Didn't I just see this movie?

[kenberg]

8 board game with the robots.

Board 6 I held:

  A9852
  75
  AKQ6
   AQ

Board 8 I held:

  AK542
  A8
  AKQ8
  86

 On both hands I started with 1 and got a forcing 1NT response, on both hands I bid 3 . A person can go for quite a while without a jump shift hand by opener, here we have two almost in a row and on the same shape. But that was the end of the similarity.

First hand: 1 - 1NT - 3 - 3 - 3NT  all pass. On the second  1 - 1NT - 3 -   4 - 4 - 4NT - 5 - 6 all pass.     


On the first hand nothing is right and both 3NT and 4 were off at least 1.
http://tinyurl.com/yagf8qv5
On the second everything is right and there are 13 tricks in either NT or .
http://tinyurl.com/y7gkghnc

That's bridge!

I have enjoyed posting these bot hands since they don't get upset by any comments I make, but I may start doing it on a site of my own so that people I play with but who do not belong to IAC can join in should they wish to. In particular I have already used some of these by email with my f2f partner.

[OliverC]

Board 8 I held:

   AK542
   A8
   AKQ8
   86

Interesting that if you're going to get into a Grand Slam, it might as well be 7NT rather than 7 or 7 (especially at Pairs), since all three contracts depend totally on the Spades being no worse than 4-2 (because you need 3 discards in the North hand on the Spades in 7 or 2 discards on the Diamonds in the South hand in 7 . Either way, you need both Diamonds and Spades to be coming in for no losers without ruffing.

Even OCP would struggle to get to the Grand, though, because the absolutely crucial card is the Jack of Spades in the North hand and even OCP would struggle to identify that. I think the only way to get to a Grand here is for South to just punt it and hope LOL! OCP would bid

South          North
                   No
1 (16+)    2 (GF)
2 ⁽¹⁾        2NT⁽²⁾
3 ⁽³⁾        3 ⁽⁴⁾
3 ⁽⁵⁾        4 ⁽⁶⁾
4 ⁽⁷⁾        5 ^{( 8 )}
5 ⁽⁹⁾        5 ⁽¹⁰⁾
6 ⁽¹¹⁾

(1) Asking about Controls
(2) 2 Controls exactly (A or KK)
(3) Asking about Diamonds (agrees the suit)
(4) No Top Honour in Diamonds
(5) Asking about Spade Controls
(6) 3rd Round Control of Spades
(7) What kind of 3rd Round Control of Spades
( 8 ) Exactly Qx
(9) Asking about Controls
(10) No Control of Hearts, so xxx(x)
(11) Can now be completely certain that North has 6-card Diamonds, because with 2353 shape North would have responded 1 initially (showing a balanced hand), especially with honourless Diamonds. Given the lack of the King in the North hand, North must have the Ace of Clubs, but South cannot be sure if North is 2362 or 2461, but it doesn't really matter, because in both cases there are 3 losers in the North hand and without knowledge of the Jack of Spades, South cannot safely bid 7 , let alone 7NT, because that would need 3-3 Spades.

[kenberg]

With enough agreements, North could take control. After the 5 response to 4NT, North knows about all the keys excpet for the Q. Holding 6 diamonds, N may decide that's not a great concern. So then N can count 13 tricks if S has the K, under the reasonable bet that spades are no worse than 4-2.

I have Eddie Kantar's RKC book somewhere, in fact I have two of the several editions. He has a lot of asking bids in there in situations such as this.  Maybe he could do it.

As is often the case, someone, North in this case,. would still have to hope the Q comes down (if S doesn't have it) and hope for a not horrible spade split. But maybe it could be done.

Back to the world as it is.  I fretted a bit before bidding 5 showing 1 or 4 keys. Surely Ms. Bot will know that it isn't 1. Surely. Surely. I hope. Then after 5NT I could take a shot but as you note I not only need the Q I need the J. Not for me.

[kenberg]

Adding on a bit. I found one of my Kantar RKC books, it's the first edition. He had various revisions later. This is enough to see that he modifies rkc when the minors are trump to provide more room, and he does have a specific king ask. But there are all sorts of conditions. And probably the third edition, which I have somewhere, is different.

A Kantar sequence to the grand would be interesting, but mostly as an exercise. I have no partner with whom I have anywhere near the detailed agreements that would allow us to use it.

I saw that Grant is giving some talks on bidding philosophy. I couldn't make it yesterday and I will be gone all next week, although I may have some unpredictable free  time to log on. But I will toss out a piece of my philosophy. Even those of us who very much enjoy he game and enjoy discussing it are only willing to devote a limited amount of time to it. Quite possibly if a partner and I had both thoroughly read Kantar's book, the same edition, and agreed to all of it and practiced all of it, we would have reached the grand. But there are far more hands that I screw up where the cure is at a more elementary level. So my philosophy is that we have to put first things first. We have to discuss, and then discuss again, the frequently arising problems. If the auction goes 1 -(pass)-1 - (1 )  - X is that double a support double for diamonds or does it show hearts? I prefer that it shows hearts. But for  1 -(pass)-1 - (1 )  - X I prefer that it be a support double for diamonds since there is no problem showing spades at the one level.  Or, in the uncontested auction 1NT-2 - 2 - 2   is this a weak hand with five hearts and four spades or an invitational hand with five hearts and four spades. Gib plays it as the latter. I'm fine with that, and for that matter I am fine with playing it as weak, as long as I know which.


OCP has the great advantage that it is laid out with considerable detail. No doubt it has other advantages as well, but one thing that strikes me is that a pair can start playing it and, if each has read the same stuff, they can understand each other's bids. Yleexotee has written notes for a hoped for common language for IAC 2/1 but I don't think they have been broadly adopted. Playing with the Gibs has worked reasonably well. We did not reach the grand here, but we had an auction where each knew what the other was doing.

Astoundingly, 6 making 7 was an 87% board. Getting to 7 might be tough, getting to 6NT might be tough, but getting to 6 ?

[OliverC]

I can't remember who is was, exactly, but one of the Blue Team, I think once said something along the lines that Super-precision isn't particulary about getting to the best possible contract, but about getting to the best contract possible. Here, realistically, that's 6 . Getting to 7NT relies on North being in control of the bidding (which is pretty unlikely) and getting the information that South has AKxxx, AKQx and the Ace of Hearts. That's not impossible, of course, if NS's agreements are to cue-bid a single side-suit king over 5NT (and bid 6NT with 2 side-suit kings). That is a recognised variety of RKCB. The biggest problem is to engineer North to be in control.


OCP can identify the presence or absence of side-suit Jacks, but only when a 4-card or longer  suit is held. Finding holdings such as stiff QJ rather than stiff Qx takes up too much potential bidding space and will only be useful once in a blue moon.

[kenberg]

 N did end up in control, albeit a bit accidentally. After the N raise of 3 to 4 , I cue bis 4 . No doubt in some partnerships the 4 would be rkc.    but not with the bot. So now after an rkc 4NT and a 5 response all we need is an asking bid for a specific K.  In fact I would think 5 would be the Q ask, and then my response would be 5 showing the Q and the K.

I guess it could have happened.

Added: It's an interesting situation, After the 5 response to 4NTit is at least arguable that N should keep control and ask for a little more information.I have opened 1 , made a jump shift into ,and shown 4 keys. N has shown less that the values needed fot a game forcing 2/1 and has shown a !F fit. So it is going to be impossible for me to see that we belong in a grand. The 5NT confirms all keys, but as you note I would need to know not only about the Q but also the J. This won't happen. But N could reason: The Q and the K will make this a sure thing. So instead of bidding 5NT, offering partner a choice he can hardly make, I'll try 5 Q ask. Maybe we get lucky.
So:

1     1NT
3   - 4
4     4NT (RKC)
5     5 (Q ask)
5     7NT (ah, I see you have AKxxx / A and spots/ AKQx / spots, that's enough)

I feel I must tell my bot "No problem pard, I really am not complaining".

Possibly the grand should be bid in just in case opener had gotten a little cute with his 3   holding AKxxx / Axx / AKQ tight / xx  A club lead would cause transportation issues in NT, but the slam is still on barring any seriously bad luck.