[vinchy]

---

How will you and your partner reach 7H? Or settle for a more comfortable 6H?

Additionally, if sitting EW, do you think you will be able to find the profitable sacrifice at 7S?

[Mbodell]

Single dummy i'm not sure you even want to be in 6, and you obviously don't want to be in 7. I think I'm going to bid 1♥-2♥-4♥. If you upgrade to 2♣ with the south hand, then 2♣-2♦-2♥-3♥-3♠-4♦-4nt-5♣-5♦-5♥-6♥ seems fine, but I wouldn't open 2♣ personally.

[Zelandakh]

vinchy, on 2015-January-16, 02:16, said:

Additionally, if sitting EW, do you think you will be able to find the profitable sacrifice at 7S?

Sometimes you just have to laugh...

[mgoetze]

The chance of trumps being 2-2 and diamonds being 4-3 is almost 26%.

I would not actually pass with the East hand, but given that pass, a reasonable auction for N-S might be 1♥-2♥; 3♦-3♥; 4♥.

If I were sitting East, the auction might go (1♣)-1♥-(X)-2♥; (2♠)-4♥. or (1♣)-2NT-3♥; 4♥.

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2015-January-16, 04:05, said:

The chance of trumps being 2-2 and diamonds being 4-3 is almost 26%.

You need more than this, no?

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2015-January-16, 05:15, said:

You need more than this, no?

It's good enough on a red suit lead, haven't really thought about it on a black suit lead.

What's probably more interesting on this hand... if you do somehow end up in 6♥ and get a black suit lead, what's the best line?

[dicklont]

When considering a grand we could find out about the missing ♥Q.
On theses hands I would be pleased to end up in 6♥.
Our bidding would go like this:

1♥ - 1NT (forcing, just trying to end up in 2♥, who cares about those spades?)
3♦ - 4♥ (3 hearts, minimum)
4NT (RKCB, man not mouse. Although concerned about diamond losers) - 5♣ (1keycard)
6♥ - pass

[wank]

Zelandakh, on 2015-January-16, 05:15, said:

You need more than this, no?

yeah you need the kd in the slot, but you do get a little back for stiff q of hearts.

[lamford]

wank, on 2015-January-16, 06:37, said:

yeah you need the kd in the slot, but you do get a little back for stiff q of hearts.

I don't see how you will make 7H with the king of diamonds offside, even if someone has a stiff queen of hearts. You can play for West to have Kxx in diamonds, but normal looks to be the diamond finesse. I think six is probably with the odds, however, and something like QTx of trumps and Kxxx offside is needed to give you no play. On many other layouts you will have to read the position, but I would want to be there.

[the hog]

mgoetze, on 2015-January-16, 04:05, said:

The chance of trumps being 2-2 and diamonds being 4-3 is almost 26%.

I would not actually pass with the East hand, but given that pass, a reasonable auction for N-S might be 1♥-2♥; 3♦-3♥; 4♥.

If I were sitting East, the auction might go (1♣)-1♥-(X)-2♥; (2♠)-4♥. or (1♣)-2NT-3♥; 4♥.

Have you factored in the fact you need the D hook as well in the 28 percent? Great 7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mikeh]

to the OP:

You will get a lot of negative criticism if you continue to post hands where the object is to get to a contract that absolutely terrible but happens to make.

I used to give talks at a local club on Fridays before the evening game, based on discussing hands from the previous Friday. As seems common these days, the hand records contain information about how many tricks EW and NS can make in the various strains.

Some of the audience never seemed to understand how misleading this was. Using your hand as an example, I would almost certainly have been asked to tell them how to bid this grand slam.

My answer would have been, and is to you, that if any partnership of which I was a member bid that grand slam, I'd be having a serious discussion trying to find out where we went wrong.

Bidding bad contracts is bad bridge. 7♥ is a horrible contract, and reaching it would require extraordinarily bad bidding.

Indeed, I would not reach small slam and, if in a match against a strong team, I'd estimate a push for 4♥ making 7.

South has a clear 1♥ opening bid, unless playing forcing club methods.

N has a simple raise, unless playing constructive raises, in which case he bids a forcing 1N. Note that while many players these days use 1N as semi-forcing, that doesn't mesh well with constructive raises.

S loves his hand and must make some call. However, his red suits are weak and it is trivial to construct single raise hands that offer no safety at the 5-level...think of KQx xxx xxx KQxx, a full 10 count, with lots of black winners and no dummy entry! Indeed, one can imagine failing in game with both red suits breaking 3-2!

So he makes a game try.....one of those help suit tries that were discussed in another thread of yours. He bids 3♦.

He is going to game regardless, but has slam ambitions if partner helps in diamonds, especially if he won't accept without both diamond help and an average or better raise.

As North, I wouldn't accept a game try. I like my diamond holding, but my trump are short and my hand is awful.

The notion, btw, that EW would 'find' a save is, I suspect, also the result of looking at the double dummy analysis that comes with hand records these days.

If there is one thing I would teach all relatively inexperienced players is that they should NEVER allow their thinking about bridge to be influenced by such double dummy analysis. I have no idea why bridge clubs do this, other than that in my experience, most bridge club owners are not very good players. That isn't a knock on them: they don't need to be good players in order to run a good club.

[ArtK78]

I am happy to see that Mike spent the time going over this hand in detail. I started to write up a post along similar lines this morning before going to work, but then I decided that I would just be piling on top of those who had already pointed out what a terrible grand slam it is. And the idea that EW would find a profitable sacrifice in spades was just WAY beyond the pale.

It is an interesting problem to figure out whether 6♥ is a good contract. I would expect that the main point of this hand would be that you arrive in 6♥ and now you have to decide how to play it.

[eagles123]

mikeh, on 2015-January-16, 12:00, said:

to the OP:

You will get a lot of negative criticism if you continue to post hands where the object is to get to a contract that absolutely terrible but happens to make.

I used to give talks at a local club on Fridays before the evening game, based on discussing hands from the previous Friday. As seems common these days, the hand records contain information about how many tricks EW and NS can make in the various strains.

Some of the audience never seemed to understand how misleading this was. Using your hand as an example, I would almost certainly have been asked to tell them how to bid this grand slam.

My answer would have been, and is to you, that if any partnership of which I was a member bid that grand slam, I'd be having a serious discussion trying to find out where we went wrong.

Bidding bad contracts is bad bridge. 7♥ is a horrible contract, and reaching it would require extraordinarily bad bidding.

Indeed, I would not reach small slam and, if in a match against a strong team, I'd estimate a push for 4♥ making 7.

South has a clear 1♥ opening bid, unless playing forcing club methods.

N has a simple raise, unless playing constructive raises, in which case he bids a forcing 1N. Note that while many players these days use 1N as semi-forcing, that doesn't mesh well with constructive raises.

S loves his hand and must make some call. However, his red suits are weak and it is trivial to construct single raise hands that offer no safety at the 5-level...think of KQx xxx xxx KQxx, a full 10 count, with lots of black winners and no dummy entry! Indeed, one can imagine failing in game with both red suits breaking 3-2!

So he makes a game try.....one of those help suit tries that were discussed in another thread of yours. He bids 3♦.

He is going to game regardless, but has slam ambitions if partner helps in diamonds, especially if he won't accept without both diamond help and an average or better raise.

As North, I wouldn't accept a game try. I like my diamond holding, but my trump are short and my hand is awful.

The notion, btw, that EW would 'find' a save is, I suspect, also the result of looking at the double dummy analysis that comes with hand records these days.

If there is one thing I would teach all relatively inexperienced players is that they should NEVER allow their thinking about bridge to be influenced by such double dummy analysis. I have no idea why bridge clubs do this, other than that in my experience, most bridge club owners are not very good players. That isn't a knock on them: they don't need to be good players in order to run a good club.

Great post MIke

[Lovera]

dicklont, on 2015-January-16, 06:17, said:

When considering a grand we could find out about the missing ♥Q.
On theses hands I would be pleased to end up in 6♥.
Our bidding would go like this:

1♥ - 1NT (forcing, just trying to end up in 2♥, who cares about those spades?)
3♦ - 4♥ (3 hearts, minimum)
4NT (RKCB, man not mouse. Although concerned about diamond losers) - 5♣ (1keycard)
6♥ - pass

..or better 5♣=King, 5♦=? Q, 5♥=no Q. But with 1NT range of force is 5-8 points (media 7) and to get grand with this hand i need only 5 points then where are remaining ones ? With 5NT probably bidding ends in 6♥=no King aside but i can obtain the same resulting with 6♦ for 6NT=Q or 7♥=King.

[mikeh]

dicklont, on 2015-January-16, 06:17, said:

When considering a grand we could find out about the missing ♥Q.
On theses hands I would be pleased to end up in 6♥.
Our bidding would go like this:

1♥ - 1NT (forcing, just trying to end up in 2♥, who cares about those spades?)
3♦ - 4♥ (3 hearts, minimum)
4NT (RKCB, man not mouse. Although concerned about diamond losers) - 5♣ (1keycard)
6♥ - pass

4N isn't being a man rather than a mouse. Partner, in your auction, has shown a hand too weak to raise to 2♥. The opps are silent despite having, you can infer, a lot of black cards. So that are the odds that partner has good enough trump to deal with that suit AND enough in diamonds to give you play? Bear in mind that you have no safety at the 5-level, and that no response he gives you allows you to see slam as remotely makeable. How would your auction go opposite Kxx Kxx xxx xxxx?

Put it another way, if you consistently bid in real life the way you have posted here, and if you usually land on your feet, you should buy lottery tickets rather than play bridge. I wouldn't get to slam, nor even sniff at it, after a 2♥ raise, and I am a player who loves bidding slams.

[wank]

lamford, on 2015-January-16, 07:14, said:

I don't see how you will make 7H with the king of diamonds offside, even if someone has a stiff queen of hearts. You can play for West to have Kxx in diamonds, but normal looks to be the diamond finesse. I think six is probably with the odds, however, and something like QTx of trumps and Kxxx offside is needed to give you no play. On many other layouts you will have to read the position, but I would want to be there.

you misunderstood. Mgoetze said 'the chance of trumps being 2-2 and diamonds being 4-3 is almost 26%'. i was pointing out you need the diamond finesse too which obviously lowers the percentage, to 13 presumably, but as he had forgot to include the chances of a stiff Q in his original calculation that raises the chances back up to er.. 20ish?

[vinchy]

mikeh, on 2015-January-16, 12:00, said:

to the OP:

You will get a lot of negative criticism if you continue to post hands where the object is to get to a contract that absolutely terrible but happens to make.

I am more interested in finding out about bidding styles and intermediate bids that would be able to describe N-S hands with the greatest accuracy. Starting with South's hand, I think anyone holding such a hand should be considering and showing more than just a game and it would be silly to signoff in 4H without being able to describe his holding and to find the right support that would make a slam possible. Also, although the sacrifice on 7s may sound ludicrous considering that the success of 7H is wild in the first place, it is not that unlikely that E will be able to show some strength, possibly by bidding in the first seat, and considering the vulnerability later, W might respect the opponent's ability to make slam by overcalling. Yes, this was aided by the hand diagrams later but I believe that the possibilities of communication that all four seats will be able to make in regards to the hand are well worth considering.

[kuhchung]

you could make a long series of asking bids, asking the opponents where the key honors are and the relevant suit breaks

once you get that info and bid the grand, they can trust you and take the save

[mikeh]

vinchy, on 2015-January-17, 01:51, said:

I am more interested in finding out about bidding styles and intermediate bids that would be able to describe N-S hands with the greatest accuracy. Starting with South's hand, I think anyone holding such a hand should be considering and showing more than just a game and it would be silly to signoff in 4H without being able to describe his holding and to find the right support that would make a slam possible. Also, although the sacrifice on 7s may sound ludicrous considering that the success of 7H is wild in the first place, it is not that unlikely that E will be able to show some strength, possibly by bidding in the first seat, and considering the vulnerability later, W might respect the opponent's ability to make slam by overcalling. Yes, this was aided by the hand diagrams later but I believe that the possibilities of communication that all four seats will be able to make in regards to the hand are well worth considering.

This post makes no sense at all. You really want to bid grand here? Please explain why.

Did you change the hand? I seem to recall both vul. I may be wrong there, but it looks to me as if you edited the hand to make it easier for ew to get into the auction.

It also looks to me as if you may be one of those unfortunate players who thinks that you need to bid every contract that makes, as the cards lie. I say unfortunate because such players end up as horrible bidders who never become any good at the game. Players with a future, as good players, learn early on not to think that way.

Any bidding method will have areas of relative weakness, even those played by world champions. The better the methods, the fewer those are. However, very, very few pairs have the time or the skill to develop or learn the best methods. The rest of us, even if we had the skill, don't play seriously enough to justify the effort. So we lesser mortals use methods that require les memory load, but have more areas of relative weakness. One doesn't maximize success, with any method, by forcing it to be able to bid every contract that is 'good', and it is madness to force it to bid bad contracts that happen to make.

[mikeh]

kuhchung, on 2015-January-17, 04:29, said:

you could make a long series of asking bids, asking the opponents where the key honors are and the relevant suit breaks

once you get that info and bid the grand, they can trust you and take the save

Seriously? You think that S should bid the grand if he knew every card in N's hand, but didn't know about the lie of the op's cards? Explain how he'd stay out of it if w held Qxx in trump? Or east for that mater, since he needs to ruff diamonds, lol