[lamford]

mikeh, on 2020-July-29, 10:20, said:

How one gets to OP’s claim of the crisscross being 22% escapes me.

I agree that figure is wrong, but I did say "the contract" not that specific line. It was just what Bridge Analyser spat out for ALL lines after a non-diamond lead. On reflection that includes all HH doubleton of diamonds and all singleton honours and a surprising number of other esoteric squeezes and things like KQ doubleton of clubs. and simple squeezes with KQ of clubs with KQJ of diamonds. But I think the crisscross is better than playing for HH doubleton in diamonds alone.

[mikeh]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-29, 10:59, said:

I agree that it helps to have a way to show minimums that aren't horrible minimums. I think where we disagree is that, in a structure like this, I think 3♠ over-represents this hand. This hand is not improved by partner bidding Jacoby 2NT, as paradoxical as that may seem. If I'm remembering correctly that it shows shortness, I'd sooner consider 3♣ and an additional cue-bid of clubs before I seriously bid 3♠ on this hand.

You're basically stating that this hand has about 5% odds to make, and if Responder had a King less, they should still try for slams opposite a 3♠ bid in my mind. You won't play 6♠, but you will play 5♠, and again you're going to have 5% odds to make. 3♠ confines you to playing one level too high on every auction with a hand like this.

I never want to be a result merchant, but, if almost every time you bid a hand like this in such a way you get to a contract that has no play, then it's really not resulting at that point, your reasoning behind the methodology/approach must simply be flawed. And, if you have to start playing your partner for literally five or six specific cards in order for your contract to have play, clearly the reasoning sucks. This hand apparently, according to commentary in this thread, needs Responder to hold exactly the K♠, AK♥, A♦ and the J♦ or better...

Fundamentally, 7 trump is not worth what it seems on this auction. I'd actually rather Responder have Kx♠ and AJxxx of diamonds. That hand would help me take more tricks in spades on average than the hand partner has. It's got 2 less spades and one less high card point, and it's substantially better support for the hand I'm holding as South. I just don't need 11 trump, and partner is never going to know to devalue KQxx♠. The hand has 6 losers, but, they're the kind of losers that need partner to deliver 5 winners. South is bringing absolutely no help in creating those winners in the red suits, which is the problem.

This hand looks prettier than it actually is, which is fundamentally why it makes 5-10% of the time. So, I'm happy to be against the majority of experts that get this wrong 90-95% of the time. Seems they're out of touch.

I don’t think that many, if any, serious partnerships use the old J2N structure, where a new suit by opener, at the 3-level, shows shortness. For example, one common approach is that 3C shows a useful minimum, and responder, if still interested, bids 3D to ask for shortness: 1st step, none, 2nd step clubs, and so on.

Are you seriously suggesting that 5S would be in danger? And the slam bidders are not placing magic cards. Had south the heart queen, it’s cold. Had north 4=4=2=3 shape, or many other shapes, it’s cold. Basically it fails when the red suits mesh poorly. I used to play a relay method, in which responder could, by the 5-level, know shape, controls, and queens, and now slam is missed (and maybe south has J10x in diamonds, and its cold on a non-diamond lead and 75% otherwise. Add the diamond jack to the south hand, and you’re the one missing a superb contract.

It’s easy to be an expert bidder, seeing all of the cards. The rest of us struggle, and occasionally overreach. C’est la vie
.

[cherdano]

I can't believe we are having a serious discussion about 3S. In the agreements described in the OP, it's one of the most obvious bis ever.

[KingCovert]

mikeh, on 2020-July-29, 12:20, said:

I don’t think that many, if any, serious partnerships use the old J2N structure, where a new suit by opener, at the 3-level, shows shortness. For example, one common approach is that 3C shows a useful minimum, and responder, if still interested, bids 3D to ask for shortness: 1st step, none, 2nd step clubs, and so on.

I think we're passing each other somewhat on this point. I agree that few serious partnerships do, or should, use the old Jacoby 2NT structure. But, seemingly, the partnership in this thread did. I'm not endorsing it, and agree with all your commentary around how other agreements would result in more rational auctions.

mikeh, on 2020-July-29, 12:20, said:

Are you seriously suggesting that 5S would be in danger? And the slam bidders are not placing magic cards. Had south the heart queen, it’s cold. Had north 4=4=2=3 shape, or many other shapes, it’s cold. Basically it fails when the red suits mesh poorly. I used to play a relay method, in which responder could, by the 5-level, know shape, controls, and queens, and now slam is missed (and maybe south has J10x in diamonds, and its cold on a non-diamond lead and 75% otherwise. Add the diamond jack to the south hand, and you’re the one missing a superb contract.

I definitely believe that 5♠ can be in danger when Responder has hands that would choose to stop in 5♠. There seems to be some weird group think here that Responder is somehow holding something close to a minimum for this sequence, and that's just nonsense. South's 3♠ bid shows an intermediate or better (15+) hand in the old Jacoby 2NT structure, obviously upgrades are allowed. Responder would be negligent not to show slam interest with a hand that had something like an average 14 HCP. And, I think such a hand would struggle to stop below 5♠. And, the hand that does stop in 5♠ is going to be a worse hand than this one, and the contract will face similar odds of success due to that decrease in quality.

As it turns out, this hand is a 4333 17 HCP hand, which in my mind is an immediate downgrade due to the shape. Furthermore, the Q♠ is wasted, not that Responder knows that. So, this hand probably turns out to be worth something like 13.5 HCP. But, again, Responder cannot know that until Opener bids 5♠ showing the extra spade length. And here comes the problem, now it's an absolute guess for Responder. Is Responder really to believe that Opener upgraded their hand this much based solely on trump length? Why can't Opener have just one extra card like the J♦ (or more!) that this hand needs to have good play? 3♠ has completely over sold this hand at this point.

In fact, I think it's negligent for Responder to allow the partnership to stop below 6♠ once 3♠ has been bid. The only problem with bidding 6♠ immediately in response with a hand like this are the grands that you could be missing.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but, it feels like peoples' thoughts are being polluted by the fact that with different agreements you'd have non-minimal responses available. I think this reality is polluting peoples' ideas of a minimum within the old style structure, which is the EXACT problem with the old style structure. The reason that structure sucks is precisely because of hands like this. Even in this post, you are still calling to other structures that support how this hand can stop below 6♠, but make no attempt to comment on the actual structure that was available. In this structure, Responder is sometimes going to put down hands that are a full king worse than this hand, with marginally better shape. Those hands are going to have no play if you're bidding 3♠ on hands like this.

mikeh, on 2020-July-29, 12:20, said:

It’s easy to be an expert bidder, seeing all of the cards. The rest of us struggle, and occasionally overreach. C’est la vie.

I'm absolutely not the type of analyst who looks at all the cards when commentating, I've always supported your criticism of those that do so on these forums. It's my perception that there is a bit of a fantasy narrative going on here that Responder is ever stopping below 6♠ after Opener bids 3♠ with this hand and this set of agreements.

Rather, I'd say that either peoples' thoughts are being polluted as I mentioned above, or those justifying 3♠ here given the actual agreements are the ones justifying the bidding while looking at all the cards. The suggestion that this 9 HCP hand is an automatic upgrade to a hand with intermediate playing strength in this sequence really comes across as a rather disingenuous one. I think the vast majority of players would grit their teeth and bid either 3♣ (despite it's problems in devaluing Responder's club honours) or 4♠. Does anyone seriously believe that 90% of people are bidding 3♠ as Lamford's poll claims? It seems far more likely that those players like to perform analysis while looking at 52 cards.

[shyams]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-29, 14:42, said:

Does anyone seriously believe that 90% of people are bidding 3♠ as Lamford's poll claims? It seems far more likely that those players like to perform analysis while looking at 52 cards.

http://bridgewinners...m-2-heelofcrzh/

[KingCovert]

shyams, on 2020-July-29, 15:05, said:

http://bridgewinners...m-2-heelofcrzh/

At no point was that description of the meaning of the bids provided, that would certainly change a lot of things. Describing 4♠ as a sub-minimum and 3♠ as others is just dishonesty at it's finest.

[mikeh]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-29, 14:42, said:

I think we're passing each other somewhat on this point. I agree that few serious partnerships do, or should, use the old Jacoby 2NT structure. But, seemingly, the partnership in this thread did. I'm not endorsing it, and agree with all your commentary around how other agreements would result in more rational auctions.



I definitely believe that 5♠ can be in danger when Responder has hands that would choose to stop in 5♠. There seems to be some weird group think here that Responder is somehow holding something close to a minimum for this sequence, and that's just nonsense. South's 3♠ bid shows an intermediate or better (15+) hand in the old Jacoby 2NT structure, obviously upgrades are allowed. Responder would be negligent not to show slam interest with a hand that had something like an average 14 HCP. And, I think such a hand would struggle to stop below 5♠. And, the hand that does stop in 5♠ is going to be a worse hand than this one, and the contract will face similar odds of success due to that decrease in quality.

As it turns out, this hand is a 4333 17 HCP hand, which in my mind is an immediate downgrade due to the shape. Furthermore, the Q♠ is wasted, not that Responder knows that. So, this hand probably turns out to be worth something like 13.5 HCP. But, again, Responder cannot know that until Opener bids 5♠ showing the extra spade length. And here comes the problem, now it's an absolute guess for Responder. Is Responder really to believe that Opener upgraded their hand this much based solely on trump length? Why can't Opener have just one extra card like the J♦ (or more!) that this hand needs to have good play? 3♠ has completely over sold this hand at this point.

In fact, I think it's negligent for Responder to allow the partnership to stop below 6♠ once 3♠ has been bid. The only problem with bidding 6♠ immediately in response with a hand like this are the grands that you could be missing.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but, it feels like peoples' thoughts are being polluted by the fact that with different agreements you'd have non-minimal responses available. I think this reality is polluting peoples' ideas of a minimum within the old style structure, which is the EXACT problem with the old style structure. The reason that structure sucks is precisely because of hands like this. Even in this post, you are still calling to other structures that support how this hand can stop below 6♠, but make no attempt to comment on the actual structure that was available. In this structure, Responder is sometimes going to put down hands that are a full king worse than this hand, with marginally better shape. Those hands are going to have no play if you're bidding 3♠ on hands like this.



I'm absolutely not the type of analyst who looks at all the cards when commentating, I've always supported your criticism of those that do so on these forums. It's my perception that there is a bit of a fantasy narrative going on here that Responder is ever stopping below 6♠ after Opener bids 3♠ with this hand and this set of agreements.

Rather, I'd say that either peoples' thoughts are being polluted as I mentioned above, or those justifying 3♠ here given the actual agreements are the ones justifying the bidding while looking at all the cards. The suggestion that this 9 HCP hand is an automatic upgrade to a hand with intermediate playing strength in this sequence really comes across as a rather disingenuous one. I think the vast majority of players would grit their teeth and bid either 3♣ (despite it's problems in devaluing Responder's club honours) or 4♠. Does anyone seriously believe that 90% of people are bidding 3♠ as Lamford's poll claims? It seems far more likely that those players like to perform analysis while looking at 52 cards.

Far too much ‘analysis’ based on notional high card points or equivalents.

Experts don’t bid slams, or basically any suit games, based on high card point evaluation, certainly not in the way your post reads. Points don’t take tricks, nor do they control suits. The notion that AJxxxxx is not an upgrade once 4+ support is found is risible. When we opened, we saw this as abou5 a 5 winner suit, with chances for 6. Once it’s raised, it’s a 7 winner suit, and we are definitely not ashamed of our opening bid.

Over 3N, serious slam try,4C is automatic, as is partner’s 4D and our 4S.

The interesting question is how north should proceed. Bid on, he must, since all 4S said was that opener lacks a heart control. Most players overuse keycard. Here, keycard doesn’t tell responder much, although as noted above, opener will announce possession of the trump Queen, letting responder know about one extra spade

He still can’t see 12 tricks, and of course 13 isn’t completely impossible

Since responder can anticipate that neither a 5H nor a 5S response to keycard helps, he should reason that it would be a mistake to keycard.

In an expert partnership, any bid by north, over 4S, promises a heart control, since opener denied one and responder is still looking for slam

So 5H would deny the minor suit kings, and opener knows to sign off in 5S and responder should trust that decision.

I’ve often argued that an advancing pair would improve their slam bidding immensely (though not immediately) if they abandoned ace or keycard asking bids (apart from power auctions) for a couple of years. Keycard is all too often a crutch, recourse to which blinds players to alternate approaches. Note, of course, that both partners have to understand the significance of responder bidding 5H. Not only does it deny either minor King, but it also denies a side suit.that will deliver tricks, else responder would have used keycard.

Had opener a minor king in addition to the rest, he’d bid 6m over 5H. Yes, the partnership could still be too high if opener were 6232 with Kxx in diamonds, but now we may have a double squeeze. Besides, if you never bid bad slams, you’re not bidding anywhere enough slams!

[lamford]

mikeh, on 2020-July-29, 15:24, said:

Far too much ‘analysis’ based on notional high card points or equivalents.

Experts don’t bid slams, or basically any suit games, based on high card point evaluation, certainly not in the way your post reads. Points don’t take tricks, nor do they control suits. The notion that AJxxxxx is not an upgrade once 4+ support is found is risible. When we opened, we saw this as abou5 a 5 winner suit, with chances for 6. Once it’s raised, it’s a 7 winner suit, and we are definitely not ashamed of our opening bid.

Over 3N, serious slam try,4C is automatic, as is partner’s 4D and our 4S.

The interesting question is how north should proceed. Bid on, he must, since all 4S said was that opener lacks a heart control. Most players overuse keycard. Here, keycard doesn’t tell responder much, although as noted above, opener will announce possession of the trump Queen, letting responder know about one extra spade

He still can’t see 12 tricks, and of course 13 isn’t completely impossible

Since responder can anticipate that neither a 5H nor a 5S response to keycard helps, he should reason that it would be a mistake to keycard.

In an expert partnership, any bid by north, over 4S, promises a heart control, since opener denied one and responder is still looking for slam

So 5H would deny the minor suit kings, and opener knows to sign off in 5S and responder should trust that decision.

I’ve often argued that an advancing pair would improve their slam bidding immensely (though not immediately) if they abandoned ace or keycard asking bids (apart from power auctions) for a couple of years. Keycard is all too often a crutch, recourse to which blinds players to alternate approaches. Note, of course, that both partners have to understand the significance of responder bidding 5H. Not only does it deny either minor King, but it also denies a side suit.that will deliver tricks, else responder would have used keycard.

Had opener a minor king in addition to the rest, he’d bid 6m over 5H. Yes, the partnership could still be too high if opener were 6232 with Kxx in diamonds, but now we may have a double squeeze. Besides, if you never bid bad slams, you’re not bidding anywhere enough slams!

A really excellent analysis. I am glad that you agree with 3S and 4C and I agree with you that 5H is the right way to proceed.

[lamford]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-29, 15:12, said:

At no point was that description of the meaning of the bids provided, that would certainly change a lot of things. Describing 4♠ as a sub-minimum and 3♠ as others is just dishonesty at it's finest.

Rubbish. 4S should say that you are ashamed to have opened. The original explanation given at the table for 3S was "not absolute minimum". Just like the world and his dog plays. 3 level bids are natural (in our methods) but if they were shortages, it would still be a 3S bid. And the poll only gives one hand.

[lamford]

cherdano, on 2020-July-29, 12:37, said:

I can't believe we are having a serious discussion about 3S. In the agreements described in the OP, it's one of the most obvious bids ever.

I couldn't agree more.

[johnu]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-29, 15:12, said:

At no point was that description of the meaning of the bids provided, that would certainly change a lot of things. Describing 4♠ as a sub-minimum and 3♠ as others is just dishonesty at it's finest.

In the OP's original hand diagram, 3♠ is described as "not abs min". Not only is the South hand not an absolute minimum, it is quite a good hand, about 5 1/2 losers opposite 4 card trump support from the 2NT Jacoby bidder. Seems like 3♠ is about as consensus bid as you are likely to find in a bidding problem since some people will bid "their" system no matter what the problem says, and some of the people just have weird ideas about bidding. The other possibility is 4♣ as a splinter. The singleton ♣A rules that bid out for me.

[cherdano]

Here is how I'd think about this auction. 4S = a dead min would be something like a balanced 11-count (and not AKA). So after 1S-2N-4S, responder with a balanced 20-count should probably pass - 31 hcp with two balanced hands is not usually a slam.
Given that slam is fine opposite many misfitting 18-counts and no lack of keycards/controls (KQxx Axx KQx KJx, and great opposite others, I think bidding 4S with opener's hand is out of the question.

Now let's turn back to responder's hand. "Not an absolute min" promises maybe a nice 12-count with controls, or a 13-count. Opposite that, responder clearly does not have a slam force. Actually, I am not sure he even has another bid over 4S. If you play 3S-3N-4C-4D-4H as last train (= unspecific slam try, but not enough for 5-level, in context), then I think pass is fairly clear - with mild extras beyond 3S opener would bid 4H, and we do need some. So what if we don't play last train? We need something like Axxxx xx KQx KQx. Would that be worth 5D over 4D? Well now that depends really on your style for 3N - what people consider a minimum for a "serious slam try" varies wildly, and unless you have discussed it with your partner, there is a good chance you will get it wrong on such an auction.

tldr; - in my view 3S, 3N, 4C, 4D, 4S are all automatic. Whether responder should even bid on over that depends on what you discussed about 3N.

[lamford]

cherdano, on 2020-July-29, 17:48, said:

If you play 3S-3N-4C-4D-4H as last train (= unspecific slam try, but not enough for 5-level, in context), then I think pass is fairly clear.

I think better methods are to play reverse last train so that 4H is a puppet to 4S, either a sign off or a hand that will move on. Instead 4S is last train. This accords with the whole principle of playing transfers. You do need to decide when 4H is a heart control or reverse last train however! David Gold liked the method but thought he might forget it. Which reminds me of something I wrote when we did have live bridge, about a dreadful ruling in Poland v Britain:

Yesterday when in Chennai
My LHO did something sly
A hesitation by a Pole
Was used to show a heart control
Six minutes passed, I timed it so
The director came, but let it go
"I polled some colleagues on the hand
And everyone in slam did land"