Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
1 2 3 4 ... 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 ... 66 67 68 69
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good to have the agreement that just as jumps in new suits after a Jacoby transfer are splinter slam tries in auctions starting with 1NT, e.g.:
1N-2H-2S-<4C/4D/4H>
so too should jumps in new suits be splinter slam tries after Jacoby in auctions starting with 2NT, i.e.:
2N-3H-3S-<5C/5D/5H>
and
2N-3D-3H-<4S/5C/5D>

After Jacoby, *non-jump* new suit bids are natural (second suit), GF, perhaps suggesting slam interest (degree of slam interest required subject to partnership discussion–particularly after 1NT opening, new suit after Jacoby is just defined as “game forcing” as it can be important to explore alternative strains for game.)
Sept. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand must at least make some sort of a slam try. Consider the ancient (and slightly conservative) adage that when (game or slam) is “cold opposite a perfect minimum”, then one should invite that contract.
Here, 6S is cold opposite a subminimum like Kx-xxxx-AKxx-AKQ, so at least a slam try is clearly indicated.

The slam try I prefer is a *splinter*:
2N-3H-3S-*5H*

In case any of you fear that forcing to the five level might be risky, here are the results of a 1000 deal simulation with this hand opposite random 20-21 HCP balanced hands (and random E/W hands).

Number of tricks available in spades with the strong hand playing it:

# of tricks: 13 12 11 10 9
frequency: 168 479 294 52 7

So, committing to the 5 level costs on fewer than 6% of the deals, while slam is makeable on 65% of the deals.

These results made me wonder whether it may be too conservative to merely *invite* slam. Perhaps we should make a Texas transfer, ask for key-cards and bid slam whenever fewer than two keys are missing.
So I did another 1000 deal simulation where the opposite hand was constrained to be 20-21 HCPs, balanced, with either all four of the missing keycards or with any three of the four.

This time, the results for number of tricks makeable in spades played by the strong hand were:
# of tricks: 13 12 11 10 9 8
frequency: 180 577 215 27 0 1

So slam makes 76% of the time when not more than one keycard is missing.
This strikes me as good enough that probably the Texas then RKCB approach is warranted.
Sept. 19, 2016
Craig Zastera edited this comment Sept. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should have bid 2H (Michaels) originally. Failure to do so has put you in an awkward position as you cannot now correct for an earlier error, so have to pass now and hope for the best.
Sept. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this hand is a bit too good to risk stopping in 3D vulnerable at IMPs. Give partner an unappealing minimum like xxx-x-KQxxx-AKxx and you will likely make 3NT (or 5D).
Sept. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your definition of 4S as “for play” doesn't really make sense. How can you know how strong partner is?
4S merely says that you have relatively minimum opening bid values with four spades (and 4+ hearts). If partner wishes to proceed on that basis, he certainly can (and should).

2D followed by a minimum spade bid should show a hand too good for 4S. Is this hand good enough? I don't think so–it is an 8 loser hand with some non-slammish values. But if you think this is significantly more than a minimum range opener with spades and hearts, then go ahead and start with 2D then spades to suggest some mild slam potential (but after that, do nothing aggressive in the ensuing auction).

A jump to 3S should be reserved for a very pure strong hands with serious slam interest–i.e. nothing like this one.
Sept. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for “penalty” because I think that is by far the mainstream view. Mainstream view would be that double is “game-try” only when their suit is the one immediately below ours (so that there is no other game try available).

However, personally I like “double” to be game-try even when their suit is more than 1 step below ours. That way, we have more descriptive game tries available. Playing this way, choosing to make a GT double when other game try calls are available most definitely is inviting partner to consider passing for penalties (as opposed to simply returning to 3 of our suit) when he does not wish to accept the game invite.
Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jess,
That is incorrect reasoning. It is analagous to the following (also incorrect) argument concerning the classic “Restricted Choice” situation of:
dummy: AT8x
declarer: K97xx

Suppose you lay down the king from hand and RHO follows
with the queen. Thinking along the lines you suggest, one might reason “RHO can only have started with QJ (doubleton) or Q (stiff). He cannot have started with the stiff Jack because he didn't play the jack. Therefore, since a (specific) 2=2 break is more likely than a specific 3=1 break, when I lead low from hand on the second round and LHO follows low, I should play the ace from dummy, hoping to drop RHO's remaining Jack (from an original QJ doubleton)”

But as we all know from “restricted choice”, this is incorrect. To see this, one must consider all relevent original holdings:
1. xx QJ
2. Jxx Q
3. Qxx J
RHO's play to trick 1 (dropping a “quack”) is consistent with all three of these holdings. But since a second round finesse wins in both cases (2) and (3), while playing for the drop wins only in case 1, it is clear that it is better (by almost 2 to 1) to finesse on the second round. It would be totally incorrect to (mentally) “eliminate” possibility 3 on the grounds that RHO played the Q on the first round, hence cannot have started with the stiff jack. One must look at all *original holdings* that are consistent with what one has seen, treating the Q and the J as “equivalent” cards.

The situation in the current problem is similar. The small spot cards (6, 5, 3) are all essentially “equivalent”. Thus, one must consider all three relevent original holdings:
1. A96 2. A65 and 3. A63
from which East might have played the 6 on the first round as a suit preference signal. Since in two of those three cases the 6 is “high” (heart suit preference), that interpreation is more likely correct (by 2 to 1 odds) than than East had the one (out of three) holdings where the 6 was “low” (club suit preference).
Sept. 15, 2016
Craig Zastera edited this comment Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assume we're only considering cases where East started sith D:Axx.
The D6 can be high (suit preference for hearts) from two original holdings: D:A65 and D:A63.

But the D6 can be low (suit preference for clubs) from only one original holding: D:A96.

Thus, the odds are 2/1 in favor of playing East for the heart Ace vs. the Club Ace.
Declarer's play(s) are more or less irrelevent in that unless he is stupid, he will do his best to give you a “losing option” (that is, he will try to make it less than 100% from your perspective whether East's card is his highest or his lowest if he can do so).
Sept. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
close between 2S and (invitatonal) 3S. As partner's major suit residue is much more likely to be short spades and long hearts than the other way around, and this is matchpoints, I opt for the conservative 2S.
Sept. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jumping to 6H here (my choice) is ugly.
I think Kit Woolsey often deprecates such leaps (and rightly so) because they are “unscientific” and can easily miss a cold grand.
Normally, I condone such leaps only when I have a void in an awkward hand which I think will be difficult or impossible to describe scientifically.

Here with no undescribable void, it is probably technically better to start with a 4S cue-bid. Perhaps that is what I'd do with a (hypothetical) partner that I trust.

But as a practical matter, I think the auction is likely to get confused if I start with a cue-bid because partner will not place me with such spectacular hearts after, e.g.
(3S)-DBL-4S-5D-5H.
I suppose I could cue-bid and then leap to 6H, but that might lure partner into supposing I have first round spade control.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many would have opened this hand (not me because of the weak spade Jack–move that jack to hearts and I open).

Double now is out as that is “responsive” showing the red suits (I think that is how most, at least in US, play it).

2C is out as that is a strong 3 card raise of spades (3C would be a 4 card “mixed raise”).

Pass does not appeal with a hand that is (nearly?) an opening bid with two bullets.

That leaves me with an ugly 2S. I'm not a fan of raising on doubletons, but here maybe the extra HCP strength and the stiff diamond will compensate (or overcompensate).
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3NT. Can't partner have something like:
AKxxx-xx-xx-Axxx ?
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume that 3S is non-forcing (for play). How else does responder get to play spades when he has very long spades and no hearts? Thus, opener, who has already described his hand (exactly 6 hearts, 5-10 points, no spade fit) should pass.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The phrasing of your question is ambiguous w.r.t the two choices given as possible answers:
“Is this auction forcing or non-forcing ..?”
and then my choices are “yes” or “no”. Illogical.

Anyway, I voted “no” after interpreting the question as
“Is this auction forcing?”.
How can opener who has already made a strongly limited, non-forcing rebid of 2D now suddenly produce a *forcing* bid at his 3rd turn?

The real question is whether opener's 4D bid is “sign-off”, i.e. 100% “for play” (“our auction is now over partner”), or
whether the 4D is passable but forward going (i.e. opener would welcome a raise to 5D). Personally, I think it is essentially a sign-off since responder's hand is sharply limited by his non-forcing 3S rebid.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a matter of logic, when opener started with 1C, he had a rebid in mind over partner's possible 1M responses. If that rebid was 2D (reverse), why should he not be able to make that same bid (with the same meaning) now that partner has shown his major (hearts in this example, but could be spades after 1C-(1H)-DBL) via a surrogate?

So it is clear that opener's 2D should have the same meaning when partner bids 1M via a surrogate (negative double) as it would if he actually bid 1M.

This talk that the double shows diamonds is crazy–the double shows the unbid major. Period. Sure, responder *might* have diamonds, just as he might have diamonds when he responds 1M to a 1C opener, but his negative double does not suggest diamonds any more than an uncontested 1M response would.

Would anyone seriously argue that 2D in the auction
1C-(1H)-1S-(P)-2D
is a normal reverse (extra values, forcing, etc.)
but that 2D in the auction
1C-(1H)-DBL (4 spades)-(P)-2D
should suddenly somehow now be a weak, non-forcing bid just because partner showed his spade suit via a double?
Makes no sense to me.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I thought even 5H was fairly agressive as partner might hold:
xxx-KQ-Kxxxxx-KQ
and we'd be in slam off two aces.
Sept. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As it turns out—-no.
This hand was given to me by a friend from the Sunday Swiss Teams at the recent Seattle regional.

I'll admit that I chose 4S as did most here on BWs.

My friend informed me (gleefully?) that
“4 spades is an unfortunate choice.
Your RHO has AQ109x .
my pard bid 4 hearts, and the opponents phantomed
in 5d for -500.
My hand Void QJ98xx KQTx Kxx.”

Of course, I protested that his hand wasn't much of a 3H
overcall, and that I thought the actual lay-out was way against the odds (“overcaller will almost always have
at least a stiff spade honor, usually more length”).

But the fact remains that 4S does carry the risk of a huge disaster (as would have been the case on the actual deal),
whereas 4H, while perhaps often not being the optimal spot, will at least always be a *playable* strain.

Food for thought?
Sept. 1, 2016
Craig Zastera edited this comment Sept. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure why you think 5H would be “likely to fetch 5S” from partner. 5H sounds like a virtual demand to bid a slam with a club control. Since partner has a stiff club, I would expect him to bid 6D.
Sept. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(a) the 3D splinter does not show extras. In fact, extras are a bad thing w.r.t splinter bids–splinter bids should generally be limited as they turn control over to partner.
This is not a criticism of the splinter on the actual hand–I think it is OK, but would also splinter with
AKxxx-xxx-x-AJTx.

(b) a splinter is a strong statement about strain (here, clubs). Is it possible to play in another (non-NT) strain after a splinter raise? Maybe, with appropriate agreements.
I think that if responder goes back to opener's suit directly over the splinter (e.g. 1S-2C-3D-3S), that is a statement that responder always intended to play in spades, and still is interested in that even after the splinter.
A return to spades 3S such as this should definitely guarantee *at least 3* spades, hence is inappropriate for the actual West hand.
Aug. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why wouldn't I bid 2H now? Describes my strength (still game potential), my shape, my honor location, my worry about one of the black suits.
Aug. 31, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 ... 66 67 68 69
.

Bottom Home Top