[pooltuna]

MarkDean, on Oct 5 2009, 10:02 PM, said:

I would not have opened this hand 1NT, it is too good in my opinion. 

One thing to consider, is that partner did not bid gerber.  If he had 17, and zero aces, would he have checked to make sure we are not off two aces?  If you believe so, he has 18-19, and I would guess that 7NT is a percentage contract.

so he can't possibly hold

---

and of course your target isn't 50% odds to make it is 80%. This tends to imply that you don't trust your partner's judgement since you really aren't invited to the party!

[jdonn]

pooltuna, on Oct 5 2009, 10:47 PM, said:

MarkDean, on Oct 5 2009, 10:02 PM, said:

I would not have opened this hand 1NT, it is too good in my opinion. 

One thing to consider, is that partner did not bid gerber.  If he had 17, and zero aces, would he have checked to make sure we are not off two aces?  If you believe so, he has 18-19, and I would guess that 7NT is a percentage contract.

so he can't possibly hold

---

and of course your target isn't 50% odds to make it is 80%. This tends to imply that you don't trust your partner's judgement since you really aren't invited to the party!

Not 80%, the other tables won't miss slam! More like 60%.

[MarkDean]

pooltuna, on Oct 5 2009, 08:47 PM, said:

MarkDean, on Oct 5 2009, 10:02 PM, said:

I would not have opened this hand 1NT, it is too good in my opinion. 

One thing to consider, is that partner did not bid gerber.  If he had 17, and zero aces, would he have checked to make sure we are not off two aces?  If you believe so, he has 18-19, and I would guess that 7NT is a percentage contract.

so he can't possibly hold

---

and of course your target isn't 50% odds to make it is 80%. This tends to imply that you don't trust your partner's judgement since you really aren't invited to the party!

No, he can't hold that hand...why would he have bid stayman?

But more importantly, I meant that it is likely that on average it will work, not that it is 100% to work every time.

[gnasher]

cherdanno, on Oct 6 2009, 03:12 AM, said:

South the given hand. North 17-20 hcp (*), no 5-card suit, at least one 4-card major.
1000 runs, South makes 7NT 633 times, goes down in 6N 11 times.

Is that double dummy? If so, it rather overstates our ability to guess DQ opposite KJx.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Oct 5 2009, 11:00 PM, said:

In fact, supposing you knew partner had KJx of diamonds and a correct guess would see you home. You might reasonably say LHO will lead a diamond 25% of the time without the queen

I don't think it's as high as 25%. Other things being equal, xxxx is a more passive lead than xxx, which is more passive than xx. On average LHO will have shorter diamonds than any other suit, so he'll tend to lead something else.

What would you lead against 7NT from xxxx xxx xx Qxxx? Even after the major-suit interest shown by responder, I'd still prefer a spade to anything else.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Oct 5 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

I don't think people tend to search for the 4-4 minor suit fit on those hands in practice.

Is that because they can't, or because they don't want to?

It would be odd to not want to. Even if you're going to play in notrumps, simply having a 4-4 fit often increases a the combined playing strength significantly. For example, the difference in expectation between KQx opposite Axxx and KQxx opposite Axxx is 0.3 tricks. Combining that with the larger benefit of being able to ruff losers, finding and playing in a 4-4 minor-suit fit is worth well over 1 trick.

[rhm]

Trinidad, on Oct 5 2009, 12:56 PM, said:

You hold:

♠ A97
♥ A4
♦ AT974
♣ AT3

You are dealer and with silent opponents, the auction goes:

1NT-2♣
2♦-6NT

Are you "not asked to the table" and should you autopass or ... is this the exception to the rule?

Rik

You are not asked but this does not mean you should not look at your hand.
It is clear from the fact that partner has no aces he must have at least 18 HCP to bid like that. Otherwise among others 2 aces could be missing.
If partner is not balanced and has a long suit it is almost certain that you have 13 tricks

I did a simulation (1000 deals) specifying for South 18-20 HCP, balanced with at least one 4 card major, but no 5 card major. Random simulation means that South was a heavy favorite to be minimum.

Result was that 13 tricks were available in nearly 80% of all deals.

I was amazed how often there were 13 tricks even when the ♦ suit could not be established.

Now it is true that double dummy analysis heavily favors declarer in a grand slam.
So the single dummy chance making 7NT will be somewhat closer to 70%

So the answer is you need a lot of courage to bid 7NT, but you are a heavy favorite to win IMPs.

Most Bridge players would open this hand 1NT without second thought.
I believe the true mistake is in opening this hand 1NT and the fact that you consider raising to 7NT more or less proves this.
The hand should be upgraded to a balanced 18-19 and opened 1♦ with the intention to jump rebid in notrump.
This is at worst a slight overbid for notrump game evaluation but is certainly correct for suit evaluation and for slam purposes.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

I agree that this should be upgraded to 18.

[pooltuna]

gnasher, on Oct 6 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

I agree that this should be upgraded to 18.

This is not without cost. You are hosing the auction 1♦-1♥;2NT-6NT when responder has 15 or 16 or maybe he upgrades a 14 point hand (albeit hard to imagine holding no aces)

[gnasher]

pooltuna, on Oct 6 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

gnasher, on Oct 6 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

I agree that this should be upgraded to 18.

This is not without cost. You are hosing the auction 1♦-1♥;2NT-6NT when responder has 15 or 16 or maybe he upgrades a 14 point hand (albeit hard to imagine holding no aces)

Why is that a cost? If I think this is worth 18, and partner bids 6NT with a hand he thinks worth 15, we are in slam with hands that we think are worth 33 in total.

[whereagles]

You cannot blame the 1NT opener here. If you start dodging obvious openings to cater for this or that slammish hand, you're gonna cause a lot of trouble elsewhere.

Just accept you can't get every hand right and bid properly. Then exercise judgement on top when you believe it's right, like in this case: bid 7NT if you need to take a shot, pass otherwise.

[gnasher]

whereagles, on Oct 6 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

You cannot blame the 1NT opener here. If you start dodging obvious openings to cater for this or that slammish hand, you're gonna cause a lot of trouble elsewhere.

Just accept you can't get every hand right and bid properly. Then exercise judgement on top when you believe it's right, like in this case: bid 7NT if you need to take a shot, pass otherwise.

So I'm allowed to exercise judgment on the third round of the auction but not the first? I want to show 18-19 because I think that four aces, a five card suit, and some good, well-placed intermediates make my hand worth more than 17.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Oct 6 2009, 03:16 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 5 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

I don't think people tend to search for the 4-4 minor suit fit on those hands in practice.

Is that because they can't, or because they don't want to?

What's the difference? Most people can't and they either don't miss it or don't know they miss it. I'm just saying what people do, not what they should do.

The sim is fine but I still think it should be 18-19 not 17-20 or 18-20 (doesn't 20 invite 7?). It sounds silly but as someone pointed out if you had a 6NT bid with 17, why wouldn't you check for aces? And since there are more 17 than 20 point hands, that should make 7NT even better. On the flip side you do have a point about the diamond lead, but I think that is offset by the fact you can play off a lot of other suits before deciding, I just found that too hard to factor into a calculation.

As a side note, I am flabbergasted and have absolutely no words for upgrading this hand beyond a 15-17 1NT. Obviously you're allowed to exercise judgment on the first round of the auction, I just can't believe you would in this way.

[Trinidad]

rhm, on Oct 6 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

Most Bridge players would open this hand 1NT without second thought.
I believe the true mistake is in opening this hand 1NT and the fact that you consider raising to 7NT more or less proves this.
The hand should be upgraded to a balanced 18-19 and opened 1♦ with the intention to jump rebid in notrump.
This is at worst a slight overbid for notrump game evaluation but is certainly correct for suit evaluation and for slam purposes.

Rainer Herrmann

In my view you need to evaluate hads differently based on where you are going.
If you make a decision whether to bid game or not good old HCPs, with some adjusting for distribution, degree of fit, etc. works just fine.

Suppose you hold a hand like:

♠ QJxx
♥ KQJ
♦ Kxx
♣ KQJ

You have 18 HCPs, but you decide to downgrade to 16 because of the 4333 and the "quackiness" of the hand. So you open a 15-17 1NT. If partner passes, and puts 3HCPs in dummy, you expect to make 1NT, despite the fact that you called this a 16 point hand. In other words, at the part score level, the hand is actually worth about 17.5 points.

Now, partner invites game by bidding 2NT. You need to be fairly pessimistic to pass that. So, at the game level, the hand is worth about 16 points.

Now take the same hand, again you open 1NT. Partner bids Stayman, you respond 2♠ and -for lack of methods and for the sake of this argument- he jumps to 5♠ as a quantitative invitation to 6♠. Should you accept? In my opinion you shouldn't. If partner has what you need, he wouldn't have bid just 5♠. He would have decided to bid 6♠ himself. Therefore, at the slam level, the hand is worth 14-15 points.

Now, take the other extreme: 4 aces and spaces. You consider it a good 17 HCP hand and open 1NT. If partner passes and puts down 3 HCPs, you now that you are in trouble. So at the part score level, your hand isn't worth that "good 17 HCPs", it may actually be worth less than 15.

If your partner invites game, you will accept, since, for game evalution it is a good 17.

And if your partner invites a slam, you will have a hand that falls outside your 15-17 NT range. Now you have about 19.

So, when you are evaluating at the slem level, quacks are less valuable and controls are more valuable, not only for the purpose of control, but also for the possibility to develop tricks.

So, your method of hand evaluation needs to depend on the level (and denomination) that you want to bid for. At low levels at NT, quacks have relatively high value. At high level in suits, quacks become less important and aces rule.

Now this is nothing new. We all know this. But it means that at the time that you pick up a balanced hand with 4 aces, and you have to make an opening bid, you don't know whether your 4 aces are worth less than 15 or as much as 19. Blaming opener for opening a 15-17 1NT with 4 aces is therefore a bit unfair.

BTW: Would those that consider this an 18 point hand open the hand a 20-21 2NT if I would add two points by changing the lowest spade into the ♠Q? What would they say if partner puts 3 HCPs in the dummy?

Rik

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on Oct 6 2009, 05:11 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Oct 6 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

gnasher, on Oct 6 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

I agree that this should be upgraded to 18.

This is not without cost. You are hosing the auction 1♦-1♥;2NT-6NT when responder has 15 or 16 or maybe he upgrades a 14 point hand (albeit hard to imagine holding no aces)

Why is that a cost? If I think this is worth 18, and partner bids 6NT with a hand he thinks worth 15, we are in slam with hands that we think are worth 33 in total.

You are right about that. But the cost comes after 1♦-1♥; 2NT-Pass. The hand is certainly worth 18 (I think it is even more) for slam purposes, but it's worth about 16 in a partscore.

Rik

[rhm]

whereagles, on Oct 6 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

You cannot blame the 1NT opener here. If you start dodging obvious openings to cater for this or that slammish hand, you're gonna cause a lot of trouble elsewhere.

Just accept you can't get every hand right and bid properly. Then exercise judgement on top when you believe it's right, like in this case: bid 7NT if you need to take a shot, pass otherwise.

Nonsense.

The question what a hand is worth is derived from its trick taking potential in play not from standard point count, which often is a reasonable and sometimes a poor approximation to that.
The popularity of standard point count has more to do with its simplicity than with its precision. For example point count adds nothing for useful intermediates.
It is well known that aces are undervalued by standard point count and lower honors overvalued; yes even for notrump contracts
Consequently I expect a partner, who puts me in 6NT without an ace in his hand to have full values for his bid. 17 HCP are not sufficient in this case opposite a one notrump opening.

There are 15 point balanced hands which should be downgraded and others which should be upgraded.

Upgrading this hand will get you to many more good game contracts, which will not be reached otherwise, than it will get you too high, for the simple reason that the hand is worth more.

The value of this hand is worth about 18 HCP for game in notrump and about 19 HCP in a suit contract.

That this hand will be worth even more at the slam level is an additional argument to upgrade the hand.

Bidding now 7NT may be the percentage action but is an obvious shot in the dark.
Much better to evaluate a hand first properly and then tell partner what your hand is worth.

Rainer Herrmann

[phil_20686]

jdonn, on Oct 6 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

As a side note, I am flabbergasted and have absolutely no words for upgrading this hand beyond a 15-17 1NT. Obviously you're allowed to exercise judgment on the first round of the auction, I just can't believe you would in this way.

WHy? Most statistical methods for evaluating the worth of aces place them about half a point higher than their milton equivalent. This suggests that it should be treated as at least 18 HCP. Also, it does have a 5 card suit and good intermeadeates.

I remember a comment by fred gitelman(?) on his Deal of the Week's in the archive, that a hand with 4 aces should be upgraded by at least 1 HCP. I'm not sure whether or not i would up grade at the table, as i am aware that i am playing very anti field, and also that system generally inst as good after a 2NT rebid as over a 1N opening. If i was playing something like transfer walsh where my one level rebid would show an 18-19 NT, i would do that i expect.

[jdonn]

Trinidad is exactly right that the value of the hand clearly increases more opposite more values, and less or not at all opposite fewer or no values. It's totally wrong to say "if you want to bid 7 now you should have upgraded to begin with" because it's partner's known values that make our hand worth the upgrade.

In comparison, a hand like xx xx xxx AKQJT is clearly worth an upgrade beyond 10 if your system allows for one in some situation, but that is irrespective of the strength of partner's hand. You have 5 tricks, period, and do nothing to help set up anything he has.

[phil_20686]

jdonn, on Oct 6 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

Trinidad is exactly right that the value of the hand clearly increases more opposite more values, and less or not at all opposite fewer or no values. It's totally wrong to say "if you want to bid 7 now you should have upgraded to begin with" because it's partner's known values that make our hand worth the upgrade.

Agree with this, your hand is clearly better now than when you opened it.

On another note, if you bid 7N and its wrong, partner will be very upset and may play badly. Some partners would be more than a little upset even when it works. This should not be discounted particularly if it is early in the session (or the partnership).

[Trinidad]

phil_20686, on Oct 6 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

On another note, if you bid 7N and its wrong, partner will be very upset and may play badly. Some partners would be more than a little upset even when it works. This should not be discounted particularly if it is early in the session (or the partnership).

That I can buy. And I do consider that very important.

On the other hand, if you have a constructive partner, who wants to build up the partnership, you can apologize at the table. At a later point in time you can show partner this discussion and say that as a rule, you would never ever bid 7NT, but that you thought that your hand was an exception to the rule.

A good partner should then understand that you bid 7NT with the best intentions. He may even appreciate that you are not a slave to golden bidding principles, but that you are thinking when you play bridge. And he may appreciate that thinking doesn't always work.

Rik