[the hog]

1S followed by 4S. I am not going to introduce the H suit here.

[Cascade]

Justin

We have a general rule that once we have bid and agreed one major then we can not get to an alternative contract below slam. This rule has stood us in good stead. One advantage is that we give less information to the opponents this way. Another advantage is that it simplifies our agreements. Especially since in most auctions we use kickback to ask for key cards.

There are some exceptions where we can get to No Trumps (but often 3NT is a non-serious try or a spade cue over heart agreement at the three-level). And some other exceptions in competitive auctions where we might raise partner initially and then offer an alternative strain.

I can see how on this particular auction it doesn't add much cue-bidding in spades since it is all but inconceivable that we would be making a slam try without a spade control. Perhaps something like

♠ QJ10xxx
♥ AKxxx
♦ A
♣ A

is possible.

Also we avoid bidding a fragment. I can't honestly remember the last time I have needed to do this as my rebid in my regular partnership in an uncontested auction. Sometimes in competition when our normal rebid has been disturbed by the competition we will rebid a fragment.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Mar 18 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

Jdonn, I see people do what you did very often but it is definitely not true that we need just 4 hearts and an ace for slam. We need FIVE hearts and an ace, and with that partner is already close to cuebidding. We also have no 5 level safety, so I don't think you should drive there.

esˈsentially adverb
basically

ba·si·cal·ly (bā'sĭ-kə-lē, -klē) Pronunciation Key
adv.
for the most part

[sartaj1]

2D = transfer to 2H
followed by 3S forcing (unless partner jumps in hearts)

Coudnt resist an advert for my chosen methods

[CSGibson]

I think I'm opening this 2♣. I would be sick if 1♠ somehow passed around, and it really does describe my hand in terms of slam potential much more than 1♠. I understand if this may be a minority view, but it's a 3 loser hand with great controls, and as seen, even having the extra room is not all that valuable since you're forced to jump around anyway.

after opening 2C I can bid 2♠, 3♠, 4♥, and get the hand off my chest, or if it miracle of miracles goes 2S-3H, I can just bid key card and get to the right spot.

[whereagles]

Cascade, on Mar 18 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 19 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

3H

Isn't there some danger that partner with 1=3 in the majors and one or other minor unstopped will raise to 4♥?

NO NO NO. Statistically, he won't have that hand. And even if he does, he should still bid 3NT because opener, who has a strong hand, probably has a stop anyway.

[rbforster]

CSGibson, on Mar 19 2008, 01:34 AM, said:

I think I'm opening this 2♣.

I was going to point this out too. Game in hand? Check. Unwilling to open game directly? Check. Must leave 2♣.

Notice that something like 90%+ of the spade simulations are making game or better. This is also without exploring for hearts when they might offer a better strain either.

[bid_em_up]

Cascade, on Mar 18 2008, 07:14 PM, said:

This hand predealt no other constraints.

Spades made:

    7          1
    8         17
    9         71
   10        188
   11        390
   12        269
   13         64

Hearts made :

    4          7
    5         21
    6         57
    7        106
    8        133
    9        118
   10        113
   11        230
   12        172
   13         43

Hearts made more than spades  158/1000

Draw your own conclusion but I think it worth investigating slam and exploring for a heart fit.

If I am reading this table correctly, the number on the left is the number of tricks taken, and the number on the right is the number of times. Right?

Please explain your conclusion that it is worth "exploring" a heart fit, or that Hearts made more than spades 158/1000. Because I sure dont see the same thing.

Assuming my math is right, spades took 10+ tricks a total of 911 times out of 1000 or 91.1% of the time. Hearts tooks 10+ tricks a total of 558 times out of 1000 or 55.8%. (For 9+ tricks the numbers are 98.2% vs. 67.6%)

Hmmm, lets see. 91.1% vs. 55.8%, this is a no-brainer for spades, imo.

[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on Mar 19 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

Please explain your conclusion that it is worth "exploring" a heart fit, or that Hearts made more than spades 158/1000. Because I sure dont see the same thing.

He's saying that on 158 out of 1000 specific hands, the hand took more tricks in hearts than spades.

That has nothing to do with the chart he posted.

[pclayton]

I think this beast is good enough for 2♣. I think 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ - 2N - 3♠ - 3N - 4♥ describes this hand the best.

If I have a 2N or 3♣ gadget available, I'd pull that out. If I didn't, I'd try the 3♥ / 4♠ route.

[helene_t]

Funny to see that the number of hearts tricks is bimodal. Wonder if this is reproducible.

Not that even if some 15% of deals take more tricks in hearts than is spades, the number of deals on which it would be correct to bid a heart contract may be smaller (or larger for that matter). For example it could be that if p is 1-4, the expected number of spades tricks is always larger than the expected number of heart tricks, but sometimes hearts split more friendly.

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Mar 19 2008, 09:54 AM, said:

Funny to see that the number of hearts tricks is bimodal. Wonder if this is reproducible.

I suspect 8 tricks is the most common result with a 6 or less card fit, and 11 tricks is the most common with an 8+ card fit, with 7 card fits falling somewhere between.

[nick_s]

bid_em_up, on Mar 19 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 18 2008, 07:14 PM, said:

Cool analysis snipped

If I am reading this table correctly, the number on the left is the number of tricks taken, and the number on the right is the number of times. Right?

Please explain your conclusion that it is worth "exploring" a heart fit, or that Hearts made more than spades 158/1000. Because I sure dont see the same thing.

Assuming my math is right, spades took 10+ tricks a total of 911 times out of 1000 or 91.1% of the time. Hearts tooks 10+ tricks a total of 558 times out of 1000 or 55.8%. (For 9+ tricks the numbers are 98.2% vs. 67.6%)

Hmmm, lets see. 91.1% vs. 55.8%, this is a no-brainer for spades, imo.

Following on: I guess what I'd really like to know is when hearts was a better contract than spades, when the same, and when worse etc.

I'm asking a lot, I know.

[Free]

According to these statistics, the average number of tricks is 9.626 in ♥, while it's a massive 11.012 in ♠...

[bid_em_up]

jtfanclub, on Mar 19 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Mar 19 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

Please explain your conclusion that it is worth "exploring" a heart fit, or that Hearts made more than spades  158/1000. Because I sure dont see the same thing.

He's saying that on 158 out of 1000 specific hands, the hand took more tricks in hearts than spades.

That has nothing to do with the chart he posted.

JT.

I am assuming that the chart shows 1000 hands, and the number of tricks taken in spades for those 1000 hands, and the number of tricks taken in hearts for the same 1000 hands.

It simply isnt possible that hearts made more tricks than spades 158 times, unless he is meaning that on a given hand spades made 8 tricks, but hearts made 9, or spades made 10 but hearts made 11, or some other similar comparison. I find this hard to believe though.

Overall, its clear that spades is the better contract.

[skjaeran]

I've two possible ways to bid this hand after 1♠-1NT:

Either rebid 2♦ (transfer) followed by 3♠ (unless partner jump in hearts).

Or, preferably, rebid a conventional GF 2NT followed by 3♠ unless partner shows 4c hearts (or more) (over 3NT from pard I rebid 4♠).

[SchTsch]

Hm, I thought we are bond to use natural bidding.

Usage of gazzilli 2♣ simplifies things.

[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on Mar 19 2008, 10:27 AM, said:

It simply isnt possible that hearts made more tricks than spades 158 times, unless he is meaning that on a given hand spades made 8 tricks, but hearts made 9, or spades made 10 but hearts made 11, or some other similar comparison. I find this hard to believe though.

I believe that's exactly what he's saying. I suspect that there are very few hands where responder has 4+ hearts where you're better off playing in spades.