[hanp]

kenrexford, on Apr 14 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 14 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

Jb: even tho the splinter deserved to reach a good slam here...

How is this a good slam?

Against a slam, a spade lead is hopeless. A trump lead is 100%. Since the person with the doubleton heart has the diamond Ace, they get in to lead another trump.

Now, are you supposed to find the smother play in diamonds for trick #12 instead of the simple club hook? Or, am I missing some exotic compound squeeze somewhere?

This is obviously a very good slam. To go down you need the opponents to lead a heart, you need the defender with the diamond ace to have another heart and you need the club finesse to be off.

The fact that all these conditions are met doesn't make the slam any less good.

Mikeh is of course right that partner's 4H bid was very weak, partner could hardly have a better hand.

I also agree that 3S was too optimistic even though it is possible to have a slam.

[cherdanno]

kenrexford, on Apr 14 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 14 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

Jb: even tho the splinter deserved to reach a good slam here...

How is this a good slam?

LOL

[kenrexford]

Maybe I'm missing something here. There seem to be three ways of looking at an end contract, as to whether a slam is "good" or "bad."

Option #1: Will the contract make in practice? This is a results analysis. On this actual hand, against competent defense, the contract seems doomed. The percentage line seems to fail. So, the result would be poor.

Option #2: Will the contract be percentage based on what can be discovered in the auction? This looks at the percentage viability of a contract with the information available during the auction. I have not seen any auction posted yet that gives Responder the information that Opener will have these precise cards. Maybe it will happen.

Option #3: If dummy were to hit before the lead, do you like your chances? On this account, the slam seems good. That I cannot and do not contest.

However, how in the world is #3 useful? #1 gives you a good score, and good scores, whether deserved or not, are rewarding. #2 gives you satisfaction in having a superior auction and convinces you that on the majority of days your good auction will provide more good scores than bad. #3 is kind of a gee whiz; the contract might have been somewhere between a wild ass guess and anti-percentage from the info during the auction, and the result may be as predicted from the auction, but for a minute it looked like you might have sumble-nbunnied into a likely-making contract.

I mean, you could bid 3NT when you have 21 combined HCP just because you want to. When dummy hits, the hands might actually fit together such that this contract is more likely than not to make. But, if the contract will in practice be set, you get a bad score for bad bidding.

[jillybean]

Well, Im still not too thrilled with bidding 4♥'s on this hand but I need to read and digest the replies some more- thanks for the detailed replies.

[Echognome]

kenrexford, on Apr 14 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

Maybe I'm missing something here. There seem to be three ways of looking at an end contract, as to whether a slam is "good" or "bad."

Option #1: Will the contract make in practice? This is a results analysis. On this actual hand, against competent defense, the contract seems doomed. The percentage line seems to fail. So, the result would be poor.

Option #2: Will the contract be percentage based on what can be discovered in the auction? This looks at the percentage viability of a contract with the information available during the auction. I have not seen any auction posted yet that gives Responder the information that Opener will have these precise cards. Maybe it will happen.

Option #3: If dummy were to hit before the lead, do you like your chances? On this account, the slam seems good. That I cannot and do not contest.

However, how in the world is #3 useful? #1 gives you a good score, and good scores, whether deserved or not, are rewarding. #2 gives you satisfaction in having a superior auction and convinces you that on the majority of days your good auction will provide more good scores than bad. #3 is kind of a gee whiz; the contract might have been somewhere between a wild ass guess and anti-percentage from the info during the auction, and the result may be as predicted from the auction, but for a minute it looked like you might have sumble-nbunnied into a likely-making contract.

I mean, you could bid 3NT when you have 21 combined HCP just because you want to. When dummy hits, the hands might actually fit together such that this contract is more likely than not to make. But, if the contract will in practice be set, you get a bad score for bad bidding.

Why is this concept so difficult?

If someone gives you a pair of hands single dummy and tells you a contract, can you not judge whether it's a good contract?

Maybe someone else will give you a pair of hands and an auction (including opponents bidding) and ask you if it is a good contract. What will you say? It depends on if we're judging by #1, #2, or #3 criterion? No, you will base it off the information available.

And that's what we generally do when people ask us a question. We can ask them for more information of course, but if they don't have it, we can give them our view based on the information we have. I think you are over-complicating matters.

[barmar]

Looking at the N/S hands, I'd say that this looks like a decent slam, I'd expect Meckwell to bid it.

I think Ken's point may be that given the more limited bidding tools B/I's generally have, should they be expected to find this slam? Should we fault them for stopping in game because they can't bid the slam with any confidence?

On the other hand, even if they might not find the slam, North made a mistake by bidding 4♥. At that point in the auction, South is still unlimited, and North has a pretty good hand in context. Bidding game implies he has nothing useful to show below game, and effectively shuts South out of exploring for slam unless he has significant extras. He should cooperate with the slam exploration by cue bidding. If they don't find the slam, it won't be for lack of trying, which is what happened in this case.

[H_KARLUK]

jillybean2, on Apr 14 2009, 07:02 PM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: NS Scoring: IMP

♠ A ♥ QJT764 ♦ J982 ♣ KJ

West  North East  South

 -     1♣    Pass  1♥
 Pass  2♥    Pass  ?  

Huh, girlz rulz ?

Not too hard -imo- a game there