Back to Basics

[ggriffin0]

You're sitting in first and...

Problem 1:
All RED

1 -  P  -  1   -  2

As opener you hold:

Qx
Qxx
AKQJxxx
x

Do you bid:
1) 2
2) 3
3) other

After making this decision do you agree with the sequence so far?

[kenberg]

3 seems pretty clear, anything less seems pessimistic. We could be headed for 6 or 3NT or, some days, to playing a passed out 3 . If partner bids 3 over 3 I will bid 3 . I didn't make a support double over 2 so I think Qx is fine.


Agree with the auction so far? I guess I agree with my 1 opening.  Although 3NT might have been right.

[Masse24]

3 seems pretty clear, anything less seems pessimistic. We could be headed for 6 or 3NT or, some days, to playing a passed out 3 . If partner bids 3 over 3 I will bid 3 . I didn't make a support double over 2 so I think Qx is fine.


Agree with the auction so far? I guess I agree with my 1 opening.  Although 3NT might have been right.

Yup.

[Curls77]

Oh, am I only 1 to bid 2 here? 
Altho great dime suit, queens in majors arent wonderful, and p could have struggled to make his call. Why should we let him think we have more than we really do?
If I was responder and pard bids 3D here I'd take him for GOOD 16+, with 6+ dimes. With Jxxxx Axxx xx Kx comes 3N which will likely never make.

[ggriffin0]

Okie dokie...here we go. The problem here is two fold.

Why on earth would we ever choose a rebid on an auction that would require use to either: 1) under-estimate our hand OR 2) over-estimate our hand?

That said given the two choices under-estimating the hand appears to be the best choice, So well-done Sanya. Why? Well let’s take a look at the hand. We can use HCP, support points, or LTC and we still come up short. The latter even more so on the adjustment (equating to 6.5 LTC) which is marginally more than an opening. Let’s discount this for just a moment. The hand is worth 7 tricks IFF (if and only If) the hand is in ‘s otherwise we lose some hcp, support pls (think transportation) and even more LTC based on almost balanced in No Trump. Given the lesser of the two evils we downgrade based on the simple expedience of the concept of bridge. If partner has extra s/he will help the auction along. Otherwise 2 , 2N , 3 are relatively equal. The basics being it takes two hands to get there and in my opinion 1 isn’t anything to get excited about YET.

On the hand in question...3 leads partner to bid 6N -1, which is really immaterial (called resulting). The basics lead us to allow the hands to come together and “bridge.”

This leads us to the last point here which Ken nailed on the head. Why even lead to an auction choosing to over-estimate or under-estimate. If gambling 3n is in our repertoire perhaps this is best.

If the hand was a mite clearer ten surely the auction starting with 1 or 2 at that point would take precedence. Happy thinking

[kenberg]

I often review hands, usually trying to decide if I would change my approach next time. So far I am not convinced that I should. If we play in 6D my hand has 7 diamond tricks. I have second round control in their suit.  My queens stand a good chance of being useful if partner has the values for 6 . Give partner the AK of hearts and the AK of spades, nothing else, and 6 should be easy. Of course he need not have these, but if he bids 6 I would expect him to have something. AKJx of spades and A anything of hearts should do it. And these hands will require nothing, no finesse, no squeeze, no development of long cards, nothing.

As to 3NT, that might be good and it might not. If he holds two major suit aces and the K I imagine partner will leave it in. Maybe it makes, maybe it doesn't. That's not really a conclusive reason to not open 3NT, it simply illustrates that sometimes reasonably bid contracts go down.


Not all bid slams make but I would like to see partner's hand and hear the rest of the auction. With a solid seven card suit, a stiff in their suit, and two outside Qs I don't see 3 as an overbid.

[ggriffin0]

You're sitting in first and...

Problem 1:
All RED

1 -  P  -  1   -  2
3 -  P  -  6N

As opener you hold:

Qx
Qxx
AKQJxxx
x

As incredulous as it is that is the whole auction. While partner is slinging a little poker it could be right if partner had the strength s/he proposed having. Anyways, if we are considering that slam is here let's consider that partner needs: A or K of , AK in , A and in the absence of A needs 1 to guarantee transportation if we are even thinking about 6N or 6 (the latter being much better). We can change this around a little but that is the essence looking at the problem from opener's point of view.

From responder's point of view however s/he needs moderately less if we are staring at 3 . S/he already knows about the and just has to plug some holes.

Anyways. I didn't play this but saw it and found it like many hands...quite fascinating...

Responder's hand:
KJ943
AJ7
8
K954

*As we can see 3N and 5 have play and the hands "bridge" together regardless of your choice. However why bother giving partner hope u have an outside A or A!C? 6N from responder is reasonable even if we are looking at opener and trading in a pesky Q for an A. That said, I prefer a more scientific sequence.

LTC wise...you have an 8 card fit that you can't know about. Partner is poised to have ~5LTC from the auction and as responder we are looking at 7. So we should be at the 12 tricks/6 level IF we have the controls which means a more scientific ask, adaptable crosswood or whatever treatment you have in your bidding toolbox, BUT that isn't the case since opener isn't at ~5. Shrug and say sorry pd when the rest of the field is in 3N or 5 , and well partner reaches over and (insert something colorful). Either way...partnership trust is a delicate beast to manage.

[Masse24]

Agree with Ken. If I have to choose between 3 and 2 , it's a clear 3 .

Also, I would saddle the blame for this result with responder. Blasting 6NT, off two Aces, without even a sniff at gaining more information, gets the blame. 

I'll post a simple ATB poll. I'll dine on crow if shown to be wrong. 

Stay tuned . . .

[ggriffin0]

Todd I think u missed the point. It isn’t about majority or polling within a forum post. It is about addressing the content. Whomever answers the poll may be using whatever hand evaluation technique and without a rationale the aggregate data is meaningless which ever way it goes That said one way to extend the conversation is to include a rationale and a hand technique other than hcp, support points or LTC (or usage of such) and perhaps this leads to an answer of its own?

To Recap:
Ofc blasting 6n is wrong but the envisionment is not (method vs end product). But the premise started with dealing with the fear of missing contract, which at that point was whether we miss 3n or 5 and the evaluation of the hand and if we can just let the hands talk together and get there.

Second question was the best way to open the hand, perhaps avoiding under or over evaluating the hand.

As I said earlier...happy bridging.

[Curls77]

I would saddle the blame for this result with responder. Blasting 6NT, off two Aces, without even a sniff at gaining more information, gets the blame. 

I hate blasts of any kind. Yet, opener's job is to describe their hand and if they opened 1 and rebid 3 they told a big lie. Which doesn't justify 6N bid, but encorage responder to all kind of crazy ambitions.

I am still dwelling on possible 3N opening, I was taught (maybe wrong) we should not have as much outside, ie no more than a K. Another reason I shouldnt be talking in here 

[kenberg]

One way of thinking about the jump to 6NT. Suppose you change the Q in the opening hand to the A. Now at least there is a chance.. But not a great one. In top tricks you have the AK of spades, the A of hearts and 7 diamonds. That's ten tricks. And that includes a seventh diamond. It really would not occur to me to bid 6NT with that hand. And I don't hate blasts, but it would not occur to me to do it with that hand. If changing a Q to an A iin the opening hand, and leaving a seventh card in a suit that on the auction might well be six cards long, still leaves me with work to do, then I think 6NT qualifies as highly optimistic.

For the reasons I have stated, a solid seven card suit, a stiff in their suit, two queens in the suits partner is likely to have, I think 3 is clear cut. Not a lie, not a stretch, it is a completely reasonable bid. I can say why I think so, and I have. After that I must accept that others will think differently. If everyone bid and played in the same way there would be a lot of flat boards.

As to 3NT: The way I play 3NT openings is that the suit must be solid  and 7 cards long, this qualifies on that score. I play it as having no outside A or K. Check. I can dig up references for playing it this way but I would say this is pretty standard.  Not universal, but pretty standard.  Can I  have some queens? Yes, I suppose so. So I can imagine a 3NT opening. But with the stiff club and a couple of queens, that might be a good way to miss a diamond slam. I don't feel strongly about 3NT versus 1 . I can see arguments both ways. It's sort of an interesting question what responder will do after a 3NT opening. He can count 8 tricks for declarer. But 8 isn't 9 and declarer has to get in. Remember it is the hand with the long diamonds that is declaring if opener starts with 3NT. The hand with the black kings will be in the dummy. That 9 might prove pretty useful in stopping opponents from running clubs. Maybe he leaves 3NT in. Maybe not. It's iffy. It would be a lot safer if the hand with the black Kings was declaring and the hand with the long diamonds was dummy.

Summary:
I can imagine someone convincing me to open 3NT. I am not convinced, but I can imagine it. However if I open 1 then after 1 - Pass - 1 - 2 I will be bidding 3 .  Yesterday, today and tomorrow.  And if I held the other hand I would bid 3NT over the 3 . I am confident that it would be my choice.  When I am not certain what I would do I say so.  for the choice of  1 versus 3NT I am uncertain, and if opener starts with  3NT I am uncertain what I would do as responder.  Leave it in I think, but I am not sure. For the 3 rebid after 1 - Pass - 1 - 2 , and then the 3NT over 3 , I am certain.

[ggriffin0]

As to the 6n, however reasonable the idea is, we ofc would would not land there using scientific methods. It is however reasonable to consider because when changing out the Q for an ace we end up with a bottom count of 16 and leaving the Q and then adding an A on top puts us at a top count of 18. This changes things dramatically because if we were going to rebid the hand with 3 before this change, we certainly can not rebid this hand the same way with the added Ace. 3 for both options would considerableby widen the distributional range. So then we are thinking about 4 with a hand of 5.0 LTC and 18hcp. A bit egregious to consider with said hand. So in the total sum of thinking about the system, we reign ourselves in and bid 2 with the former (the actual hand) and 3 with the upgraded hand. We certainly do not want a skew of 4 in a single bid. That range of 4 would both be relevant to raw HCP, support points, adjusted LTC and Bergen points. At this point in the conversation I am too lazy to look at the difference in KnR and Zar for the before and after.

Postmortem: I chatted awhile with the declarer and his partner about this hand. They are experts and regular partners and neither of them liked the result. At the end of the day, after some quick table talk both agreed that neither 2 or 3 were stellar options and if there was a replay button, all three of us would choose gambling 3n. It does meet the criteria and certainly not as sketchy as the other prospects AND it has some pre-emptive power just in case opps hold all the cards in which case you’re going down big. Not too worry though you just ate up quite a bit of room and barring a fit on their first or seconds bids they are going to have to blast something to get to slam. That isn’t the case here though and partner comes through for you with a nice dummy.

Take home message: At the end of the day whichever decision you choose with your bids to describe your hand, MAKE 100% sure that you and partner knows what each are capable of in selecting said bids.

[kenberg]

Btw, this conversation is what I had always hoped the forum would become. I think it is valuable. It has a feature that is lacking in lesson formats. If I were to give a lesson on this hand, I would present it as I see it. If Grant were to give a lesson, he would present it as he sees it. On a forum discussion, we each , as well as others, present it as we each see it. It is fundamental to the game that people evaluate their hands in different ways.

Just out of curiosity, did the 1 opener say why he elected 1 instead of 3NT?  As mentioned, I see it as close but the combination of the stiff club and the two queens seems to me to increase the danger of missing a slam if I open 3NT. It's close, and I am far from certain what I would do on any given day. And would 3NT be left in? I think I would. But that also could go wrong. Not as the cards (probably)  lie, but after 3NT-Pass, third hand is not clued in on how they lie.

Here is a play problem.


KJ943
AJ7
8
K954

Qx
Qxx
AKQJxxx
x



The auction is an opening 3NT passed out, the lead is an unhelpful spot. You have only one on the board so I imagine you win in hand and  run the diamonds. You toss what and then do what? Of course we know from the auction that actually too place that it is highly likely that the two black aces are both to declarer's right, and if that is so then we can easily do this. But on the hypothetical  auction of 3NT passed out we have no idea of what is where. If the unseen 26 cards are dealt randomly between the defender's hands, it seems 3NT is odds on but it probably requires at least some thought. Of course maybe a lead is unlikely against that auction. Possible but unlikely. So imagine the opening lead is the Q. What's the plan?

I imagine 3NT makes more often than not. I think the chances improve if the hand with the kings is declarer. The defense has less to see, for one thing.