Is this slam biddable?
#21
Posted 2016-May-17, 14:38
#22
Posted 2016-May-17, 14:44
Phil, on 2016-May-17, 14:30, said:
If I had the cJ I'd love being in slam but without it slam is below par. We need the hK on and not cKJx on our left. Or a good set of eyes.
Eh? Isn't ckjx over the Q making? The best line is low to cq, then finesse against cj if cq lost to ck, isn't it?
#23
Posted 2016-May-17, 14:53
Stephen Tu, on 2016-May-17, 14:44, said:
Yes i think youre right depending on other things. You've got an endplay after stripping the pointed suits and playing cA, c catering to Kx off but losing to KJx/Kjxx/Kjxxx off.
So I think you're right unless LHO is turning up with a lot of non club cards.
And it doesn't change the fact slam is below par.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#24
Posted 2016-May-17, 15:14
Phil, on 2016-May-17, 14:53, said:
So I think you're right unless LHO is turning up with a lot of non club cards.
And it doesn't change the fact slam is below par.
After eliminating, my gut tells me it's right to run the club queen!
#25
Posted 2016-May-17, 15:15
#27
Posted 2016-May-17, 15:34
PhilKing, on 2016-May-17, 15:14, said:
Yes nice. You only lose to stiff K on?
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#29
Posted 2016-May-17, 16:01
PhilG007, on 2016-May-17, 14:21, said:
add points for length in the heart suit which would have raised it enough
to open 1♥ Anyway as you've seen,North elected to pass over the 2♥bid.
This is a little bit arse-backwards. A weak two normally promises six cards, so there are no length points involved.
#31
Posted 2016-May-17, 21:58
#32
Posted 2016-May-18, 01:11
Vampyr, on 2016-May-17, 11:22, said:
Two aces and 10 HCP are each dealbreakers on their own.
So I would not, in this lifetime on this planet, open a weak 2♥ with this hand, and I thought that my views on the matter were totally mainstream.
(To be fair there are few 2♥ bidders in this thread, so perhaps just these two posters are very eccentric).
I did not claim, I would have opened 2H, ... I would open 1H.
But for me this is basically a matter of style / partnership agreement,
e.g. you are used to play intermediate weak twos.
Playing in an pickup, ... opening this hand as a weak two is plainly stupid,
because you are too far away from mainstream.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#33
Posted 2016-May-18, 02:14
S*** happens....
Better luck with your next potential slam.
#34
Posted 2016-May-18, 04:59
Tweak #1. Opener switches the 3C and 3H Ogust responses, such that 3H is bust, 3C good hand bad suit. By definition, 3C then shows something outside. This tweak gives Responder room to ask what that is, bynext relaying 3D (tweak #2).
After 3D, Opener has 6 options at or below 4H. Most allow continuations. The three highest (4-bids) can show a spade feature, with 4min also showing shortness there. 3S and 3N as club/diamond feature, shortness somewhere, gives 1-up as asking. 3H as no shortness, not just spade feature(s).
So, on this hypo hand, after 2H-2N, 3C-3D, Opener buds 3N (diamond feature, shortness somewhere). Opener asks where (4C) and learns of spade shortness (4H).
Having come so far, 4S as "tell me more" to induce a 5C "Queen here" is not that tough to work out.
-P.J. Painter.
#35
Posted 2016-May-18, 05:27
However , if 6♥ as a final contract, it shouldn't be a qualified contract since the probability of finesses twice is 21.6%.
#36
Posted 2016-May-18, 07:01
The pairs that were in 6♥ had opened 1♥,some (crazy) Wests had opened 4♥
while a couple of Wests had actually decided that the hand wasn't worth opening and passed(!) (criminal)
At Tables where 1♥ was opened, the opponents competed in spades and it became a battle of the
majors resulting in either a♥ slam being bid (and luckily making) or 5/6 spades being bid,doubled
and going down minus 4/5 tricks. All in all this was a diverse hand that clearly showed different levels
of ability,judgement and dare I say it,intelligence
- Dr Tarrasch(1862-1934)German Chess Grandmaster
Bridge is a game where you have two opponents...and often three(!)
"Any palooka can take tricks with Aces and Kings; the true expert shows his prowess
by how he handles the two's and three's" - Mollo's Hideous Hog
#37
Posted 2016-May-18, 07:04
kenrexford, on 2016-May-18, 04:59, said:
Any chance of making a diagram Ken?
#38
Posted 2016-May-18, 09:28
PhilG007, on 2016-May-18, 07:01, said:
The pairs that were in 6♥ had opened 1♥,some (crazy) Wests had opened 4♥
while a couple of Wests had actually decided that the hand wasn't worth opening and passed(!) (criminal)
At Tables where 1♥ was opened, the opponents competed in spades and it became a battle of the
majors resulting in either a♥ slam being bid (and luckily making) or 5/6 spades being bid,doubled
and going down minus 4/5 tricks. All in all this was a diverse hand that clearly showed different levels
of ability,judgement and dare I say it,intelligence
Well, I would say pass is better than 2H. I've experimented opening 4 on these hands before, but found it really only worked 3rd seat NV.
#39
Posted 2016-May-18, 09:55
However, slam bidding is just not always that simple. Say the auction starts 1♥-(2♠)-3♠ it's easy to see how the auction can get a little out of control and no pair can get every hand right - there will always be some guesswork involved (for instance, give West the club jack and slam is now pretty reasonable). And as discussed above, slam is not as bad as some people seem to think unless you don't know how to handle the clubs, which in isolation are a huge favourite to play for one loser and with a decent count on the opponent's distribution may become a certainty.
But the real clincher is that it might have been correct to bid slam - we cannot tell without seeing the whole hand and there is a greater than zero chance that Phil007 has overlooked a subtle inferences. Imagine the auction at some tables started 1♥-(2♠ weak)-3♠-(pass). What inference might we draw from South's pass? The inference is that South has a poor holding in hearts - probably Kx. And besides, the weak jump makes the finesse a solid favourite from the outset. But the bottom line is that it is futile to calculate the percentages for being in slam without considering the whole picture.
The very top players tend to be pretty aggressive in the slam zone and I think that some of them would be in slam on this deal.
#40
Posted 2016-May-18, 12:21