[Gerben42]

I will bid 5NT. Since we're grand slamming we must have some good cards in ♥ too.

[Free]

I find 5♥ really appaling. Whatever partner bids, you'll get a ♦ lead and might have to guess! I'd just blast to 7♣...

[Cascade]

Cascade, on Aug 22 2007, 08:31 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 21 2007, 07:13 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 21 2007, 02:04 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 21 2007, 05:59 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 20 2007, 07:26 PM, said:

F it I'd just bid 7C

edit: OK read your definition of 5S, nice, I would bid that then  (might as well), planning to go to 7

I totally agree with this. There is a 0% chance of partner ever bidding a grand no matter what we do, it is up to us.

But we have a whole level to gather some more useful information.
...
Overall I reckon this means that we are below 50% for 7♣ but even if it is above I don't think that it is great. Therefore it must be much better to try and elicit some extra information.

Although disagreeing strongly with some of your estimates, I won't argue since my opinion is already expressed. I am merely replying to note that we are not getting to 7 off the club king in the problem situation due to the definition of the 5♠ bid, so at least that part you shouldn't worry about or include in your estimation.

Whoops I didn't read the bit about the 5♠ bid. I just saw the "F it I'd just bid 7C".

I'd be interested to know where you differ from my estimates.

I might do some simulations to see what happens. Of course it will depend heavily on what hands you expect partner to bid 5♣. For me I would bid 5♣ on almost any hand with club support except hands that are well fixed in spades.

I did a simulation of 100000 hands with a minimum opening with diamonds and club support and the opponents bidding and raising spades. The numbers came out as follows:

♦ A 72.3%

♦ K 60.5%

♣ K 68.2%

♦ A K 39.4%

♦ A Q 18.4%

The real numbers will be slightly higher I think since I did not eliminate hands where partner had great spades and might double.

I also did a smaller simulation which counted the times that there were 13 tricks double dummy. The results were:

<11 tricks 1.9%
11 tricks 14%
12 tricks 35%
13 tricks 49.1%

I repeated this last simulation guaranteeing that partner had the ♣K

<11 tricks 0.2%
11 tricks 14.6%
12 tricks 31.5%
13 tricks 53.7%

[jdonn]

Can I find out your parameters? In particular I think partner will almost always make a forcing pass instead of raising with 3 clubs. On the actual hand he held four clubs and still (IMO) had a really obvious forcing pass.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Aug 22 2007, 09:23 AM, said:

Can I find out your parameters? In particular I think partner will almost always make a forcing pass instead of raising with 3 clubs. On the actual hand he held four clubs and still (IMO) had a really obvious forcing pass.

Pretty much exactly what I wrote:

Any minimum 1♦ opening 11-15 hcp with at least three clubs.

I'd be happy to rerun the numbers with four or more clubs.

[Cascade]

For what I think are obvious reasons the numbers in the simulations were much more sensitive on whether partner had a good diamond holding than the ♣K. Although the difference in importance is probably inflated because of the double dummy approach which means the analysis is picking up the ♣K whenever it is onside or singleton offside.

Nevertheless this suggests that if you can only ask one question then asking about the ♣K is not the question you want to ask on this hand. You need to get partner somehow to show you diamond cards.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Aug 21 2007, 04:37 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 22 2007, 09:23 AM, said:

Can I find out your parameters? In particular I think partner will almost always make a forcing pass instead of raising with 3 clubs. On the actual hand he held four clubs and still (IMO) had a really obvious forcing pass.

Pretty much exactly what I wrote:

Any minimum 1♦ opening 11-15 hcp with at least three clubs.

I'd be happy to rerun the numbers with four or more clubs.

I appreciate it though I don't think that is accurate either as many/most of those would make forcing passes. I do not think a balanced minimum would be bidding 5♣ without very good offense. Still I'm curious to see what 4+ clubs looks like since the way you had set it up you had, for example, every 3343 hand bidding 5♣ which of course seems totally silly to me. When I bid 7 I was picturing a lot of shapes with heart shortness for partner, 3154 and the like.

I actually agree with you that I would rather know for sure the diamond than club situation. But we were given a bid that specifically and unequivically asks for the club king, we have no such tool available for diamonds. If we did I would be right alongside you using it.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Aug 22 2007, 09:56 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 21 2007, 04:37 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 22 2007, 09:23 AM, said:

Can I find out your parameters? In particular I think partner will almost always make a forcing pass instead of raising with 3 clubs. On the actual hand he held four clubs and still (IMO) had a really obvious forcing pass.

Pretty much exactly what I wrote:

Any minimum 1♦ opening 11-15 hcp with at least three clubs.

I'd be happy to rerun the numbers with four or more clubs.

I appreciate it though I don't think that is accurate either as many/most of those would make forcing passes. I do not think a balanced minimum would be bidding 5♣ without very good offense. Still I'm curious to see what 4+ clubs looks like since the way you had set it up you had, for example, every 3343 hand bidding 5♣ which of course seems totally silly to me. When I bid 7 I was picturing a lot of shapes with heart shortness for partner, 3154 and the like.

I actually agree with you that I would rather know for sure the diamond than club situation. But we were given a bid that specifically and unequivically asks for the club king, we have no such tool available for diamonds. If we did I would be right alongside you using it.

Whoops I actually just noticed that I completely omitted 3343 distributions from my simulation. So in fact the most balanced hands were 4243 or 2443.

When I insisted on four clubs the overall percentage increased to about 60% for a making grand. This of course is an over-estimate as I stated earlier as double dummy we will make with the ♣K singleton offside.

While we cannot ask directly for the ♦A (or better) we can easily eliminate the hands without this holding by cue-bidding hearts since this will deny a diamond control partner will retreat to 6♣ without the ♦A and make some other noise with it.

[jdonn]

Ok thanks, just one more if I can trouble you. How about eliminating all balanced hands from partner?

And I just noticed, you ran 4 clubs but didn't specify holding the king of clubs, which still we aren't in 7 without.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Aug 22 2007, 10:11 AM, said:

Ok thanks, just one more if I can trouble you. How about eliminating all balanced hands from partner?

And I just noticed, you ran 4 clubs but didn't specify holding the king of clubs, which still we aren't in 7 without.

I have eliminated all balanced hands (and 2=2=5=4).

Here are the numbers:

No constraints on specific cards

<11 tricks 1.2%
11 tricks 11.7%
12 tricks 31.2%
13 tricks 55.9%

insisting on the ♣K (GSF)

<11 tricks 0.1%
11 tricks 12.0%
12 tricks 28.2%
13 tricks 59.7%

This doesn't increase the chance of the grand that much for at least two reasons:

1. Without insisting on this we already have over a 75% chance of partner holding the ♣K with four clubs and an opening hand ...

2. Without the ♣K double dummy we can drop the king offside

insisting on the ♦A (cue and partner will sign-off without the ♦A)

<11 tricks 0.1%
11 tricks 0.7%
12 tricks 22.0%
13 tricks 77.2%

[jdonn]

Thanks. That's interesting I really would have thought it to be higher, like the chance to get rid of all dummy's diamonds if he is like 3154. Shows what I know.

While I still think there are valid reasons to essentially just jump to the grand (they may wrongly save, investigating may pinpoint a diamond lead from any holding as Free said) this does change things.

[Cascade]

I've been doing too many things at once and been a bit sloppy with this simulation.

I just noticed another error - i think (hope) they are eliminated now.

Fortunately it is just minor. I had no allowance for partner having 5-5 in the minors. I corrected this and the odds for 7♣ increased by about 1%.

Also note these last few simulations were done with relatively small sample sizes. Each were 1000 deals so they can only be considered as ball-park figures.

[kenrexford]

A suggestion:

When I can make a call below five of our suit, certain rules apply. That is not this situation, so those rules do not apply.

When any call by me forces slam, calls have different meanings and are grand-slam-approach bids.

The grand-slam-approach bids that I would normally use are Exclusion, Key Card, Side-Suit-Key-Card, and possibly LTTC. So, I have a few options here:

1. 5♦. This is "Side Suit Key Card." Partner is expected to answer RKCB-style, but showing the King and Queen of diamonds instead of the King and Queen of clubs. This initially does not seem right for this situation.

2. 5♥. This is also "Side Suit Key Card." Same problem -- not right for this hand. Note that this and the 5♦ call would be really nice if my side suit were broken and if I had the diamond or spade Ace, and not a void in spades.

3. 5♠. This is Exclusion. I like this, as I can find out about the Ace of diamonds and King of clubs. Partner will not bypass 6♣ without two keys. At least this way I'll know that we have a prayer, or that we should sign off.

4. 5NT. When all four side suits can be handled, then 5NT is Last Train. This simply asks partner to assess whether he has that hand that can accept the grand slam try that I could not have discovered by one of the above.

What I want is the club King and depth in diamonds. I might also have wanted the club King and depth in hearts, or the club King and depth in both red suits. But, that seems to be a bit much.

Hopefully, partner will realize that he would have been expected to show the club King as a control after 5♦ or 5♥ (see above), but then he might think through the Exclusion problem if that's what I needed. So, 5NT would seem to definitely ask about secondaries in clubs and in a side suit, whether hearts or diamonds, with spade-exclusionary concern.

I'll expect that he should figure out that I cannot need both -- that's asking too much. So, with the hand I want, the club King and the diamond A-K, he should accept.















Bah! F-it! 7♣. (On the jlall train.)

[Impact]

Simple man bidding 5H to encourage GS as I need good D and CK: he will bid 5NT with CK, 6C without it so at least that resolves one problem...and my failure to bid 5D marks the improtance of that card so that with CK & DA he will contemplate grand...

regards

[benlessard]

5♥ if partner bids 5♠ ill bid 6♣ otherwise my bid is 7♣. IMO partner 5♣ is positive, with a weak semi fitted hand he will X and with unsure values he will pass. So his 5♣ mean `i think we can make 5♣`

edited--
Im expecting most players to bid 5♥ so the real question is on the next round.

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Aug 21 2007, 10:23 PM, said:

Can I find out your parameters? In particular I think partner will almost always make a forcing pass instead of raising with 3 clubs. On the actual hand he held four clubs and still (IMO) had a really obvious forcing pass.

How do you know his hand? I don't recall seeing you at Brighton...

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 22 2007, 03:04 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 21 2007, 10:23 PM, said:

Can I find out your parameters? In particular I think partner will almost always make a forcing pass instead of raising with 3 clubs. On the actual hand he held four clubs and still (IMO) had a really obvious forcing pass.

How do you know his hand? I don't recall seeing you at Brighton...

You linked us to the tournament website, I read the last daily bulletin Congratulations by the way.

[FrancesHinden]

Thinking about this hand I've noticed a psychological point: somehow, at the table, it felt that going off in grand missing the ace of diamonds was somehow much worse than missing a making grand. I know, rationally, that is rubbish... but my emotional state then was feeling that bidding 7C off an ace was so awful that I couldn't even dare contemplate it.

Anyway, here are my other, saner, thoughts at the table:

i) I have to make at least a try for grand.
ii) We can easily be off the ace of diamonds here (Ax x KQJ10xx KJxx is pretty close to a slam drive over 4S, and it's certainly at least a 'good' 4NT bid).
iii) Even if we aren't off the ace of diamonds we might not be cold, though it's likely to have some play.
iv) I wish I played 5S as EKCB here, as Ken does, as I'm prepared to hope for a 13th trick opposite the relevant two key cards, but I don't, I play it as a trump ask.

What are my options?
i) 5D as a diamond cue bid seems a little wrong-headed
ii) 5H as a heart cue looks obvious... but it sounds as if it is looking for a spade control, and that's not my problem. Partner will sign off with nothing in spades, and that isn't the issue at all
iii) 5S asking for the CK doesn't solve the diamond problem
iv) 5NT as a spade cue must have at least one of the red suits well controlled; I wouldn't be looking for a grand with neither red suit ace.

At the table I bid 5NT. Given that partner has already shown minimum values, he might accept a grand try even with nothing in hearts (xx xx AKJxx KJxx say). But he might not.
Partner, of course, signed off over this.

I think that the 'oh f*** it, 7C' approach has a fair amount going for it (via 5S).

It's certainly right on the actual hand. Partner has

KQ
xxx
AJxx
KJxx

and the ace of spades is on your right, as you might expect.

The board was flat in 1390, which is 10 points worse the par contract of 7Sx.

Last time I had a problem like this, I didn't bid a grand and I was wrong. That's 2/2. Next time I'm bidding it.

[bid_em_up]

Cascade, on Aug 21 2007, 02:04 AM, said:

In isolation the clubs are a good bet to be solid - partner has the King or it is finessable.  This is probably somewhere in the 80-90% range.

The diamonds are far less certain.  I think there are many minimums where partner would be under pressure to show club support given our forcing 3♣ bid.  These could easily be missing the ace or king of diamonds.  I am guessing but partner will probably have the ace around 60-70% of the time and the king a little less say 55-60%.  Of course when he is missing the king he might have the queen and the king might be finessable.  All in all this is probably only around 50%.

I don't get this. If partner does not have the club K, isn't it more likely it is behind you instead of in the 2S bidders hand?

Likewise, if partner has the club K but holds only the AQ diamonds, isn't it more likely the diamond finesse is working?

(Btw, what software are you using to make your evaluations of percentages in some of your later posts.)

Personally, I think that we know partner holds no values in hearts, and he rates to hold little to nothing in spades (I realize that this did not hold true). But it is more likely that one or both spade honors in his hand will be in the opponents hand, making it more likely he has both the AK (or at least the AQ) of diamonds, and the club K as part of his opening hand, and so, I will bid 5S to check on the club K, and bid the grand.

(Its' also possible he holds the spade A and the diamond A along with the club K which is just as good as holding the AK of diamonds).

[Cascade]

bid_em_up, on Aug 23 2007, 03:22 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 21 2007, 02:04 AM, said:

In isolation the clubs are a good bet to be solid - partner has the King or it is finessable.  This is probably somewhere in the 80-90% range.

The diamonds are far less certain.  I think there are many minimums where partner would be under pressure to show club support given our forcing 3♣ bid.  These could easily be missing the ace or king of diamonds.  I am guessing but partner will probably have the ace around 60-70% of the time and the king a little less say 55-60%.  Of course when he is missing the king he might have the queen and the king might be finessable.  All in all this is probably only around 50%.

I don't get this. If partner does not have the club K, isn't it more likely it is behind you instead of in the 2S bidders hand?

Likewise, if partner has the club K but holds only the AQ diamonds, isn't it more likely the diamond finesse is working?

(Btw, what software are you using to make your evaluations of percentages in some of your later posts.)

Personally, I think that we know partner holds no values in hearts, and he rates to hold little to nothing in spades (I realize that this did not hold true). But it is more likely that one or both spade honors in his hand will be in the opponents hand, making it more likely he has both the AK (or at least the AQ) of diamonds, and the club K as part of his opening hand, and so, I will bid 5S to check on the club K, and bid the grand.

(Its' also possible he holds the spade A and the diamond A along with the club K which is just as good as holding the AK of diamonds).

My estimated odds of 80-90% reflect the fact that the ♣K is more likely to be with partner or onside. If it was equally likely with all three other players the odds would be around 75%. As it is with partner having three or more likely four clubs on general principles partner will have the king at least 50% of the time and over half of the rest it will be onside as you pointed out.

My guesses for the diamond position were on a similar basis but when I did the simulations they turned out to be just a little low. Partner had the ♦A around 70-75% of the time etc.

I am using some software called mdealer.exe - actually I think it might be called dealer. Have a search on google and you should find it.

The software simulations will take all of those things into account except on subjective matters like exactly which hands will bid in a certain way - especially marginal judgements.

In the end they give us a ball park figure for certain likelihoods.