5C or 6C

[kenberg]

Playing with the bots.
I give you the bot hand, sitting N. Red against white, imps, E deals and passes.

Starting on your left:  P - 1 - P.

You, North, hold
K
J64
8753
AJT82

1NT seems clear and when partner bids 2 you raise. Te opponents remain silent so it goes:

1    1NT
2    3
3

Your call. The bot, holding the above hand, bid 3NT and the opponents took the first five hearts. Surely 4 is a better choice since opener seems to be short in hearts.


Here are the hands:

K
J64
8753
AJT82

A8432
8
AQ2
KQ95

5 is a reasonable contract, 6 can be made of the cards lie well. They do.

[OliverC]

LOL, a Heart shortage in the South hand is a racing certainty, so we're in 31-point deck territory. South clearly has a decent hand, and since we're in a forcing situation (new suit at the 3-level), even if not 100% game-forcing, I feel the Principle of Fast Arrival should be applying here, so I would treat 4 as stronger and more encouraging than 5 , which would definitely be "to play" and not looking for anything more. I have no idea whether your Bots will have any inkling of that - probably not.

A bid of 5 rather than 4 with the North hand over 3 is not unreasonable. Maybe 4 would be pushing a bit too much on North's hand with no help in Diamonds, given what I've said above. Partner is going to be 5134 or 5035, most likely the former, as with 5-5 and a decent hand they might well find 3 rather than 2 .

Looking at the 2 hands together, I think I want to be in game rather than slam. 6 needs a a fair amount of luck.

[kenberg]

Thanks. I have been playing some with the bots lately. I believe that they are better at bidding than is sometimes said, but this one was weird. Discussion of hands with bots can be useful beyond the bots. In this example, we have 1S-1NT-2C-3C-3D. I am pretty sure most human would see this as an attempt to get to 3NT, and moreover would understand 3D as saying "I control the diamonds but I am hoping you can handle the hearts". If a partnership is not on the same page on this, for example if they think 3D asks partner to bid 3NT if he has a diamond stop, this discussion could bring that out.

Here is one that I posted elsewhere:
http://tinyurl.com/yavrbvy8

The essential issue: Partner opens 1H and you have a decent hand with four hearts, four small spades, and a stiff A of diamonds. I bid 2NT. I had the bots replay it, and the bot, holding the same hand, splintered with 4D.  I got to the slam, the bot didn't.  Again this can be discussed. Of course I prefer my way, and not just because it works here. I don't have all that great a hand for slam and I expected we would play in 4H. But after partner responded 3S to my 2NT I re-thought this. The slam is a pretty decent slam with all values working. After 1S-4D opener will never play responder for the diamond A, he will see nothing special about his hand, and he will sign off in 4H. That's what happened.   

Here is another call that comes up from time to time. With all four people in the auction the sequence is 1C-(1H)-P-(3C). What is 3C? With my current f2f partner we have never discussed it (there are many things that we have never discussed). In the  past I have played it as a four card limit raise (or better) in hearts. The bots play it as a mixed raise in hearts. I think I like that. But I can think of many possible meanings for the 3C call.

The bots can be crazy, and I think the 3NT here is an example. But I have found playing with them to be useful as well as fun. I sometimes bring a bot hand to my f2f pard and we discuss it.

People like lessons. For something like OCP, lessons are essential. But for matters such as the above, I far prefer discussion to lessons. Often in the lessons I am tempted to say "Wait, I don't see it that way". But that seems cranky, someone is giving a lesson, we are supposed to listen. That's just not my way of learning.

So I hope there will be more discussion. We can always hope.

[OliverC]

Absolutely right 3 is looking for 3NT in the first instance but, knowing there's no significant wastage in Hearts, 5 is a good response by North. Yes, 6 might be there but North doesn't have that much to spare from his 3 bid.


  x
  AQJxx
  Q109x
  Q94


  xxxx
  Kxxx
  A
  AKxx


1 - 2NT
3 ( shortage) - ??


I guess this one comes down to what North's alternatives are to 3 : If 3 shows any hand that has a Spade shortage, it's quite difficult to construct a hand for North where 6 is unlikely to have a decent shot. I'd be tempted to ignore the scientific route here and blast 6 over 3

[kenberg]

It seems to me that N should bid 3 !s whenever he has at most one spade. This hand is an illustration. S is unlimited. With my actual S hand, after partner opened 1 , I fully expect 4 to be the final contract. There was a further clue from the context: This is a "best hand" tourney where the human gets the hand with the most hcps, so I know N has at most 14 highs. So 6   is unlikely.  I often forego such inferences, partly because I feel it distorts the game too much and partly because it sometimes backfires, as it would have here.

At any rate, after partner opens 1 I think a slam is reasonable in two possible cases: Either partner is sort in spades or partner has extra values. Once he shows the stiff spade, the situation has improved considerably. Partner has an 11 count but still there is a good play for the contract. Change one of those club spots to a J, or the diamond Q to the K, and it is virtually a certainty.


We are often told not to splinter with a stiff A.  I was somewhat surprised to find, when I seated four bots at the table and had them bid this, that the S bot responded 4 on the first round. I am not sure I agree that we should "never" splinter with an A but I think it should be very seldom. As the old Gilbert Sullivan line goes "What! Never?" "Hardly ever". Again this hand illustrates why. I expect most already agree with this but I'll take a look.


After the 4 bid,  S will have little choice but to accept N's sign-off in 4 . And N, thinking S's values are in suits other than diamonds and having no room to explore, is very likely to mis-judge whether to sign off.  Starting with 2NT increases the options.  After N responds, whether he shows a minimum with no stiff (4 ), or extras with no stiff (3 or 3NT), or a stiff (3 something, in this case 3 ), then S has an opportunity to re-think the hand.   The bot explanation for my 2NT is balanced support with 13+ total points. Ok, we just have to take a flexible view of "balanced".  It's balanced in the sense that my short suit is an A, a reasonable view when slam seeking.

My play was not optimal but it sufficed.
T1 Spade A
T2 Another spade ruffed
T3 to A
T4 back to hand
T5 ruffed
At this point I ruffed a spade back to hand. I think a trump back to hand would have been better for a variety of reasons. But I survived.  As the cards were, almost any line would have worked.

[OliverC]

I'm not an expert on Jacoby 2NT, Ken, because I never use it myself. What I was getting at was this: Over 2NT does Opener bid 3 with any hand that contains a Spade shortage, or does that 3 suggest a hand that might possibly be interested in something more than 4 ? Would a sequence of 1 - 2NT - 4 or 1 - 2NT - 3 utterly any possibility of Opener having a Spade shortage?

[kenberg]

As I play it, yes. I can't say that I have had extensive discussions on the matter.

Maybe I should say that with a stiff spade spot I would expect partner to always bid 3S. If he had a stiff A, and say only 7 highs outside of that, I might want to rethink it.After 1 -2NT- 3 responder is going to expect more than 7 hcps in the non-spades.  That was what happened here. I could think "Well, great, partner has a stiff spade spot so one loser there, and his highs are in the the other three suits where they will be useful.


Maybe someone else has some thoughts on this. I have various bridge books around but I can't think of any that discuss whether one should or shouldn't bid 3 after 1 -2NT holding, say, A / KQxxx /Qxx / xxxx.  Perhaps an argument could be made for not opening that in the first place,  but maybe  A / KQxxx /Qxx / Jxxx.  Of course some x's are better than others.

Even in the Vanderbilt Finals, which I watched a fair amount of but not all, there were a couple of places where I think partners were not quite on the same wavelength. That doesn't excuse us from trying as best we can to think through what we have agreed to.