Creature's Features

[jcreech]

Attached are the hands from the 12/26/2019 session.  Happy holidays.

Jim

[kenberg]

I am editing this. I was ontermixing the issues of making 4 on a lead with making an overtrick on a non-spade lead.

About that 4 contract on board 1. It was mentioned at the time that Gib says 4 makes even on a trump lead. Declarer can win the first spade either in hand with the 9 or on the board with the T. And learns of the 6-0 break. He assumes from the auction that Lho has two hearts. If Lho began with either 6=2=2=3 shape or, as it was, 6=2=3=2 shape, he can count ten tricks: The initial trump lead, the   A, the Am the AK give 5 tricks. The other five are one ruff in dummy, a ruffed low in hand, and the AKQ.

Without the trump lead it is maybe a bit, maybe more than a bit, dd but it can be done. Again the top cards in the side suits are cashed, that's four tricks. Two ruffs in dummy and a ruff in hand bring us up to 7 tricks. After that last ruff we are on the board and we lead a . Rho plays hos last . We now know that Lho started with exactly two hearts, exactly two cubs and either three or four diamonds. So he was dealt either 5=2=2=4 or 6=2=2=3. No matter. Rho has at most one . So we ruff the with the A, cash the K and lead a . Lho is in and eads into our Q9.

[Masse24]

Regarding board #6, where the auction went 2 - 2 - 3NT - 6NT . . .

It's possible, too, that responder may have interpreted the 3NT rebid as showing 25-27. Lacking more "dialed-in" notrump ranges by way of agreement, that would be my interpretation of the range shown by 3NT. In which case the "guess" to leap to 6NT makes far more sense.

Still, as you mentioned, a happy accident for the home team. 

[jcreech]

Todd,

It could be that partner thought the range was 25-27.  I had another hand come up with similar point counts, and partner went with far different results. 

I do think that as you get to these sorts of rarified ranges, it is generally correct to assume that partner is at the bottom of the range because there are fewer cards available to get to the higher portion of the range.  So if you are inclined to be there if partner is at the middle or above, invite.  At least with me, I will be looking to bid on; I'm likely to bid on with a minimum and a five-card suit or three 10's.

[wackojack]

The West hand has 24HCP based on A=4, K=3, Q=2 and J =1.  Generally an ace is worth more than 4, A king is worth more than 3.  So with only 2 queens and no Jacks it has potential to be worth 25. However, it has one huge drawback,  AK stiff.  You can deduct anything from 1 to 3 points for this when partner is not expected to have much.  With the actual hands, even though East does have the A  , and  QJxxx, 12 tricks are unlikely.  Take away the 2  and make it the  2  and 6NT becomes an excellent contract. 

So this hand is only worth 2 -2  -2NT.  Played as a good 22 to 24.  However , if West has instead  AKx, it would not be unreasonable to play it as worth 25 and rebid 3NT.

After 2 -2  -3NT, I think 4 is best played as Stayman.  Certainly not Gerber.  4  would deny a 4 card major and then 4NT would be a quantitative invite to 6NT.




 

[kenberg]

Looking at board 6

I agree that 2 - 2 - 2 NT is probably a good way to start. Two arguments:

1. I think AK tight should be downgraded from a 7 count.

2. W might ask himself just how he expects to take 9 tricks if E has a hand that would pass after t 2 - 2 - 2 NT

Of course argument 1 and argument 2 are related. We downgrade the AK tight because it gives us two tricks and then what? Even if dummy has the Q we have to get to it. In other words, pard needs something or else 2NT may already be too high.

[jcreech]

Here are the 1/9/2020 hands:

[kenberg]

Board 9, the first on the list, was interesting. I was S. After two passes I opened 1 , Lho bid 3 and partner doubled. Pass on my right and I must choose. Perhaps the following is right: I could bid 4 , asking partner to pick a major, and then when she bids 4 I could bid 4 . I would like this to say "If spades is one of your majors then we play 4 , otherwise I think 5 is a better bet." But I didn't do that, I just bid 4 . Nad news, partner has 3. Good news, they split 3=3. Bad news, as I played it I could have been set. Good news, I wasn't.

5 is a fine contract, as the cards lie  I could actually make 6, or at least I think so, but 5 should be easy losing one spade and one club.

I think the X with my partner's hand is fine. It would be nice to be 4-4 but we can't have everything. The trick is to get to clubs if opener does not have hearts.  I suppose some would indeed go the 4 - 4 - 4 - 5 route. It just seemed a bit out there.

[wackojack]

From your partner's pov if you bid 4 you will have one of 2 types of hand.
1. 4-3  majors, singleton  , 5 . Better than min opener.
2. Balanced 18-19 4-3 majors, no    stop. So likely  doubleton.

The odds would favour type 1 simply on the basis that a hand with fewer points is more likely.

On that basis 5 would more likely lead to success. O T O H if you did happen to have hand type 2, 5 is clearly inferior.

As you said Ken, the 5 route seems "a bit out there"   

[kenberg]

Over 4 my partner will not have to spend any time thinking about what I have, not yet. If she has 4 hearts she will bid 4 , if she has four spades but not four hearts she will bid four spades. The potential problem will be if it goes 4 - 4   and then 4 by me. She has to figure out what I have i mind, why, if I wanted to play in 4 I did not just bid 4 over her double. I think a reasonable interpretation is that I am prepared to play in 4 if she has four spades and wish to play in 5 if she lacks four spades and has decent club support. I say this is a reasonable interpretation, but I don't say it is a  clear cut interpretation, so I didn't do it.

The hand is interesting to play both in 4 and in 5 , assuming a lead if just look at the NS hands. As the cards lie, either contract makes, easily enough, if we see all four hands (as Gib does).  Actually Gib says that it makes 6 on a lead, which looks to be true,  but it's more than a little bit double dummy. I think 6 makes as well, maybe a tad less double dummy.

[jcreech]

Here is the 1/23/20 class notes.   Sorry it took so long; I had limited access to the computer this file was located for about a week.

[jcreech]

Here are the 2/6/20 class notes.

There was also a specific question on how the slam on 11 was made, so the following url shows the play:  https://tinyurl.com/rsfjkmb

[kenberg]

I could only get to observe a couple of hands yesterday, lots going on, but I thought I would comment on board 13.  The auction shown begins with a Flannery 2 by E, W bids 2NT asking for more info, and then, contrary to any way that I have ever played Flannery, E bids 3 to show a 4=5=2=2 shape.
Here are responses as shown in Wikipedia:

2NT – forcing bid. The opener describes his hand more precisely:
3♣, 3♦ – 3 cards in the bid suit (i.e., 4=5=1=3 and 4=5=3=1 distribution, respectively)
3♥ – 4=5=2=2, 11-13 points
3♠ – 4=5=2=2, 14-15 points with weak minor-suit doubletons
3NT – 4=5=2=2, 14-15 points, but good minor-suit doubletons
4♣, 4♦ – 4 cards in the bid suit (i.e., 4=5=0=4 and 4=5=4=0 distribution, respectively)
4♥ - a 6-card heart suit, for those who play this variant

The above is not the only way, but I regard it as a pretty standard way.

Flannery at least has the possibility of keeping them out of game here. 2 - 2NT - 3 (showing 4=5=2=2 minimum) and now W looks at an aceless hand with the probably useless QJx opposite a known doubleton and might consider passing.


I am not fond of Flannery but this is because I am fond of the weak 2 .  Flannery generally works fine when it comes up but often it isn't needed. Here, for example, without Flannery it can start 1 - 1 - 2 and they might or might not be able to stop below game but the Flannery players Jim cites also didn't stop below game.

A favorite Flannery story from long ago. I had a partner, RL,  who had a strong belief that her way of playing any convention was the right way. One of her other partners told me the following: They played the Flannery convention, they disagreed about some of the details of the convention. They were at a national even in Philadelphia, Flannery was there, so they caught up to him and asked him. Flannery agreed with the woman telling me this story, not with RL. As they left, RL said "Well, that's only one man's opinion".

[jcreech]

Hi Ken,

I carry similar opinions regarding Flannery.  Not my favorite convention, but I will play it with partners who are more comfortable with it, than without.  Your list of conventional responses to the convention are the same as mine too.

However, I reported the descriptions provided to the opponents during bidding.  To the extent they differ from standard descriptions of the bids, I presumed reflected discussed variations.

I know many conventions have standard and homemade response structures.  I am guilty of doing that myself (but not with Flannery).

[jcreech]

Attached are the 2/20/2020 hands.