[mangosteen]

---

Encountered this in the Portland Pairs in the Young Chelsea in London today, and the bidding was the one stated as in the picture. Was very disappointed to note that it was cold.

Any comments about the sequence and hand in general? I decided that X was basically pointless since it was either a good board or not. And the bidding was also direct, opponents don't seem to be worried about missing Aces. Is that a wrong line of thought?

Also, any interesting methods to actually bid the slam legitimately?

*Edit* Oh, I was west . And it was MP.

*Edited* Again to remove the word "dodgy", to not confuse anyone about what I meant

[HighLow21]

mangosteen, on 2012-March-25, 15:48, said:

---

Encountered this in the Portland Pairs in the Young Chelsea in London today, and the bidding was the one stated as in the picture. Was very disappointed to note that it was cold.

Any comments about the sequence and hand in general? I decided that X was basically pointless since it was either a good board or not. And the bidding was also extremely dodgy. Is that a wrong line of thought?

Also, any interesting methods to actually bid the slam legitimately?

*Edit* Oh, I was west . And it was MP.

Declarer knows he's missing some aces so double is terrible. So is leading A♥, in my opinion. Q♣.

The bidding seems fine, if a stab in the dark, to me. As long as partner has 5 points in the pointed suits, slam is great.

[BunnyGo]

mangosteen, on 2012-March-25, 15:48, said:

---

Encountered this in the Portland Pairs in the Young Chelsea in London today, and the bidding was the one stated as in the picture. Was very disappointed to note that it was cold.

Any comments about the sequence and hand in general? I decided that X was basically pointless since it was either a good board or not. And the bidding was also extremely dodgy. Is that a wrong line of thought?

Also, any interesting methods to actually bid the slam legitimately?

*Edit* Oh, I was west . And it was MP.

I dunno...if I wanted to search for the grand I'd bid 5♣ exclusion by opening bidder on my way to slam. If I hear 2 (K♠ and A♦ most likely) I'll bid 7.

[Statto]

It's hard to bid scientifically when you have 2 voids. I think I would pot 6♠ too. I hope you are glad you didn't double

[Zelandakh]

mangosteen, on 2012-March-25, 15:48, said:

Any comments about the sequence and hand in general?

It is a freak hand and bashing is often an effective strategy with these. North might have tried for a grand slam but perhaps this partnership did not have the methods available.

mangosteen, on 2012-March-25, 15:48, said:

I decided that X was basically pointless since it was either a good board or not.

Double would certainly have been pointless.

mangosteen, on 2012-March-25, 15:48, said:

And the bidding was also extremely dodgy. Is that a wrong line of thought?

Very much so. What exactly do you mean by "dodgy". Such words could be taken as a public accusation of cheating. The YC hand records for today are not yet up but I would think they will be published in due course making it very easy to discover which players you are referring to. Bidding a hand differently to the way you think it should be does not mean anything "dodgy" is going on.

mangosteen, on 2012-March-25, 15:48, said:

Also, any interesting methods to actually bid the slam legitimately?

By legitimately I assume you mean scientifically? Some hands do not easily lend themselves well to science. If you wanted to try to discover more there are several possible options depending on the methods available. One is traditional, if 4♦ was a natural slam try then this a decent way of trying to involve partner. If 4 level bids are instead cues then a 4♣ cue might elicit 4♦ from partner if they have the ace. I suppose you could just try 4♥ as a general force too and see what happens *shrug*. And there is always Bunny's suggestion of jumping to 5♣ as Exclusion Key Card Blackwood. To be honest though I think a lot of players much better than me would just bid 6♠ here and I would not consider this strange at all.

[billw55]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-25, 16:15, said:

Declarer knows he's missing some aces so double is terrible. So is leading A♥, in my opinion. Q♣.

The bidding seems fine, if a stab in the dark, to me. As long as partner has 5 points in the pointed suits, slam is great.

Really? What is wrong with leading ♥A from AK ?

[rmnka447]

Assuming the 3 ♥ bid shows a limit raise or better, I don't think the 6 ♠ bid is all that unreasonable.

If limit raiser has 4 ♠s, there are no ♠ losers. If limit raiser has 3 ♠s, 60% of the time (3 of 5 possible ♠ slots), the king will be in them. The remainder of the time, the remaining spades will break 1-1 slightly less than the normal 52% probability for that distribution when holding 11 cards. So even when South holds 3 ♠s, there will be no ♠ losers about 80% of the time.

The only quibble that I have with the actual bidding is that North might try a 4 ♣ control bid after the 3 ♥ bid. It gives South the opportunity to cue the A ♦ if that card is held. That would certainly bring grand into the picture.

North's 6 ♠ bid is reasonable because the slam is odds on when South happens to hold A ♦ or J ♦. Even when South holds ♦ x(x...), there will be some reasonable plays for slam.

As for a legitimate auction to slam, after the aforementioned 4 ♣ control bid, the bidding ought to progress (opponents silent) 4 ♠ - 5 ♥ - ? Looking at a second round ♦ control and the K ♠, South has an easy 6 ♠ bid.

[the_clown]

I would have bid 2♠ with the South hand. 3 card support only, 8 count, 2 of which is the 4th Q of♥. Yes I have a singleton, but my 5card suit is far from great, so 2♠ seems clear to me. On 2♠ I would probably blast 6 as well, if p has K of ♠ or Ace of ♦ we are in great shape.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

The bidding was ok.

In the end, North will never be able to tell partner, that the King of spades
and the jack of diamonds is all he really cares about.
North got a limit raise, and sensible enough gave up investigating the grand.

Noz doubleing is ok, due to reason you stated.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Selling the South hand as limit is certainly borderline, but South is a
passed hand.

[Phil]

With the North hand, I would be more concerned with missing 7 than making 6. What's the rush? I can bash 6 at anytime.

I would start with 4♦ over 3♥, and then 5♣ over 4♠. Assuming we have the rule that we do not cue second round controls at the 5 level, I will discover if he has the ♦A. If partner shows it, I will try 5N (GSF), and hopefully we have a way to show one trump honor.

[mangosteen]

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-26, 05:53, said:

Very much so. What exactly do you mean by "dodgy". Such words could be taken as a public accusation of cheating. The YC hand records for today are not yet up but I would think they will be published in due course making it very easy to discover which players you are referring to. Bidding a hand differently to the way you think it should be does not mean anything "dodgy" is going on.

No no, that was absolutely not what I mean at all, if that was the impression that I had given you I apologize, the auction was made without any hesitations or the sort. What I meant was simply that that was not a "normal" or commonplace bidding sequence, since it was basically bashed in.

[Cthulhu D]

I think that a 'dodgy contract' is a commonplace enough euphemism that it's clear that the use of dodgy in the sense of 'fraught with risk' is a perfectly reasonable turn of phrase

[HighLow21]

billw55, on 2012-March-26, 06:36, said:

Really? What is wrong with leading ♥A from AK ?

It is an unorthodox stance, I know. I just don't lead from AKxx(x) automatically anymore. If I have it, I do lead it, maybe 80% of the time, but sometimes I don't.

(1) Declarer made it obvious that he is prepared for a heart lead. Clubs may be the weak spot and they certainly weren't expecting THAT lead.
(2) Leading Q from QJx sets up a trick much of the time, whereas leading A from AK(x...) never does.
(3) I have a crap-ton of points and the opponents voluntarily bid a slam. Declarer will not misread an opening A (or K) of hearts but may misread the Q lead.

Just something to think about.

[G_R__E_G]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-27, 11:30, said:

(2) Leading Q from QJx sets up a trick much of the time, whereas leading A from AK(x...) never does.

What's the likelyhood of leading Q from QJx giving a trick to declarer as opposed to leading A from AK(x...)?

[HighLow21]

G_R__E_G, on 2012-March-27, 11:52, said:

What's the likelyhood of leading Q from QJx giving a trick to declarer as opposed to leading A from AK(x...)?

The likelihood is higher, granted. It gives nothing away if partner has K or 10, roughly 55%, plus a series of other scenarios (declarer or dummy has both AK, or either dummy or declarer has a singleton or void).

But the auction suggests the need for an active defense. And let's not forget, leading A from AK can give away a trick. And when it does it tends to give away 3 of them rather than one.

I'm not suggesting QC is better than AH necessarily. I'm suggesting that QC may be better.

[Zelandakh]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-27, 12:18, said:

The likelihood is higher, granted. It gives nothing away if partner has K or 10, roughly 55%, plus a series of other scenarios (declarer or dummy has both AK, or either dummy or declarer has a singleton or void).

If the opponents are in slam is the chance of partner holding a given king still 33%? What if one or both opponents have shown a control in the suit? I think you might want to revise that 55% in the general case being discussed here.

[HighLow21]

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-28, 00:56, said:

If the opponents are in slam is the chance of partner holding a given king still 33%? What if one or both opponents have shown a control in the suit? I think you might want to revise that 55% in the general case being discussed here.

I'm saying all else being equal, it's much higher than 55%. This is clearly a distributional slam. Declarer clearly is ready for a heart lead. Just something to think about.