Repeating a mantra (repetition is what mantras are for) I think lesson hands are most useful if we look back at them later. I have a couple of examples from yesterday from my volunteer effort at Jim's session.
Red against white, the deal is on my right and I hold:
: KQ4
: J97
: Q
: JT8532
The auction begins:
Pass Pass Pass 1NT
Pass ?
So:
or NT and how high? These being lesson/discussion hands it is reasonable to say I get to ask pard whether 2NT is a trf or an invit. Let's assume invit, so I can, and did, bid 2NT. There was some discussion of this so I will give my thoughts.
It's possible that we have 9 tricks in NT. In fact we do, but pard has a 15 count so a lot of luck is involved. It's also possible that 3
is a lousy contract. It is, and can be beaten one trick. Of course it is also possible that 3
is a great contract and 2NT is the lousy one. But as I see it, there is a reasonable chance that we can make game, so I kept it simple and issued an invit.
Of course comments are welcome, that's what I have in mind with my mantra.
I gave this to the bots and I must say I do not understand their auction at all. It started the same, then after 1NT my hand transferred and bid 3
to show the stiff, this being of course forcing to 3NT. I regard this as very optimistic. As mentioned, 3NT can be made but the bot, perhaps reasonably, did not make it. 2NT is a much more reasonable contract and I have some thoughts about that but for the moment I have to run.
More later, but here is the bot action/play.
http://tinyurl.com/y5otr9mtI'm back. Suppose the contract is 2NT on the auction 1NT-2NT(invit)-Pass and let's suppose, as happened at the table, the opening lead is a small
to the !, a small
back to the Q, and a third
. The reason that there are 9 tricks is that the
are 3-3 and the
T falls. Great, but unlikely, and when we are in 2NT we only need that one of these two things happen. So the chances for 8 tricks, needing on of two possible lucky breaks, are a lot better than your chances when you need both lucky breaks. And there are other chances as well. Lead a
. If N rises and cashes his
(he didn't but might have and then gets out with a
, win on the board and duck a
. The count is now rectified and maybe a black suit squeeze is available if the other chances fail. As long as we only want 8 tricks, might as well try. Anyway, the
do split and there are 8 tricks. Playing in clubs, we assume the
split 3-2 in which case it is likely that 2 !c tricks must be lost. Assume the same lead of a small
. The opponents should get 2
, 2
, and the
A. That's 5 tricks for down 1.
Summary: I bid 2NT invit, partner naturally passed, there is still a lucky play for 9 ricks but a reasonable play for 8 tricks while a contract of 3
is likely to fail.But really the reason I bid 2NT was that if partner has a 17 count there is likely to be a good play for 3NT.
Back to the bot auction for a moment: I don't understand using 2NT as a trf to
but that's not my main point. To my mind, the hand is not strong enough to transfer to
and then bid 3
. It shows the shape, but I view it as an overbid. Also I think it is very unlikely, just looking at the E hand, that the hand could belong in 5
. Possible but unlikely. Ad surely I would not be thinking of a !c hand. So if I wanted to play in game, I would just raise 1NT to 3NT. It works here, but it's very lucky. I think invit is the way to go.
Now to a different hand .
The bots passed it out:
http://tinyurl.com/y2ztdf5vAt our table the auction went:
Pass Pass 1
1
Pass 2
Pass 2
All Pass
I led the
8 and was asked why I led the 8 rather than a fourth best deuce. Of course pard and I had not discussed carding but there are lots of agreements, lots and lots and then some. I like 3/5 against suits, so then I would lead the 6, but I don't think 3/5 aganst suits is so common anymore. 2/4 leads are now common, with the understanding that when the lead is low from 4 the hand contains at least Jxxx. From a weaker holding, such as Txxx, the lead is second highest. With T9xx maybe the T, but with T8xx the 8. I am not all that fond of this approach,but from what I have seen it is the one that is most often played when no discussion has occurred.
These 4/2 leads have their meits or they would not be so opular, but I think the merits are a bit oversold. The idea is that leading small with J or better and second with T or less will help pard in judging whether the lead was from an honor. But does it? With this agreement I lead the 5 from, say, Q85 because I have an honor. But I also lead the 5 from 85, this time because it is second highest. Against a NT contract I am not all that likely to lead the suit at all holding Q85 so I think the 4/2 convention has more merit against NT contracts. Against suit contracts I still like 3/5.
Incidentally, on that 2NT hand that I started with, the bot led the
2 from 3 small so maybe my robotic buddy is not so fond of the 2/4 agreement even against NT contracts.