[Cyberyeti]

Have just played a minor national KO semifinal which we won by 3 IMPS, a few interesting hands, would welcome opinions.

The first is essentially a punt:

Scoring: IMP

---

You know partner is 15-16, precisely 3433 with ♥AK and ♣A but not ♦K.

The second:

Scoring: IMP

---

RHO opens a 12-14 1N, 2♣ would show ♥ and another, 3♣ would be weak.

The third and 4th were 2 possible slams that nobody got near at either table, opponents were chasing IMPS, so thought they might have at least looked:

Scoring: IMP

---

Opening leader would have no clubs and the A♠ in 6♣, so it would roll in comfort. I hadn't realised the N hand was only a 13 count, he opened it a 15-17 1N at the table.

Scoring: IMP

---

here 6♦ by E seems to require trumps 2-1 and (spades 4-3/KQ double or the heart finesse) with some possibilities when trumps are 3-0.

Partner and I play that 1♦-2♠ is GF with 5+♠ and 4+♦ or the traditional one suited rock crusher, so we'd get close to this one, slam can't be worse than a finesse really.

1♦-2♠
3♣(nat non minimum)-3♦ (5♠/4♦ minimum)
3♥-3♠
4♥(RKCB)-5♦(2 with)

Now partner is known to hold spades at least AJ9xx (minimum suit quality for the 2♠), diamonds at least AQxx and another possibly useless honour. Slam is looking pretty good at this point given that partner won't have a 5044.

[Jlall]

1) 7N is cold opposite Jxx AKJx xxx AQx but I will never play for that.

6S is better than 6N when partner has something like xxx AKJx Jxx AQx on a diamond lead if spades are 4-1 offsides. 6N can be better when partner has something like xxx AKxx QJx AQx and spades are 4-1 offsides, DK if off, and hearts aren't 3-3. 6N is usually better on 5-0 spades too.

Overall I would go with 6N.

2) Playing 3C as weak when you can't bid 2C sucks imo. You need a way to show a normal club overcall so you can find games. Given your system I guess I would bid 3C and hope to get a chance to do something later.

[Fluffy]

1: its very close, maybe a simulation?. Sadly the sim would guess hearts all the time.

There is no way that 7NT is hopeless, worse I can think of is ♠xxx♥AKxx♦Qxx♣AQx

where spades on means we have erd suit squeeze as well as the hearts for a 40% total or so.

mmm worse actually is
♠Jxx♥AKxx♦QJx♣Axx

but even on this case they have to lead something!.

All in all I am betting for 7NT.

2: I would at least show clubs with 3 clubs, temped to bid 4. Double is a big waste of time IMO.

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on Oct 31 2009, 11:00 PM, said:

1: its very close, maybe a simulation?. Sadly the sim would guess hearts all the time.

There is no way that 7NT is hopeless, worse I can think of is ♠xxx♥AKxx♦Qxx♣AQx

where spades on means we have erd suit squeeze as well as the hearts for a 40% total or so.

mmm worse actually is
♠Jxx♥AKxx♦QJx♣Axx

but even on this case they have to lead something!.

All in all I am betting for 7NT.

2: I would at least show clubs with 3 clubs, temped to bid 4. Double is a big waste of time IMO.

The hand you give ♠Jxx♥AKxx♦QJx♣Axx is why 7♠ might be better as a minor suit lead now definitely gives you a trick, 7N would have been declared by the 3433, but as we play a weak no trump, a spade contract would be played by the spade hand. If you play a strong no trump, this consideration is irrelevant.

Curiously, although I wouldn't do it, double is the big winner on the second hand. If partner gets the defence right, you will take 1Nx at least 2 off (partner holds xxxx, 10xxx, AQJx, x, the clubs are 2-2 and the partner of the 1N bidder has a 9 count and will stand the double).

[dellache]

Hand 1 :
The average winning bid is (see the sim below) to bid a Grand, unless you want to bid grands only when you can count your 13 tricks. Unless opposition is weak, it's difficult to imagine they don't reach at least 6♠/NT. So I'd like to bid 7 if I think chances are above 60%. Is that the case ? My bet at the table would be "yes". Intuitively, you are going to combine boards where 7♠ have 13 top tricks (not too frequent BTW), and boards where you have 12 tricks and must find the 13th one via a finesse (sometimes 2 ) or a minor suit squeeze. If you can play Spades from the spade Hand, you get some extras compared to NT from the BAL hand, because sometimes, LHO will have to lead from Jx Jxx ?xxx ?xxx and a minor lead will obviously slightly improve your chances in the play (sometimes you won't have to guess a finesse or a squeeze.)

The sim :
Now seing Fluffy's request about a sim, once again : "yes a sim is relevant" provided you perform a semi-automatic sim. Here is the protocol :
1. simulate the South's hand as requested ;
2. compute the %age double dummy (7♠ = 7NT = app. 76%, 10000 boards).
3. output 200 boards where it makes DD. Now play them single dummy (in the case of a grand it's rather easy), using the "best" honest SD-line (this is actually a very easy slam to play SD).
4. on borderline choices (not many here, usually the best line is clearcut) assume the 2 extreme cases : you always get it wrong, OR you always get it right. That gives you two bounds.

On the 200 boards I got, the lower bound was that I would have made 7♠ 169 times (85%, std-dev < 3% on 200 boards). So in real life, I expect 7♠ to make more than 64% (=85%x76%) f the cases, single dummy.

I didnot do this for 7NT, but it must be close : the influence of the lead is minimal.

Well there might be more to it in KO, depending on the state of the match : it's just an OK Grand, not a terrific grand.

Cheers,

[Cyberyeti]

At the table, the board was flat in 7N at one table, 7♠ at the other, the hand opposite was xxx, AKJx, Jxx, AQx with the spades 3-2.

[Fluffy]

Cyberyeti, on Nov 1 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

The hand you give ♠Jxx♥AKxx♦QJx♣Axx is why 7♠ might be better as a minor suit lead now definitely gives you a trick, 7N would have been declared by the 3433

yeah 7♠, I put my eggs on that basket. I somehow though we were playing the 7NT hand but well that's just a guess without a bidding .

To dellache: nice work with the simulation I think that getting id of ♥9 would give you better results, but with the 200 board test there seems to be no need.