[lamford]

Fluffy, on Mar 29 2010, 06:25 AM, said:

I didn't read all the trash lamford said, but I agree with gnasher, 28 balanced with no fit, and nowhere to hide the awful spades. Tempting to bid just 3NT, but 4♥ is probably sounder.

People often find faults in others most prominent in themselves.

If you didn't read it, how did you know it was trash? And note that no less eminent a person than dburn wants to make a slam try too.

Help please ... some other strong players who will confirm my view that 4H is bonkers. Once partner bids 2NT, the chance of him having the ace of spades and therefore the king being full value has gone up a lot.

[655321]

Signing off in game seems reasonable to me.

We have 28-29 HCP with no big fit, and we have spade length opposite a partner who bid notrumps meaning that 6♥ will often be down on an immediate spade ruff.

lamford, on Mar 28 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Mar 28 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

If you report about a simulation but don't tell us about important parameters, then reporting about that simulation is useless.

"Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall" certainly tells you the parameters exactly.

No, it doesn't. We used to have posters who would inform us that they had run a simulation, and the correct bid was therefore X or Y. But when they were finally persuaded to post their code, it was very clear that their idea of - for example - a One Spade overcall was so far from the norm that their simulations were of no value. Or perhaps there is a big hole in the definition of 18-19 balanced. Garbage in, garbage out.

Incidentally Fluffy, I only recently discovered that you can click on the 'Replies' link next to a post, and a popup appears with the number of times each person has posted in the thread...

[jjbrr]

I think 4♥ is normal and anything beyond 4♥ is bonkers. There will frequently be transportation issues in 3NT.

Why would we be terribly excited about our ♠K being of full value? We still have lots of little ♠ to get rid of. It's still full value at ♥ as it is at NT. It's still a misfitting hand with insufficient values for slam and several ♠ losers.

[cherdanno]

655321, on Mar 29 2010, 09:32 AM, said:

lamford, on Mar 28 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Mar 28 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

If you report about a simulation but don't tell us about important parameters, then reporting about that simulation is useless.

"Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall" certainly tells you the parameters exactly.

No, it doesn't. We used to have posters who would inform us that they had run a simulation, and the correct bid was therefore X or Y. But when they were finally persuaded to post their code, it was very clear that their idea of - for example - a One Spade overcall was so far from the norm that their simulations were of no value. Or perhaps there is a big hole in the definition of 18-19 balanced. Garbage in, garbage out.

In another post lamford also claimed that he required a spade stopper for the 2NT bid.

[lamford]

cherdanno, on Mar 29 2010, 09:37 AM, said:

655321, on Mar 29 2010, 09:32 AM, said:

lamford, on Mar 28 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Mar 28 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

If you report about a simulation but don't tell us about important parameters, then reporting about that simulation is useless.

"Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall" certainly tells you the parameters exactly.

No, it doesn't. We used to have posters who would inform us that they had run a simulation, and the correct bid was therefore X or Y. But when they were finally persuaded to post their code, it was very clear that their idea of - for example - a One Spade overcall was so far from the norm that their simulations were of no value. Or perhaps there is a big hole in the definition of 18-19 balanced. Garbage in, garbage out.

In another post lamford also claimed that he required a spade stopper for the 2NT bid.

I thought that it would be evident that it required a spade stop. It is done by setting the number of points in the suit to at least 3, so the 2NT rebidder will have at least A or QJ in the suit. It is not my code, it is bridge dealer.

I was not advocating anything beyond 4H, so I agree with jbrrr that anything beyond 4H is bonkers. I would transfer to hearts and then bid 3S. A couple of interesting aspects of the simulation was that Six Hearts sometimes made by partner and not by us. In each case that was when the opening leader did not have a spade to lead.

I trust that nobody would dream of bidding anything other than 2NT on AJx Kx AKxx Axxx and 6H needs trumps 3-2. If you still think 4H is not bonkers, then I give up.

[gnasher]

The danger in making slammish noises is that partner may get excited when he has lots of unwanted stuff in clubs. If I could establish whether partner has club wastage, I'd make a try, but the original poster said "You can't show you shortage in ♣". If I say "I have slam interest with spade control", Axx Kx Axxx AKxx will look like an excellent hand to partner, but slam is almost hopeless and 5♥ is in some danger.

[lamford]

gnasher, on Mar 29 2010, 11:58 AM, said:

If I say "I have slam interest with spade control", Axx Kx Axxx AKxx will look like an excellent hand to partner, but slam is almost hopeless and 5♥ is in some danger.

Indeed, he will cue 4C over 3S and you will sign off, and he will have to make another move. If he cues 4D instead, then your hand is much better.

[Fluffy]

lamford, on Mar 29 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

If you didn't read it, how did you know it was trash? And note that no less eminent a person than dburn wants to make a slam try too.

Read the 2 first lines on the first post and didn't need to read any further.

[lamford]

Fluffy, on Mar 29 2010, 12:09 PM, said:

lamford, on Mar 29 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

If you didn't read it, how did you know it was trash? And note that no less eminent a person than dburn wants to make a slam try too.

Read the 2 first lines on the first post and didn't need to read any further.

That was a quick demonstration that the hand might make anything from 9 tricks to 13 tricks. I think we should harness technology, not trash it.

[Bbradley62]

kgr, on Mar 28 2010, 06:18 PM, said:

---

1♣-1♦!-(1♠)
2NT-3♦!
3♥!-3♠!
4♣!-4♥
6♥-all pass
 
1♣=We open 5542
1♦=transfer ♥
2NT=18-19, mostly no 3c♥
3♦=transfer ♥, 5+c♥
3♥=3c♥ (my partner thought that KQ was enough support after not support DBL first
3♠=1st/2nd control
4♣=1st/2nd control (better hand then non-serious 3NT)
 
6♥-1 after a ♠ lead and a ruff. Should South convert to 6NT against not experts?

I'm puzzled about a few things. Asking more for info than presenting any argument...

With your question, are you implying that non-experts are more or less likely to lead their singleton to partner's bid ace and get a ruff? (Yes/No, and if yes, which?)

In your system, does Qxx really qualify as a stopper? If not, what should partner have done over 1♠?

In your system, does the 3♦ bid provide more information than the 1♦ bid had already provided? (You state that the 3♦ bid shows 5+, but you don't state what the 1♦ bid shows.) What is the minimum strength required for these bids?

[Fluffy]

the real hand looks like a good example, partner has no real wastage, and even if RHO had ♠A stiff we would still need a hopeless ♦ finese into overcaller and trumps 3-2

[lamford]

Fluffy, on Mar 29 2010, 12:45 PM, said:

the real hand looks like a good example, partner has no real wastage, and even if RHO had ♠A stiff we would still need a hopeless ♦ finese into overcaller and trumps 3-2

The hand in question is a poor example, as partner should not co-operate over the slam-try. The first 10 hands of the simulation are not atypical (on the third one you could argue that a support double is better), and they made varying numbers with even one where 8 tricks was the limit. All it shows is that failing to make a slam try of any description is wrong. In each case I give partner's hand and the number of tricks makeable, in hearts by partner unless stated.

♠AJ9 ♥KQ4 ♦K107 ♣AJ84 - 12 tricks
♠QJ2 ♥Q4 ♦A97 ♣AKQ72 - 10 tricks
♠A86 ♥KJ10 ♦A1073 ♣AQ6 - 12 tricks
♠A92 ♥K4 ♦A632 ♣AQJ3 - 11 tricks
♠A82 ♥KJ ♦AK6 ♣KJ865 - 12 tricks
♠AJ6 ♥QJ ♦AK53 ♣AQJ3 -11 tricks
♠A109 ♥Q6 ♦A1053 ♣AKQ6 - 12 tricks
♠AJ4 ♥KQ10 ♦985 ♣AKJ10 - 8 tricks (they got two spade ruffs)
♠A43 ♥KJ ♦AK5 ♣KJ1053 - 12 tricks
♠AJ2 ♥K106 ♦K9 ♣AKJ107 - 11 tricks

In every case West has a One Spade overcall and partner has 18-19 balanced with a spade stopper and 3+ clubs. The sample seems pretty representative to me, and confirms my view that 4H is premature and an atrocious bid. You can think differently - that is your prerogative. And the simulations do not care whether slam is good or bad, just whether it makes! And I am only advocating making a slam-try; in many of the above partner will not cooperate, and we may not get there anyway.

Oh, and the other thing I realised which should have occurred to me long ago is that partner is BIG favourite to have the ace of spades, given that he has a spade stopper and 18-19. Over 80% in fact. And the other point is that all of the above hands suffer from "unwanted stuff" in clubs, gnasher's worry in making a slam try. In fact the stuff in clubs is not the crucial factor. The red cards in partner's hand are.

[gnasher]

As I understand it, your plan is to transfer to hearts, then bid 3♠. If partner bids 4♣ you'll sign off; if he bids 4♦, you'll go past 4♥ yourself.

Let's go through these examples again, considering where we want to be and where we're going to get to:

♠AJ9 ♥KQ4 ♦K107 ♣AJ84 - Excellent slam, partner will cue 4♣ and pass 4♥

♠QJ2 ♥Q4 ♦A97 ♣AKQ72 - Hopeless slam, partner will cue 4♣ and pass 4♥

♠A86 ♥KJ10 ♦A1073 ♣AQ6 - Good slam, partner will cue 4♣ and may move

♠A92 ♥K4 ♦A632 ♣AQJ3 - Awful slam, partner will cue 4♣ and may move

♠A82 ♥KJ ♦AK6 ♣KJ865 - Poor slam, partner will cue 4♣ and pass 4♥

♠AJ6 ♥QJ ♦AK53 ♣AQJ3 - Appears to be a 22-count

♠A109 ♥Q6 ♦A1053 ♣AKQ6 - Awful slam, partner will cue 4♣ and move

♠AJ4 ♥KQ10 ♦985 ♣AKJ10 - Hopeless slam, partner will cue 4♣ and pass 4♥

♠A43 ♥KJ ♦AK5 ♣KJ1053 - Poor slam, partner will cue 4♣ and pass 4♥

♠AJ2 ♥K106 ♦K9 ♣AKJ107 - Poor slam, partner will cue 4♣ and move

Since all of your examples are hands where partner will cue-bid 4♣, they tell us nothing about how well your plan will work opposite a 4♦ cue-bid.

What they do tell us is that even when slam is good your strategy will often not get us there, but what it will often do is get us to the five-level or higher when we really don't want to be there.

[kgr]

Bbradley62, on Mar 29 2010, 07:32 PM, said:

With your question, are you implying that non-experts are more or less likely to lead their singleton to partner's bid ace and get a ruff? (Yes/No, and if yes, which?)

No, I imply that against 6NT West will sooner take his Ace if he is less good.

Bbradley62, on Mar 29 2010, 07:32 PM, said:

In your system, does Qxx really qualify as a stopper?  If not, what should partner have done over 1♠?

It is a 'stopper' if that allows you to best describe your hand....maybe partner had ♠QJx, but I don't think so because 6NT could only be made if ♠A was played in air.

Bbradley62, on Mar 29 2010, 07:32 PM, said:

In your system, does the 3♦ bid provide more information than the 1♦ bid had already provided?  (You state that the 3♦ bid shows 5+, but you don't state what the 1♦ bid shows.)  What is the minimum strength required for these bids?

1♦=4+card ♥, 6+pts (same a normal 1♥ bid)
3♦=5+card ♥, Slam interest if a 6c♥ (with 6c♥ and no slam interest we bid 4♦

[lamford]

gnasher, on Mar 29 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

As I understand it, your plan is to transfer to hearts, then bid 3♠. If partner bids 4♣ you'll sign off; if he bids 4♦, you'll go past 4♥ yourself.

Let's go through these examples again, considering where we want to be and where we're going to get to:

♠AJ9 ♥KQ4 ♦K107 ♣AJ84 - Excellent slam, partner will cue 4♣ and pass 4♥

♠QJ2 ♥Q4 ♦A97 ♣AKQ72 - Hopeless slam, partner will cue 4♣ and pass 4♥

♠A86 ♥KJ10 ♦A1073 ♣AQ6 - Good slam, partner will cue 4♣ and may move

♠A92 ♥K4 ♦A632 ♣AQJ3 - Awful slam, partner will cue 4♣ and may move

♠A82 ♥KJ ♦AK6 ♣KJ865 - Poor slam, partner will cue 4♣ and pass 4♥

♠AJ6 ♥QJ ♦AK53 ♣AQJ3 - Appears to be a 22-count

♠A109 ♥Q6 ♦A1053 ♣AKQ6 - Awful slam, partner will cue 4♣ and move

♠AJ4 ♥KQ10 ♦985 ♣AKJ10 - Hopeless slam, partner will cue 4♣ and pass 4♥

♠A43 ♥KJ ♦AK5 ♣KJ1053 - Poor slam, partner will cue 4♣ and pass 4♥

♠AJ2 ♥K106 ♦K9 ♣AKJ107 - Poor slam, partner will cue 4♣ and move

Since all of your examples are hands where partner will cue-bid 4♣, they tell us nothing about how well your plan will work opposite a 4♦ cue-bid.

What they do tell us is that even when slam is good your strategy will often not get us there, but what it will often do is get us to the five-level or higher when we really don't want to be there.

Sorry about the 22 count, that should have been A753 of diamonds, and slam is poor.

I don't agree that the hands with two hearts will move over a sign-off. In fact, I was surprised how often partner had stuff in clubs. I think I am worth one slam try, and to say that it is too difficult to reach slam when it is good is a bit defeatist.

Take the first hand, partner should be jumping up and down with joy when I cue 3S. Don't tell me you would pass 4H, with KQx support. On some of the hands I would use Blackwood anyway, and I think all your comments show is that bidding is difficult!

[kgr]

lamford, on Mar 29 2010, 08:38 PM, said:

♠AJ9 ♥KQ4 ♦K107 ♣AJ84 - 12 tricks
♠QJ2 ♥Q4 ♦A97 ♣AKQ72 - 10 tricks
♠A86 ♥KJ10 ♦A1073 ♣AQ6 - 12 tricks
♠A92 ♥K4 ♦A632 ♣AQJ3 - 11 tricks
♠A82 ♥KJ ♦AK6 ♣KJ865 - 12 tricks
♠AJ6 ♥QJ ♦AK53 ♣AQJ3 -11 tricks
♠A109 ♥Q6 ♦A1053 ♣AKQ6 - 12 tricks
♠AJ4 ♥KQ10 ♦985 ♣AKJ10 - 8 tricks (they got two spade ruffs)
♠A43 ♥KJ ♦AK5 ♣KJ1053 - 12 tricks
♠AJ2 ♥K106 ♦K9 ♣AKJ107 - 11 tricks

3th hand: We open 1♦; and support DBL
8th hand: 2NT and Support DBL are ok, but probably support DBL (good ♥ and no ♦ values)
..Rest of the hands look ok

[kgr]

The bidding like it did go at the table was not really according to system.
Normally North should have 3 card ♥ for accepting the transfer. Without it he should bid 3NT. After 3NT South bids 4♥, showing a 6c♥ and slam interest opposite a 3c♥ (and possibly also opposite a good 2c♥??).
...That makes 3♦ more attractive?

[lamford]

gnasher, on Mar 29 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

Since all of your examples are hands where partner will cue-bid 4♣, they tell us nothing about how well your plan will work opposite a 4♦ cue-bid.

What they do tell us is that even when slam is good your strategy will often not get us there, but what it will often do is get us to the five-level or higher when we really don't want to be there.

We are told by the OP - a little late maybe - that completing the transfer to hearts shows three card support - a sort of checkback; so we learn a key fact when transferring to hearts.

I did two separate simulations, one with partner having the same hand but with two hearts and the other with three. The slam jumped dramatically (from 21% to 69% on that fact alone)

[gnasher]

Yes, I agree that being able to find out about partner's heart length makes 3♦ more attractive.

On the other hand we also have the new (?) fact that with 4-3 in the minors they'd open 1♦. That makes it less likely that we'll have a long diamond to throw a spade loser on, and more likely that partner has unwanted minor honours in clubs.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of discussing how to bid this hand with one arm tied behind my back. The basic problem is the methods: 4♣ should be a splinter, and if we played that it would make bidding this hand trivial.

[dburn]

I suppose that if after 3♦-3♥-3♠-4♣, my bid of 4♦ would be "last train" and not explicitly a control bid, partner might be better placed to avoid the five level when we did not belong there. I don't know, because I don't have very much experience at all with "last train" (at least in the bridge sense; in the going-home-from -the-pub sense I am probably one of the world's leading authorities).

If the method is that after 3♦ partner bids 3♥ only with three cards, else 3NT, then I would certainly start with 3♦. Perhaps partner, with such as ♥Kx and a bunch of aces and kings, or with ♥KQ and ♠A, might see his way to bidding 3♠ and not 3NT.

On the actual auction, it was not wrong for opener to lie with 3♥ rather than 3NT; his heart support would often be as good as a three-card holding, while his spade guard was considerably worse than it might have been for 2NT. Whether or not his hand was "better than a non-serious 3NT" at his next turn is questionable; 4♣ was probably wrong given his spade holding, because if partner had the king he would expect opener to have the ace, not ♠Qxx. But opener's jump to 6♥ was... well, it was so bad as to be, in the words of an eminent scientist, "not even wrong".