wrong.

It also seems that the hand does not lend itself to information exchange of a detrimental variety for lead purposes. 2S usually (without later clarification) shows some sort of fragment for a game try. Jeff's hand is not expected to clarify holdings unless catering to a slam try -- he'd simply bash to 4H. Knowledge of a spade frag will unlikely help the lead. Further delicacy from Jeff's hand would suggest a "super" max, as he had, where lead will not likely hurt.

It is not particularly important, however, whether the pair made a tactical decision or a judgment error/judgment good call. The interest of this hand is in analysis.

Any thoughts on that? If slam exploration is dangerous, any explanations?

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

And, despite a great lack of ability at, for example, the Bermuda Bowl Finals, some people maintain that their gut instinct and judgment results in a 99% success ratio without all the fancy tools. Wow!!! That's some ability!!!

Really? Which people? Where?

I mentioned a 99% statistic, so I wonder if you are aiming your sarcasm at me.

If you actually read my post, I was referring to the universe of hands in which we finished in the wrong contract and the contributing causes. And I estimated the contributing cause to be lack of judgement in about 75% of these.

Fred's statement that he "would do better in a slam bidding contest with Bob Hamman as my partner and with no agreements than 2 average players with very sophisticated agreements." is saying pretty much exactly the same thing without the numbers.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Jan 26 2006, 03:41 PM, said:

One need not assume that the lesser mortals lack judgment. Perhaps judgment is there? Is that possible? Actually good judgment?

It is not particularly important, however, whether the pair made a tactical decision or a judgment error/judgment good call. The interest of this hand is in analysis.

Any thoughts on that? If slam exploration is dangerous, any explanations?

Your presentation of this example hand suggests a very basic analytic flaw. You criticize Meckwell because they missed an obvious slam on this hand. Furthermore, you suggest that missing this slam could be a function of their nebulous 1D or any one of a number of other factors.

From my persective, analyzing individual hands in isolation from the rest of the system is likely to create very biased results. Case in point: Everyone knows that strong club openings are the Achilles heal of Precision type systems. On average, I expect a sub average score each time I open a strong club. However, I continue to use strong club systems because the negative inferences produce significant gains throughout the system.

In a similar fashion, its entirely possible that missing slam on hands like this is a "cost" which is balanced out by gains elsewhere in the system. Meckwell is known for their highly aggressive bidding style. They jump to a bunch of games and force the defenders to try and set them. The defense is made much harder by the fact that there is so little information regarding the variety of hand types that they might hold.

[csdenmark]

kenrexford, on Jan 26 2006, 02:41 PM, said:

One need not assume that the lesser mortals lack judgment.  Perhaps judgment is there?  Is that possible?  Actually good judgment?

Whether one particular hand was bid properly or poorly for the methods used and state of the match and expectations of opponents, or what, the hand with the missed slam illustrates a rather sound principle -- a "minimum" is not a "minimum."

I would also agree that Meckwell may have missed this slam because of a correct guess that their specific opponents missed that slam.  However, as one can see from the hands, this is as close to 100% as you ever face.  Outside of state-of-the-match, I find it hard to explain this missed slam, frankly.  I could assume a lack of error, but this is hard on the actual hand.  Eric needs Jeff to have some non-4333 with two Aces and two Kings for 100%; change something slightly and it is 50% (on a finesse).  This is far from remote.

I have my suspicions on the problem. I believe that a likely problem is that there is no way to assess the value of a Qx in clubs, because of the Nebulous Diamond.  I suspect that there is no emergence of clarity principle on 3C or 3D rebids after 2S by Eric's hand, which would leave this slam, even if present, actually unbiddable in their methods.  That missing solution might have weighed into the judgment analysis.  I may be wrong.

It also seems that the hand does not lend itself to information exchange of a detrimental variety for lead purposes.  2S usually (without later clarification) shows some sort of fragment for a game try.  Jeff's hand is not expected to clarify holdings unless catering to a slam try -- he'd simply bash to 4H.  Knowledge of a spade frag will unlikely help the lead.  Further delicacy from Jeff's hand would suggest a "super" max, as he had, where lead will not likely hurt. 

It is not particularly important, however, whether the pair made a tactical decision or a judgment error/judgment good call.  The interest of this hand is in analysis.

Any thoughts on that?  If slam exploration is dangerous, any explanations?

Eric needs Jeff to have some non-4333 with two Aces and two Kings for 100%; change something slightly and it is 50% (on a finesse).

Fine Ken - Now you have given the explanation. Eric needs 14-15HcP. Jeff have shown 10-12HcP(more 10 than 12) and 2-3♠. Likely to be values in minor else rebid had been different. If 13-15HcP Jeff had opened 1NT. Thats why no slam try.

[fred]

csdenmark, on Jan 26 2006, 09:53 AM, said:

fred, on Jan 26 2006, 04:07 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Jan 26 2006, 01:17 AM, said:

1D(nebulous)-P-1H-P-2H

Ken - hoping not to miss your point. To me it looks like the 2♥ is the devil here for missing a possible slam as I understand you. Acc. to Meckwell Club system the basic principles are:

1st step : Raise with xtra
3rd step: Limit raise
5th step: Preempt

You see 2♥ is 5th step and it is defined in Meckwell system as 4♥,poor.
4th step here(2♦) is defined as 4+♥,GF and 3rd step might be 3-suiter.

2♥ is discouraging for responder, indicating minimum(10-12,bal for) for an opening hand.

I don't think that Meckstroth miscounted his points or forgot a basic bid in his system.

What happened here is that Rodwell intentionally did not try for slam even though he surely knew that 12 tricks were possible opposite some hands. Probably Rodwell's reasons for this decision were similar to those that I suggested in an previous post in this thread:

He made a tactical decision that turned out to be a loser opposite the actual hand that Meckstroth held.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I don't want to interfere with your conclusions Fred and I dont know the holding. But I know in Precision in general and Meckwell incl. 1♦ is an Achilles-heel though normally fairly precise due to playing weak NT catching the somewhat stronger balanced hands.

Meckstroth seems to have opened either of these: 3-4-3-3, 2-4-4-2, 2-4-2-4, 2-4-5-2. They are all opened in Meckwell Club as 1NT if range was 13-16HcP.

Holding any short
rebid would have been 2♣: a 3-suiter or 2-suit/minors or
rebid would have been 2♦ : 4♥,GF(undisclosed values)
rebid would have been 3♣: Limit 4♥,0-1♠

From above I think the rebid of 2♥ simply means nothing else than a minimum balanced hand. Thats the one they earlier gambled with in favorable VULN. as 1NT opening. Then the sequence 1D(nebulous)-P-1H-P-2H in favorable would instead mean range 13-15HcP.

Playing Precision your mind after 1♦ is mostly focussed on a partscore battle lucky if you can find values for a game. I think Rodwell had that in mind too.

I think we who tried to watch most of their Vugraph for last Bermuda all noticed that 2005 was no brilliant performance. We hope to see them in better shape. After all I think thats the difference between human beings and computers. Nice to see that also the highest stars sometimes have a human face.

I am sure you know more about Precision than I do, Claus, but even I know that:

1D-1H-2D

Shows long diamonds.

I also disagree with your assessment of Meckwell's performance in the 2005 Bermuda Bowl.

USA1 one would have lost in the semi-finals to USA2 (a team I happened to be a member of) if it was not for Meckwell's outstanding performance in this match.

The USA1-Italy final would not have been close without the outstanding performance of Meckwell.

Since I was playing, I was not in a position to judge how well this pair played in the round robin or quarter-finals, but in my opinion they clearly played better than any pair on any team once the semi-finals were reached.

The consensus among the world class players in Estoril was: Italy clearly is the best team right now, but Meckwell remain the best pair in the world.

Maybe these people know something?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

I am so frustrated that this thread is being interpreted, or at least my part of it, as a critique of Meckwell as somehow being a poor pair who contributed to the loss of the World Championships. That is not all all what I had in mind.

If any one pair or team plays enough hands, no matter the skill in techniques and/or judgment, a few hands will hit where the pair/team, for some reason, misses an opportunity. "Lack of ability" is not meant as "lack of skill," but rather lack of "ability" to always land in the best contract with the least information to the opponents. The only route to that is for the partner who would best be declarer (right-sided) to open the bidding with the best contract, usually. This is, of course, impossible (except on line).

I noted that many events of world-class competition featured apparent inability to handle some slam auctions. This was repeated, at times, with absurd auctions at multiple tables. Sure, one could excuse away everything by claiming that judgment dictated all of this, but my analysis suggests otherwise, in many cases.

Meckwell may have outplayed the world, themselves, on an unbelievable number of hands. Meckwell might have bid this hand in the ideal manner in the long run. Their approach in general, and with a Nebulous Diamond in specific, may be unimpeachable. Occasional costs might be strongly rewarded with excellent results elsewhere.

However, I personally cannot see the reasoning on this one hand. Perhaps someone could explain it further. As we all know, Eric needed a high-end 4432, with good controls. Tools exist for me at least for Jeff to indicate this, if he has it. If the slam is only 5% likely, 5% of the time it should be bid. Jeff should be able to show this with a 3C call, it seems, after 2S from Eric. Maybe not in their system -- I know no answer to this. Maybe they have no tools for Jeff to show this, and maybe there is a reason for this.

Assuming my proposed tools, the question is whether the cost of bidding 2S by Eric, on hands like this, is greater than the potential gain on the rare slam hands, as well as the additional cost of a frivolous 3C call (or 3NT, depending upon style) would be when slam is not in consideration. I do not follow the judgment problem here. I may simply be missing something, so explain it better, perhaps.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Jan 26 2006, 07:36 PM, said:

If the slam is only 5% likely, 5% of the time it should be bid.

Want to rephrase this?

[fred]

kenrexford, on Jan 26 2006, 04:36 PM, said:

Assuming my proposed tools, the question is whether the cost of bidding 2S by Eric, on hands like this, is greater than the potential gain on the rare slam hands, as well as the additional cost of a frivolous 3C call (or 3NT, depending upon style) would be when slam is not in consideration. I do not follow the judgment problem here. I may simply be missing something, so explain it better, perhaps.

As I understand your question, here is the answer:

If bidding 2S leads to a 10 IMP gain 5% of the time and an average of a 1 IMP loss 95% of the time, then you should not bid 2S.

The numbers 10, 5, 1, and 95 in the above are purely for the sake of this example. I am not suggesting that these numbers are accurate for the hand in question.

If I have not understood your question, please clarify.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

It's interesting to look for "weaknesses" in the top pairs. We'd all like to be able to beat pairs like Meckstroth and Rodwell at least some of the time. Obviously this is very difficult because they are very good in all aspects of the game. But I think it's useful to look for areas where the top pairs seem to frequently have trouble. When two elite teams play against each other, what kinds of things swing the IMPs? Obviously to have a chance against a top team you'll have to be good in all aspects of the game. If you can't play and defend, you'll never beat the likes of Meckstroth and Rodwell. But suppose that you're at least close to their level in these things... what can you try to do better to give yourself a chance to win?

My observation has always been that a lot of IMPs are swung on opening leads. Very often the opening lead will make or break a contract, and you frequently see different opening leads from elite players, even against the identical auction. Supposing that I'm able to play the majority of hands as well as the experts (okay you can debate this, but let's suppose), I believe I will get more benefit from trying to make excellent opening leads, than I will from studying that half of a percent of hands where the likes of Meckstroth will routinely out-declare me.

Similarly, this thread was observing that slam bidding swings a lot of IMPs. It's often the case that a slam which is very high percentage (looking at both hands) is not bid even by elite players. With this in mind it might be worthwhile for a good player trying to beat an elite team to work on slam bidding methods.

[kenrexford]

OK. I understand the concept that some cuebids might get the partnership to stop at game but thereby forfeit an IMP or two every so often because of information exchange, and that this might justify "judgment" on some hands.

However, since we seem to have spun away from the concept of "maximum limited openings" to a specific critique of this one auction, let me suggest my thinking on this and ask why this seems wrong.

I assume, apparently correctly, that 2H from eff could include the actual hand, easily. So, back to Eric.

Eric has a hand with a clean 15-count. He can count an assured six tricks alone. IF the club Queen is met by AK, then he has a seventh trick himself, and can count two more (club AK), for a net of 9 tricks. As 4432 is more likely than 4333, and as either pointed doubleton produces a VERY likely trump on dummy, 10 tricks are soundly there. Two more tricks must come for a slam, but at least 4 more points are unaccounted for. Hence, slam seems close.

Using a cuebid of 2S, Eric would expect Jeff, presumably, to be able to cuebid his minor with a maximum and a good holding in that minor. This will nearly assure slam, with a 4C call in response to 3C as a checkback. Hence, the auction to slam seems easy to predict.

Further, many normal hands produce decent slams. Kx-xxxx-Axx-AKxx and Kxx-xxxx-Ax-AKxx are rather minimal. Changing the diamond to the King puts slam on a finesse. Changing the club King to J10 does the same. Adding a fifth club creates a fair shot at a grand. None of this is a wild freak hand.

What is the likelihood of Jeff holding this type of hand? Seems fairly good, as there has been no interference so far. It would be nice to have started with a standard 1C opening, but such is life.

Is 4H in serious jeopardy? Not likely. Eric has a very sound hand. But...

Will the lead likely matter? It could -- by enabling a diamond lead before clubs are established. Perhaps Jeff has KJ10x of clubs. This could be real bad. Four diamonds in sequence might creat a trump promo and a set. Jeff might have KQ-Jxxx-Qxx-KJ10x, where 4H is in jeopardy. A cue might assist in receiving a diamond lead.

What might the opponents do? Perhaps a 15-17 NT range will enable a slam to be bid. Perhaps they play strong club also. This is a terrible hand!!!

So, Eric seemed to decide that the risk of inducing a damaging diamond lead on some hands outweighed the chance of slam on the "right" hands. Perhaps this was bolstered by the state of the match, the opponents' known conservative side (if they had one -- I do not know), and/or a gap in handling minor rebids in this auction when starting a Nebulous Diamond. Maybe there was no gap.

Judgment might well have induced this stop. However, if judgment were tipped slightly the other way, toward aggressive bidding here, the reason would be that Opener can have "serious interest" while limited. Once that route is decided upon, good tools would be necessary to facilitate that course. Otherwise, how does one express or know the value of a Qx in a POSSIBLE suit.

All this said, I personally do not get the decision here. It seems MUCH easier to contruct "right" hands for a slam than to construct "wrong" hands for the game. I only "get" the decision IF (1) Jeff cannot bid 3C to show two top club honors and (2) Eric cannot then bid 4C on this hand. In other words, if pre-determined rules could not allow Eric to bid 2S, then cuebid 4C when appropriate on this hand, then the methods made slam too difficult to find.

Thus, my personal guess (not having asked Eric) is that the slam was missed not because of a judgment against pursuing slam but because judgment was hampered by pre-determined agreements not catering to this hand. If my guess is correct, then perhaps the pre-determined agreements have a flaw (a flaw IS possible, even with RM Precision).

This is not to say that my idea of great cuebidding theory is 100% reliable either. No theory is 100%, and it seems impossible to reach that goal. And, theory is theory -- you cannot jump into Eric's seat for that hand. But, where's the flaw with the analysis? Armchairing is useful for determining what moves in theory might make sense in the future, right?

And, THANK YOU "AWM"!!! I read your post AFTER writing my 95 Theses. LOL

[csdenmark]

4432
No Ken - Jeff has denied 4 spades. Thats not the distribution.

Jeff has shown minimum and a bad 4♥. He has shown MAX 12HcP or a wrong opening. Over that Eric would be crazy to bid over game. Meckwell cc states agressive bidding and emphazise but not crazy