[Trinidad]

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

[aguahombre]

I vote for "not asked". Might reconsider if I just remembered we were playing weak NT.

[woefuwabit]

Would be helpful to know your agreed 1NT opening range!

[gwnn]

if my nt opening range is 9-11 I'd bid 7NT, if it is anything stronger, I agree with autopass.

[Lobowolf]

Presumably partner knew our NT range when he bid 6NT instead of 5NT (forcing to 6 and inviting 7). As for us, we already determined at the first bid that a 5-card suit and a couple of tens wasn't enough enough to upgrade us out of our NT range. Autopass it is.

[Hanoi5]

Agree with those bidding 7NT if I remembered I was playing a weak NT.

[pooltuna]

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 invited to the table. Any call other than pass IMO is non-partnership bridge i.e. known as masterminding.

[neilkaz]

Easy pass. If you thought your hand with 4 aces and a decent 5 card suit was too good for a 1NT opening you should have opened 1D and rebid 2NT.

[billw55]

7NT is a creative way to lose 14 IMPs and your partner.

Otherwise, pass is recommended.

[Trinidad]

Your NT range is 15-17.

Rik

[jdonn]

Out of curiosity, and I don't mean to say this question isn't lol, has anyone actually tried to construct hands for partner, or run a sim based on partner being something like good 17 to 19 with at least one 4 card major and no 5+ minor? Or are the answers limited to "bid on this auction, LOL?!?"

I'm just saying, we might all learn something here. Because the first few hands I thought of for partner made 7NT easy, and it was hard to come up with ones that are worse than a finesse although possible. I mean it's not like you expect anyone to miss slam when this is the auction, so you could bid a grand with worse odds than normal if you knew what the odds would be.

[gwnn]

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

Out of curiosity, and I don't mean to say this question isn't lol, has anyone actually tried to construct hands for partner, or run a sim based on partner being something like good 17 to 19 with at least one 4 card major and no 5+ minor? Or are the answers limited to "bid on this auction, LOL?!?"

I'm just saying, we might all learn something here. Because the first few hands I thought of for partner made 7NT easy, and it was hard to come up with ones that are worse than a finesse although possible. I mean it's not like you expect anyone to miss slam when this is the auction, so you could bid a grand with worse odds than normal if you knew what the odds would be.

I think we're all programmed not to bid a grand unless we're "sure" and here we have no idea what cho has in store for us so that's why nobody wants to think outside the box. But it's a box I will be happy to be trapped in tbh.

[whereagles]

I would consider bidding 7 if I needed points. Expect it to be on a finesse at worst.

But in like 90% of the time I'd just pass.

[OleBerg]

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

Out of curiosity, and I don't mean to say this question isn't lol, has anyone actually tried to construct hands for partner, or run a sim based on partner being something like good 17 to 19 with at least one 4 card major and no 5+ minor? Or are the answers limited to "bid on this auction, LOL?!?"

I'm just saying, we might all learn something here. Because the first few hands I thought of for partner made 7NT easy, and it was hard to come up with ones that are worse than a finesse although possible. I mean it's not like you expect anyone to miss slam when this is the auction, so you could bid a grand with worse odds than normal if you knew what the odds would be.

Just for those who haven't done the math:

If you consider it 100% that the other table (IMP's) have bid and made 6nt, the needed odds are:

NV: appr. 55%
V: appr. 58%

At MP's I'll leave it for yourself to figure out.

[gnasher]

KQJx KQJx Kx Kxx would make it about 10%. That wasn't hard to construct, but ease of construction doesn't necessarily correlate with frequency.

More or less any hand with ♦KQx or better is likely to offer good play for a grand slam; with ♦Kxx or worse it's likely to be bad, and the in-between holdings make it on a finesse.

Doesn't the fact that partner enquired about majors without investigating a minor-suit fit mean that his shape is likely to be 4=4=3=2, 4=4=2=3, 4=3=3=3 or 3=4=3=3? If so, that argues against a raise to seven. That reasoning only applies, of course, if you play methods that allow responder to look for a fit with a 4M-4m hand.

[jdonn]

I'm still curious in a sim, if anyone would be so kind. I prefer 18-19 since partner is unlikely to have 17 with no aces. I also think it's correct to rule out 5 card minors and (43)33 hands but to allow (4432) hands, I don't think people tend to search for the 4-4 minor suit fit on those hands in practice.

[nigel_k]

The problem with a sim is that it will always find a missing queen or handle things like Jxxx of diamonds under partner's KQx.

Won't any diamond holding other than KQx or KQJ make grand anti-percentage? The closest is KQJx KQJx Kx KQx which is 20 HCP. Removing a jack or changing ♣Q to ♣J and there are only 12 tricks though you'd still have chances for 13.

[jdonn]

I would say anything with KJx or Kxxx of diamonds is fine, since you can probably run off two or even three other suits before committing in diamonds. For example KQJx KQxx KJx Kx I would want to be there. I'm just going by gut, but if one opponent's major suit length exceeds the other's by 2 or more cards I think you have good enough odds finessing his partner. If not, you could always go by the logic that if the opening leader didn't lead a diamond he is more likely to have the queen than not.

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, and if he doesn't lead one you finesse him for the queen. So you make 62.5% of the time, and that's without even having the information from running a bunch of tricks first.

I'm still just playing devil's advocate since it would never have even occured to me to bid 7. Just wondering out loud, that's all.

[cherdanno]

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.

Curiously, in the few hands i looked at i saw about as many hands where you would go down in 6N instead of making when playing single dummy, as in 7N. (Opposite ♦Kx, you often have to play diamonds for 4 winners to make 6N.)

(*) I would think with 17 hcp partner will usually bid 6N. He will have KQx(x)-suits that he will like opposite our likely aces. S.th. like KQJx Kx Kxx KQxx - add a spot and now do you really want to be genius and play in 4N opposite 16 hcp? There were a few 7N-1 though with 17hcp where one certainly wouldn't bid it though (KQ tight aside from no fit etc).

[MarkDean]

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.