[ArcLight]

There is a nice book by Alan Mould "Step by Step Slam Bidding" that covers topics such as:

- look at the quality of your trump suit. Beginners may tend to get over excited with many HCP but poor quality trumps.

- learn cue bidding, rather than blasting to Blackwood (with a void too

- learn RKCBW, and the follow up responses. Chjnaces are a number of prospective pards will want to use it.

- be aware of where your tricks are coming from. 4 aces and 4 kings = 8 tricks. Do you have a 2nd suit? Ruffing values?

[jocdelevat]

I think for b/i is not enough just to try to bid slam. The way you bid slam is more important imo. In general b/i players bid slam like this 1 of a suit open then pard with a openning hand or little better jumps to 4nt (or some use gerber). Some of b/i go with biding slow but still ask for aces when they don't know about a suit and have 2 quick loosers on it. So I agree to bid slam for a try and at least to get the play however I do not see what you can learn If you continue to bid slam in a bad way.

[han]

helene_t, on Apr 21 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

...

Probably this conclusion could have been reached by a simpler argument

Yes.

[kenrexford]

Some of the comments here are quite insulting to advancing players and have little to do with matchpoint analysis. The two are rather unrelated.

For beginners to intermediates -- work on tools. You have heard the 33 points are necessary for a slam. Handling those requires Blackwood, and you are fairly good. Gain the added protection from RKCB. Start to learn about splinters and other shape-related slam bidding. Tools will hep.

For the MP analysis, I yield to others. My GP is to not care because I cannot figure out what the other idiots will do. In the long run, I simply bid what I think is right and let the MP gods dole out whatever they will. As for slam bidding, this seems to work out fairly well in the end.

As for blending these two issues? I'd suggest that overbidding slams might actually be a MP gainer for beginner/intermediates. If the contract should yield 12 tricks, but you take 11, you get the same terrible result whatever the contract is. So, making up for that by bidding more slams that make may be winning proposition.

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Apr 21 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

Some of the comments here are quite insulting to advancing players and have little to do with matchpoint analysis.

I think all players should....

1. Start with the absolute minimum number of conventions.
2. Learn hand evaluation, what fits together and what doesn't regardless of hcp.
3. Learn basic slam bidding techniques.
4. Then learn hand evaluation bids like Splinters and Bergen Raises.
5. And finally learn advanced slam bidding techniques.

Furthermore, I think going backwards (such as learning Bergen Raises before learning hand evaluation) is extremely difficult. If, for example, you find that there's a certain piece of information that is crucial on deciding whether to bid game, and then somebody trots out Bergen Raises to fill that hole, you'll probably do well with it. On the other hand, if you're taught Bergen Raises at the same time you're taught Goren Point Count, odds are you'll never be able to use them right. You never get to see why the bid was built, and how it helps.

I don't know what it is that I said that you consider insulting to 'advancing' players. Is it insulting to say to a beginning speaker of a foreign language that they should start with a basic vocabulary? Is it insulting to say to a 3rd grade math student to wait a bit on learning matrices?

Or is it insulting to point out that when I see people in a club who are regularly in the bottom half, that most of them would do better if they were to 'unlearn' a number of conventions that they use as a crutch?

Personally, the only insulting part I see is thinking that 'advancing' players don't already know this. But with experts here encouraging ridiculously complex bidding conventions here, I worry that they could get confused.

[gwnn]

learning few conventions and not bidding slams are two different things....

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Apr 21 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 21 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

Some of the comments here are quite insulting to advancing players and have little to do with matchpoint analysis.

I think all players should....

1. Start with the absolute minimum number of conventions.
2. Learn hand evaluation, what fits together and what doesn't regardless of hcp.
3. Learn basic slam bidding techniques.
4. Then learn hand evaluation bids like Splinters and Bergen Raises.
5. And finally learn advanced slam bidding techniques.

Furthermore, I think going backwards (such as learning Bergen Raises before learning hand evaluation) is extremely difficult. If, for example, you find that there's a certain piece of information that is crucial on deciding whether to bid game, and then somebody trots out Bergen Raises to fill that hole, you'll probably do well with it. On the other hand, if you're taught Bergen Raises at the same time you're taught Goren Point Count, odds are you'll never be able to use them right. You never get to see why the bid was built, and how it helps.

I don't know what it is that I said that you consider insulting to 'advancing' players. Is it insulting to say to a beginning speaker of a foreign language that they should start with a basic vocabulary? Is it insulting to say to a 3rd grade math student to wait a bit on learning matrices?

Or is it insulting to point out that when I see people in a club who are regularly in the bottom half, that most of them would do better if they were to 'unlearn' a number of conventions that they use as a crutch?

Personally, the only insulting part I see is thinking that 'advancing' players don't already know this. But with experts here encouraging ridiculously complex bidding conventions here, I worry that they could get confused.

A couple of observations might be in order.

1. "Some of the comments here" does not translate well into "what jtfanclub is saying."

2. I'm not sure that Roman Key Card Blackwood, Splinters, and "other shape-related slam-bidding" concepts would be considered "ridiculously complex bidding conventions" by the average learning player.

3. I'm not sure what the "basic slam bidding techniques" are if these three do not qualify. Gerber?

4. I'm not sure that a person for whom bidding concepts like Splinters confounds them like a foreign language would be adept enough to cater their nuance bidding for MP versus IMPs, which was the point of the initial question.

5. I would not equate RKCB with matrices.

On a more general note, WHAT?!?!

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Apr 21 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

A couple of observations might be in order.

1. "Some of the comments here" does not translate well into "what jtfanclub is saying."

2. I'm not sure that Roman Key Card Blackwood, Splinters, and "other shape-related slam-bidding" concepts would be considered "ridiculously complex bidding conventions" by the average learning player.

3. I'm not sure what the "basic slam bidding techniques" are if these three do not qualify. Gerber?

4. I'm not sure that a person for whom bidding concepts like Splinters confounds them like a foreign language would be adept enough to cater their nuance bidding for MP versus IMPs, which was the point of the initial question.

5. I would not equate RKCB with matrices.

On a more general note, WHAT?!?!

1. No, it's a way of denigrating people without defending youself. If I'm being insulting, tell me. If I'm not being insulting, don't include me by saying 'some comments here'.

2. No, I would put all of those in step 3, basic slam bidding techniques. Step 5 is more things like Last Train and Good/Bad NT.

3. I think beginners shouldn't worry about slam in Match Points, unless it's staring you in the face (ie., you have 33/37 combined hcp). I think intermediates should use Splinters, Jacoby 2NT, and Roman Keycard to find fit slams.

4. IMPs teaches you to stretch for games and slams. In MPs, there's no point, in fact there's rather strong points against it.

For example, let's say that my partner and I bid a 60% 6♣, when the (stronger) field is in a 6NT that makes exactly the same time that 6♣ does. In IMPs, you get rewarded when they both make- you lose 4 IMPs instead of 11, perhaps. In MPs, you lose 60% of the time and tie 40%, while if you had stayed at 3NT you'd lose 60% of the time and win 40%.

Forgetting about grand, you still have two major worries in MPs: whether you should be in slam, and whether you should be in NT even with a suit fit. In IMPs, there isn't a serious concern about which slam- any good slam is a good one.

In Match Points, one bad board is one bad board. Not usually a big deal. But in IMPs, failing to find an 'automatic' slam is 11 or 13 IMPs, which is a whole lot of overtricks.

So as an example, I've had a 24 board team match with 8 good boards and two bad ones, the two bad ones being a missed slam and the wrong slam (which went down when the right slam made). The two bad boards beat the 8 good boards. So you can't afford to wait to learn slam bidding on IMPs. But in MPs, you can wait until you're ready.

I'm not sure what's so nuanced about that.

5. No, I would equate a 3♦ call as showing 0 or 2 of AKQ in diamonds and 0 or 1 of AKQ in clubs with matrices.

Note that I am trying to make two unrelated points here:

-I don't think beginners should try for slams in MPs unless they're darned obvious.
-I don't think beginners or intermediates should 'bid like the experts'. When Han says bid like the experts, I assume he's not talking about RKCB.

[awm]

Slam bidding at MP isn't all that different from at IMPs. If you bid a making slam you usually get a good score; if you go down in slam you get a bad score. There are a few observations worth mentioning though:

(1) It is true that some slams score higher than others. However, most of the time it is better not to worry about this. If you bid and make a slam you tend to get a pretty good result in most fields.

(2) Similarly, a grand slam obviously scores better than a small slam. But again, much of the time if you are getting to a slam and making it you are getting an above average result anyway.

(3) The one big exception is when you have boatloads of high card points. With something like 33 hcp you get into the range where virtually everyone will bid slam. Now it becomes important to get into 6NT when possible or to bid a grand slam if one is on.

(4) In fairly weak fields (like your typical club game or BBO tournament) people do a lot better at bidding major suit slams than minor suit slams. If there's a hand where you have 29 hcp and a nine card major suit fit and can make six of the major, a substantial percentage of the field will get there. But swap some cards around so you have 29 hcp and a nine card minor suit fit and can make six of the minor, then almost no one gets to slam and often times half the field doesn't even get to game. There are a wide range of reasons for this, but it sometimes pays to be aware of this phenomenon.

[Apollo81]

Gerben42, on Apr 21 2008, 02:29 PM, said:

A good time to bid slam is when you see that 3NT was making, you have a minor suit fit and you are already higher than 3NT. Then bidding 5♣ wont get you many points, but maybe 6♣ will.

And on the flipside, a bad time to bid slam is when you have a minor fit and you see that 3NT was not making. If you play in 5m you will get a good score anyway even if you make 6 since some pairs will play in other, worse contracts.

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Apr 21 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

I'm not sure what's so nuanced about that. 

Summary of my thought:

People are amazingly capable of learning the game if they take the time to study and think and discuss. Advancing players, if given an idea and an explanation, usually can understand and follow and apply. If they cannot, they will never really get the game, even if they take it easy for a while.

[the hog]

jtfanclub, on Apr 21 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

For beginners?

Slam points in MPs is pointless. Don't even try.

I'm completely serious.

I would say that slam bidding is for Intermediates or better only. At least at MPs.

I have read some strange posts in this forum over the years, but this is one of the strangest. It is also some of the worst advice I have ever read. B/I players as Han pointed out, will not improve their bidding if they don't bid obvious slams. Don't bid tight ones is perhaps a more intelligent suggestion.

[KamalK]

Hi All,

Nice discussion for Intermediates like me.

Have I understood the discussion correctly?

Is it being (generally) suggested that my level players should bid slams in MPs only if 100% certain of making?

And that if its a 50-50 chance, better to bid game and try for those 2-3 overtricks?

Thanks all. Regards

Kamal

[the hog]

No, only one person suggested this and that is really bad advice. Certainly don't bid 50-50 slams. If they go down you won't get any MPs at all.

[CSGibson]

Quote

And that if its a 50-50 chance, better to bid game and try for those 2-3 overtricks?

Thanks all. Regards

Kamal

Bid slams if they are 50.000001% to make. That is estimating your own skill level in that, of course. Making it simple:

If no one bids the 50% slam that you bid and all bid game, you get a top when it makes and a bottom when it doesn't, averaging a 50%. If the slam is over 50%, you stand a better chance of getting a good matchpoint score by bidding it regardless of what the rest of the field is doing. And if you are playing in a weak field, you might make slams with no real play simply because the opponents blow tricks just as much as you do.

You get good by practicing making good judgements. If you get to a slam that is less than 50%, then look at it as a learning tool - somewhere either partner led you astray, or you led yourself astray - learn from it. And try to make it anyway. Stretch your imagination, your planning, your play. If it doesn't make, don't worry about it; the score on the particular hand will be forgotten after the night, but the lesson from the hand can be applied for at least two nights

[KamalK]

[quote name='CSGibson' date='Apr 22 2008, 10:13 AM'][QUOTE]
learn from it. And try to make it anyway. Stretch your imagination, your planning, your play. If it doesn't make, don't worry about it; the score on the particular hand will be forgotten after the night, but the lesson from the hand can be applied for at least two nights

[/QUOTE]
Yes ok... many thanks

[EricK]

CSGibson, on Apr 22 2008, 04:43 AM, said:

Quote

And that if its a 50-50 chance, better to bid game and try for those 2-3 overtricks?

Thanks all. Regards

Kamal

Bid slams if they are 50.000001% to make. That is estimating your own skill level in that, of course. Making it simple:

If no one bids the 50% slam that you bid and all bid game, you get a top when it makes and a bottom when it doesn't, averaging a 50%. If the slam is over 50%, you stand a better chance of getting a good matchpoint score by bidding it regardless of what the rest of the field is doing. And if you are playing in a weak field, you might make slams with no real play simply because the opponents blow tricks just as much as you do.

You get good by practicing making good judgements. If you get to a slam that is less than 50%, then look at it as a learning tool - somewhere either partner led you astray, or you led yourself astray - learn from it. And try to make it anyway. Stretch your imagination, your planning, your play. If it doesn't make, don't worry about it; the score on the particular hand will be forgotten after the night, but the lesson from the hand can be applied for at least two nights

I think it is important to point out that 50% is actually a more stringent condition than it sounds. eg a slam missing "just" the trump king is not usually a 50% slam - very often a bad break in trumps or the possibility, however slim, of a ruff on the opening lead, will drop the odds below 50%.

[helene_t]

han, on Apr 21 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 21 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

...

Probably this conclusion could have been reached by a simpler argument

Yes.

Silly me, it is of course sufficient to consider the two case
1) the competition at other tables bid the slam
2) they don't

and then you reach the 50% threshold in both cases.

In practice I suspect that the 50% threshold is slightly too high in a weak field, because some competitors will make silly positive scores (defending undoubled, playing partscores) against whom you need to go plus, but OTOH there will also be some +800 and some 3NT+4 against whom you need to bid the slam.

Maybe more importantly, if you don't have a chance of winning the event, or if it's not an important event, bidding and making slams is what can earn your fame. And while it's true that beginners don't make all cold slams, it's also true that beginners sometimes let hopeless slams make.

So all in all I think it's reasonable advice to bid slam if it has more than 50% chance. This is also correct at IMPs. And it's a habit you won't have to de-learn when you progress to a stronger field.

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Apr 21 2008, 10:35 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Apr 21 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

For beginners?

Slam points in MPs is pointless.  Don't even try.

I'm completely serious.

I would say that slam bidding is for Intermediates or better only.  At least at MPs.

I have read some strange posts in this forum over the years, but this is one of the strangest. It is also some of the worst advice I have ever read. B/I players as Han pointed out, will not improve their bidding if they don't bid obvious slams. Don't bid tight ones is perhaps a more intelligent suggestion.

Yes, that's how you advance.
You start by learning Goren point count, how to open hands, majors and minors, and maybe a few responses.
Eventually, you learn the basics of play- drawing trump, finesses, developing suits.

About the point that you understand 'eight ever, nine never', you should start bidding obvious slams. That rule, to me, is the start of being an Intermediate. Not that it's a particulalry good rule, but it's the start of the idea of 'playing the odds'. That there are lines of play that have a good chance of working (but will sometimes fail) and other lines of play that have a lower chance of working (but will sometimes succeed). Doing what succeeded this time does not make it the right decision in the long run, and doing what failed this time but is the 'percentage' shot does not mean you did something wrong.

The basic principles of play don't change regardless of the contract. The idea that you can't learn how to play slams until you start bidding them is absurd.

Maybe we have a different defintion of beginner. To me, a beginner means somebody at the beginning. Before they were a beginner, they had never played bridge. If you want to call that Novitiate or some other Latin term, be my guest. I can give you an example, from the Audrey Grant series:

http://www.acbl.org/.../materials.html

Go through those first 27 chapters. You won't find Blackwood, or Gerber, or anything else fancy.

Matchpoints is nice, because it allows you to wait to learn slams. You can't afford to do so with IMPs.

[P_Marlowe]

KamalK, on Apr 21 2008, 11:17 PM, said:

<snip>
Nice discussion for Intermediates like me.

Have I understood the discussion correctly?

Is it being (generally) suggested that my level players should bid slams in MPs only if 100% certain of making?
<snip>

No.

If I had used the formulation used by the Hog, maybe my posts
would have been clearer, and for that matter, shorter.

Dont focus on bidding the tight ones.

Bidding the tight ones can wait until you have a sound
understanding of the other mayor areas of the game.
And if you happen to miss bidding one, dont worry, move
on to the next board.

With kind regards
Marlowe