Creature's Features

[jcreech]

I liked Poco's idea, so I have co-opted it for my lesson hands as well.  Here are 11/14/2019's hands and my notes.

[Curls77]

WTG Jim and TY ! 

[kenberg]

Tanks for the hands. I trust it is ok to comment. I played board 4, the one where I have 6=5=1=1 shape. There was a question afterwards (by Curls77 as I recall!) as to whether 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 is forcing. I replied that I like it to be, but not everyone agrees. I also noted that the bots play it as forcing although when I looked for it today I could not find it. But I am pretty sure that they do.  Why would it not be? Well, everyone plays that 1 - 1 - 1NT - 2 is non-forcing.  Of course that's different, after 1 - 1 - 1NT I would know that partner, for his 1NT rebid, has at least a somewhat balanced hand and I could just bid a please place the contract 4 . With 5-4 shape and a hand worth inviting game I bid a nmf 2 over 1NT.

There are some ho like to use 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 in a similar way, as an artificial call with at least invit strength and as yet unlnown shape, and then they use - 1 - 2 - 2 as a weak bid, basically a pass/correct bid. That's not crazy, but I prefer natural, I do think that after 1 - 1 - 2   a 2 call has to be natural and forcing, using 3 as an artificial nmf call is way too far out for me.

Our auction, as I recall, continued as follows: 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2NT.  Now what? Here I think a 3 call by me should be passable. Clearly a lot of partner's cards are in the minor, not only did she rebid 2   but she was able to rebid 2NT so she must have some as well. Nonetheless, I can be stubborn and I am 6-5 with decent values so I bid  presumably forcing 3 . I say presumably forcing because partner has not yet said anything about her heart and spade holdings so if I wanted to let he get out at the 3 level in whichever major she prefers, then I should be bidding 3 . So I think 3 , although undisussed not only by us but probably be just about everyone, should be construed as forcing. Or very close to forcing. If partner is 1-1 in the majors she could maybe  take a flyer on passing.

Anyway, the sequence got us to 4 , a decent contract. It makes if spades are 3-1 and it makes if they are 4-1 as long as the four card holding is on my right.

My main point here is that while I think that the 2 , if undiscussed, should be seen as forcing, there are a fair number of people who play it as non-forcing, using an extended version of nmf to handle the forcing case. My preference is that 2 forcing, I think the bots play it that way as well. Others play it non-forcing.

[Masse24]

My main point here is that while I think that the 2 , if undiscussed, should be seen as forcing, there are a fair number of people who play it as non-forcing, using an extended version of nmf to handle the forcing case. My preference is that 2 forcing, I think the bots play it that way as well. Others play it non-forcing.

I agree, Ken, this (non-forcing weakish) is one possible way to play it. With discussion, I prefer to play it as shown below. But I totally understand the desire for natural; the fewer gadgets, the fewer disasters.

1 - 1 - 2 - 2 = weakish and non-forcing. Exactly like the same auction with a 1NT rebid by opener. It is only due to the extra space permitting an artificial 2 rebid by responder that allows this treatment.

1 - 1 - 2 - 2 does not afford responder the space for an artificial bid, so 2 must be forcing.

With a regular partner I would play it this way, but never undiscussed.

[Added] We had the same discussion, about the same auction, previously: 1 - 1 - 2 - 2

Also, the Billy Miller mention of this treatment can be found here. It is a few clicks in. 1 - 1 - 2 - 2

[kenberg]

This would probably work pretty well here. After 1 - 1 -  2 - 2 , opener would, I assume, bid 2 NT. He won't be really happy to do this with Qx but it's responder's show. Now responder bids 3 . Opener, having denied holding three spades, can show two card support, or at least a willingness to play in spades opposite a six card suit, by bidding 3 .  Responder presumably then bids 4. And goes down on the 4-1 split, but it's the right contract.

[wackojack]

I was sitting East on B8 in which the bidding attracted some comments.  I had:
  Q10765
  J
  AKJ85
  A8
The bidding went:  1  - 1  ; 4  -? 

In my mind it seemed that partner's spade holding would be the determinant for slam or not. If partner has a spade control and  AKQ then slam will be on.  It was suggested that I might try a cue of 5  .  However, would partner cue 5    with A  ?  But that reply wont tell me the hearts holding. So the only bid available to my mind was keycard 4NT. 

Consider partner's 4  rebid and the difference between that and an opening bid of 4  .    AKQxxxx and nothing much else would be suitable for an opening bid although a 7222 distribution and top  might be considered to be suitable for only a 3 opening bid.  So the rebid of 4 must show extras outside and a 7321 distribution is more likely than a 7222.   If 7321 partners singleton is equally likely to be either a  or a  .  Also with with the small chance that partner does have    xx, there was still a chance that if South held the K  without the Ace then this suit would not be led. 

So I would give myself an 80% chance of making.

B7 Gave me a hand evaluation problem:
  A9873
  K10852
  A
  K9

Bidding:
1 -(p) - 2  -(dbl); ?

14HCP and 5 losers.  Without the double I would have made a trial bid of 3  .  However, the double made it very likely that I would find the A  onside so I went straight to 4 .  Well the A  happened to be offside and so the contract can go off.  However, South quite naturally led his A  , so giving me the contract 

[kenberg]

Yes, I was the one leading the !h A on board 7. Partner's double of take-out double of 2 was of course completely reasonable and doesn't promise the K but it seemed to up the chances. And 4 !s is a completely reasonable contract, especially with the expectation of where the A will be, but of course that also turned out to not be the way it was. We place our bets, we do not always collect.

[jcreech]

I never promised games that make, only hands that something happened that sparked an interest with me.  It might be hand valuation, it might be conventional, it might be the differenced between the thinking that is involved between IMPs and matchpoints, or it might be a missed opportunity.

On board 4, I thought 2 was forcing in an undiscussed situation.  I was a bit surprised at the discussion, so I went the Bridge Winners to post the question.  I set it up so players could choose either or both answers.  The results with about 100 players responding at the time I checked was 69% forcing, 24% non-forcing, 7% chose both.  Some of the abstainers wrote comments indicating that they regarded it as being strictly a partnership discussion/understanding situation.  While I agree that it can be non-forcing with discussion or in an area of the world where it is common agreement that it is non-forcing; but outside of those situations, I would expect partner to bid.  I understand that 1 - 1 ; 1NT - 2 is generally not forcing, but then 2/1 generally includes new minor forcing or xyz as a means to artificially force.  Unless you have a specific forcing convention available, I think the principle, in a live auction, that a new suit by an unpassed hand is forcing applies.

During the session, I thought the valuations and play considerations made by Jack and Ken were spot on, it just felt like Ken was on the wrong side of how the hand actually laid out.  Been there, done that too.

[kenberg]

The hands were indeed interesting.

On Board 5 I opened 2 with a 4=6=1=2 shape. It was, as you mentioned, in third position and that did influence my willingness to open 2 even though I had four spades. The idea is that we are unlikely to have a game anywhere, 2 should be making most of the time, and it creates interference.  Since we are red against white, I like to have a pretty decent suit, and so I have.

You mentioned that at the other table when you were playing this it started 2 - X - 3 , and what should E do.  I regard the E hand as worth a 3 call. At any rate, I think passing and then, f W doubles again, jumping to 4 is not what I would do. looking at the E hand I would expect 3 to often make. Suppose I pass. Partner might have a variety of hands, but if I am going to jump  to 4 over a second double then I am leaving E with the choice of passing out 3 or playing in 4 . Not good. I just bid 3 over 3 and hope for the best.

At our table, as I recall, it began 2 !h X - Pass - 3 and there was some question about how strong this was. I think W was wondering if they were playing Lebensohl. If so, the 3 shows some values since with a modest hand E would first bid 2NT, a relay to 3 , and then bid 3 .

My choice, after 2 X -Pass-Pass, would be some number of spades. Again Lebensohl is relevant, if it is being played. The choices are 2 , 2NT followed by 3 , or a direct 3 .  On high card points it is only worth 2 but it has some nice shape. I imagine 2 is right, but it's at the upper end, I think.

And at our table the contract was 3NT after, I think, 2 X - Pass -3 - Pass - 3NT passed out. There are 8 tricks but not 9. A kib pointed out that I missed an opportunity on defense to make a good falsecard that surely would have worked.

The opening lead was a heart to my T and declarer's K. Declarer played three top clubs from hand and found that they were not splitting. He then led a top spade from hand, partner following with the 5.


So the spade suit was like this at the beginning.

                    5 played 

  K led                                           Board has A863, 3 played
   
           I have   J942



Presumably that K is from KQT7. If I play low, as I did, declarer next plays the 7 to the A and and then, after my pard shows out, the 6 toward his QT.


But suppose I instead drop the 9 on the first trick. Declarer reasons that if sades are 3-2 then nothing matters, but if by any chance that 9 is a stiff then he can still pick up the suit by next playing the Q and then, when I show out (if I do) he leads toward the A8 on the board. He would be disappointed when I am the one with the four cards, but it would be a very sensible line for him to take.

It's a fun game.

[jcreech]

On 4, lets throw BWS into the mix:

"After a one-level suit response and opener's simple same-suit rebid:
(a) a third-suit bid that is a reverse or a three-level bid is forcing to game;
(b) a third-suit non-reverse at the two-level is forcing for one round, and responder may pass if opener bids two of responder's first suit or three of opener's suit;
(c) a non-reverse jump to three of a third suit is natural (five-five or more) and game-forcing (to invite with the same shape, responder bids two and then three of the third suit);
(d) a bid one level above a game-forcing third-suit bid is a splinter. "

Note: Underlining mine.

So it looks like the correct bid under BWS would be the jump shift showing a game forcing 5-5 or better.  The double jump-shift would show a splinter; presumably in support of clubs.

[kenberg]

I don't think the strong jump shift is needed with the BWS agreement you quote. The 2 is BWS forcing for one round.  We get to see what partner does. Who knows, maybe s/he is holding !s Axx. She isn't but the 2 is forcing and we will see what happens. She bid 2NT, naturally enough. Ok, she does not have three spades, she does not have four hearts, and since we are not in a game force, the 2NT is presumably minimal saying "you forced me to bid again so I did, but don't expect miracles".  Now I can still force to game, I think, with 3 . I doubt BWS or much of anywhere says exactly what that bid is but logically it must be forcing. Anytime partner has one spade and three hearts she will have to go on to 4 so, for my 3 call, I must be prepared to play at the four level. Same logic that makes a reverse earlier in the auction forcing.  Partner might prefer hearts, and can only get to hearts by bidding 4 .  And I must have more spades than hearts. With equal length I could have bid a passable 3 or a "game-forcing" 4 .  So I think the forcing but non-forcing 2 followed by a logically forcing 3 is the most descriptive. Of course if partner is, say, 1-1 in the majors she has a problem, but with that shape she might have rebid 3 over 2 . Maybe anyway. But if she is 1-1 in the majors I am probably going to regret my aggressive push to game no matter how I do it.

[jcreech]

Here are the 12/12/2019 hands and notes.

[jcreech]

I cut my bridge teeth at a time when the only time it was right to bid a grand slam was it you could count 13 tricks.  In the intervening years, I have only nuanced that thinking a little.

I found this document recently on grand slams.  The math is more to Ken's liking than most players, but if you have the patience to get to the scenarios, it may change your mind about when it is appropriate to bid a grand slam.  It did nine.

[kenberg]

I cut my bridge teeth at a time when the only time it was right to bid a grand slam was it you could count 13 tricks.  In the intervening years, I have only nuanced that thinking a little.

I found this document recently on grand slams.  The math is more to Ken's liking than most players, but if you have the patience to get to the scenarios, it may change your mind about when it is appropriate to bid a grand slam.  It did nine.

In The Philadelphia Story Mike (James Stewart in the movie version) quotes a Spanish proverb "With  the rich and the mighty always a little patience".  And toward the end Tracey (Katherine Hepburn)  opines "The time to make up your mind about other people is never". Probably neither quote is exactly relevant but they both advise caution. I strongly advise caution with applying mathematical arguments to bridge.

One problem is that we rarely know what the probabilities are. Another problem is that hands that in theory won't make sometimes do make. At the club last Friday partner opened 1 after three passes. I responded one heart, he bid 1 and I looked at my almost opening hand and bid 2NT. Passed  out, the spade T was led.:

            A942
            KQ3
            QT72
            95

T led

          Q75
          AJ65
          54
          A862

Ok, clear enough. On the lead I have 2+4+0+1=7 obvious tricks. If Lho has the J together with either the K or the A (he does, whew) I can develop a trick. But they can take a spade, two diamonds and three clubs first, so I am going down 1. Except they didn't develop their tricks so I was able to establish my 8 tricks first, and then a - squeeze developed and I took 9 tricks.

So what was supposed to happen? I might have passed out partner's hand. It satisfies one of those numerical rules, the rule of 15, but I don't put much stock in such things. The bridge club is linked to The Common Game and that has commentary on some hands. It approved of the 1 opening fourth hand but said that opener should then pass my 1 response. Well, maybe. The dd analysis says I can make 8 tricks in hearts. Maybe I even would make 8 tricks.

There are times when the sort of mathematics described in the article can be put to use, but less often than advertised, I think.

A favorite story, that I might well have recited before: Four of us were driving from the D.C.  area down to Roanoke for a Regional and we stopped for a casual bite to eat. We were having a general discussion with the guy serving the food and when he learned I was a mathematician and we were off to a bridge tournament he mentioned that being a mathematician must help a lot. Marge Wilson (she and her husband Bill, both now deceased, were good players and great fun)   immediately responded that  common sense was much more what was needed and mathematics sometimes got in the way. It was a gentle bit of ribbing, but in fact I agree.

[wackojack]

I cut my bridge teeth at a time when the only time it was right to bid a grand slam was it you could count 13 tricks.  In the intervening years, I have only nuanced that thinking a little.

I found this document recently on grand slams.  The math is more to Ken's liking than most players, but if you have the patience to get to the scenarios, it may change your mind about when it is appropriate to bid a grand slam.  It did nine.

Yes this mathematical analysis is well known.  Counting 13 tricks is essential.  However some leeway should be given in ignoring very bad breaks.  For example if you know by the bidding that partner has a doubleton trump and you have AKQ432.  You can count 7 certain tricks outside trumps and need 6 tricks in trumps.  You would not reject bidding a grand because 13 tricks are not certain.  The maths tells you that 6 trump tricks are available provided the 5 outstanding do not break badly.    This will give you a 67.8% chance if partner does not have the J or partner does not have 10x when one of the hands has a singleton Jack. This will give you something better than a 70% chance.  Surely you would bid a grand with these odds a fraction better than 68%.