[jillybean]

Getting back to this post, this was a hand from “my game”
Only 2 pairs out of the 23 tables got past game and played in 6H=. I think we need to talk about hand evaluation and forcing bids, other than 4nt.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2025-January-25, 09:57, said:

Getting back to this post, this was a hand from “my game”
Only 2 pairs out of the 23 tables got past game and played in 6H=. I think we need to talk about hand evaluation and forcing bids, other than 4nt.

A prerequisite to this that a lot of players don't have is hand visualization skills. Give them the South hand and ask them, after 1♥ - 1♠, what the worst North hand that would make game is. Most of them will not figure out that game makes if partner has ♠KQxx and 2 hearts, or ♠Q and a side ace.

[thepossum]

I see trouble getting past 4 or 5 hearts

[mycroft]

All well and good, but:

---

(in anything played by South anyway)

---

Sure and 50% slams are fine, and less-than-50% slams are okay if the defence might be generous. And I'm the last bridge pessimist.

[Cyberyeti]

Mycroft, this is why you need to get to 6♠(N), and yes 68% of the time, you will make it.

If you're not bidding slams because the trumps might not break 3-2, you're against the odds.

[mycroft]

Yes, that was (some of) my point. Also why I bid 1♠ (knowing there might be hands I am hooped on).

The people that are happy to get to 6♥ because in their field it's 14-/15 (29/30 for you EBU types) and it happened to be on this time, the ones that bid 2♣ which will clearly clear everything up (but good luck finding 6♠ now), the ones who say "we're smarter, we get to (a bad) slam" (that happens to make) are what I'm arguing against.

The odds say that 4♥ making 5 a little more than 50% of the time, scoring average-plus-two or average-minus-two, with the vigorish that the defence might be harder in 4 than in 6 and I might make 6 anyway mean that I'm not going to unilaterally laud those who got to 6♥ when it makes - when there's a better contract. I'm also not going to denigrate those who get to 6♠ and go down on bad breaks.

I am reminded of (in better fields than this) my Precision conundrum: "you're at 3♠, and you know that a) the field is going to effectively bid 1NT-3NT, and b) partner easily could have the cards that make 6♣, and the field has no way of knowing that. But if you go looking, you'll end up in 5♣, and even if it does make 6, you lose to 3NT+1 or more. How 'odds on' do you have to be to go look, especially if you are one of the better declarers in the field and have a good shot to make all your tricks in 3NT?" Here, "sure, a 50% slam at MPs pays off - either it works for a shared top or it fails for a shared bottom. But you know that here it might be shared with one or two other pairs only; and you expect to get 60% playing the same contracts as the field. How odds-on does it need to be now?"

But mostly, my point was "if you're happy you're one of the few that got to slam, don't be if it's 6♥S; you're in a <50%er that happened to make. If your cool system got you to slam, but made it impossible to find the right slam, maybe put that up in the 'hmm' column."

[pescetom]

I missed most of this due to some busy days directing.
Confess I was a bit perplexed both at East playing dead and NS not finding spades by system.
What is interesting however is that playing a semi-artificial 2♣ GF, after
1♥ - 2♣
2♠ - 3♠
4♦ - ?
we are in a squeeze situation as far as control-bidding is concerned: South has denied control of clubs but not hearts, if North now bids hearts promising hearts control or spades denying control of one or both of clubs and hearts then neither knows whether it is safe to proceed.
The Italian solution is to bid hearts promising control of clubs without saying anything about hearts, the US solution to refuge in RKCB