[jdonn]

nige1, on Dec 2 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

_X = 10, _P = 2, 7N = 1
IMO any bid other than _X, promises ♠A.

Since partner holds the ace of spades, I bet he can work it out!

[han]

I don't get it Mike. Yes I agree that with any hand worth a 6H bid we may have play for 7NT, but given that partner knows this, he can still bid 7NT if we double. It is our obligation to help partner make that decision. If we think our hand is such that if partner chooses to bid 7NT then it will be right a very good percentage of the time, then we should pass. If not then we should double.

By this I don't mean to say that I know what's right here, pass or double. I think it is a very difficult question, I am not sure with which hands partner would bid 7NT if we pass. I think we could be better (for example we could have a 7th heart) so I'm tempted to double.

[maggieb]

Double is really clear, I don't want partner to bid 7NT unless she is absolutely sure it makes.

[jdonn]

One thing not yet said is that partner is never going to bid 7NT if we double, it's silly that people keep suggesting that is possible. If partner is so sure that 7NT makes that he is willing to overrule us if we say it won't make, then why wouldn't he have bid it last round?

I think it's silly to ask for example hands Han, none of us have ever had this auction before. Someone show me the example where partner overcalls 3NT, raises 6♥ to 7♥, then pulls our double to 7NT.

[han]

I don't buy that Josh.

[mike777]

double, I guess If I pass then it shows something stronger than this.

[MarkDean]

jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

One thing not yet said is that partner is never going to bid 7NT if we double, it's silly that people keep suggesting that is possible. If partner is so sure that 7NT makes that he is willing to overrule us if we say it won't make, then why wouldn't he have bid it last round?

I think it's silly to ask for example hands Han, none of us have ever had this auction before. Someone show me the example where partner overcalls 3NT, raises 6♥ to 7♥, then pulls our double to 7NT.

I agree that double will almost certainly end the auction, but I could construct a scenario where it does not:

Suppose partner felt 7H was 95% and 7NT 90%. Now we double, and it goes down to 85%, wouldn't s/he still be tempted to bid 7NT? Would that not be consistent with the bidding so far?

Anyways, I agree that, in practice, double is the final decision.

But we have a range of hands with which we would have bid 6H. I believe this one to be on the worse side for 7NT puproses, so I double. You must think that it is in the better side. I would pass with a seventh heart, or with a queen behind one of my kings. What would you double with? Surely there must be a hand, otherwise there is no infomation in your pass.

[jdonn]

Oh yes I agree you can allocate arbitrary percentages that make it mathematically possible. I'm saying such percentages to not exist on any actual bridge hand (and I don't feel I require an example hand to prove that). You are saying partner holds hands where

- He is confident enough in making 7NT to bid it opposite a minimum 6♥ bid.

But

- He is not confident enough in making 7NT to bid it opposite a random 6♥ bid (and thus avoid the inherent risk of a ruff that exists in 7♥).

Just think about that logically. How can it be?

[mikeh]

MarkDean, on Dec 2 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

One thing not yet said is that partner is never going to bid 7NT if we double, it's silly that people keep suggesting that is possible. If partner is so sure that 7NT makes that he is willing to overrule us if we say it won't make, then why wouldn't he have bid it last round?

I think it's silly to ask for example hands Han, none of us have ever had this auction before. Someone show me the example where partner overcalls 3NT, raises 6♥ to 7♥, then pulls our double to 7NT.

I agree that double will almost certainly end the auction, but I could construct a scenario where it does not:

Suppose partner felt 7H was 95% and 7NT 90%. Now we double, and it goes down to 85%, wouldn't s/he still be tempted to bid 7NT? Would that not be consistent with the bidding so far?

Anyways, I agree that, in practice, double is the final decision.

But we have a range of hands with which we would have bid 6H. I believe this one to be on the worse side for 7NT puproses, so I double. You must think that it is in the better side. I would pass with a seventh heart, or with a queen behind one of my kings. What would you double with? Surely there must be a hand, otherwise there is no infomation in your pass.

Maybe I should let josh answer this one, but this kind of post infuriates me (nothing personal.. and I mean that)... no way do either josh or I consider this to be a maximum 6♥ call, and if you had actually read our posts, you'd know that. Both of us chose a bid of 5♥ over 4♠... josh said that this was 'plenty'.. I suspect I was a little closer to 6♥ than he was.

I know that my point, and I suspect josh's, was that 3n is such an ill-defined bid, and it carries virtually no promise of liking for hearts.

But, whether one chose 5♥ and saw partner bid 5♠, or one chose 6♥ and saw partner raise to the grand, we HAVE LEARNED SOMETHING NEW!

We have learned that partner not only likes hearts but that he has a SUPER hand for hearts... and NOW, based on this knowledge, unavailable to us the previous round, we can see that there are hands on which, if suitably encouraged, we may have 13 Aces in 7N. But, and this is critical... we can't tell. When we can't tell, we pass.

If we had bid 6♥ on, say, void AQJxxxx KJxx xx, I think we don't pass 7♠... we bid 7N.

I can't think of a hand that I would bid 6♥ on that didn't offer a chance for 7N, unless it was an outright freak.... void AJxxxxxx x Axxxx... maybe this hand.. and now we need some specific help for 7N, and I'd double with this... and possibly be wrong... I am not going to waste much time or energy on it.. because my point was and remains that partner knows why he bid seven. We don't.

Maybe, on a pure level, we double and partner pulls with the duke, but he has already made a mildly aggressive and unusual call to get to the grand, and he'd need a will of iron not to be influenced by a double on our part.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

Oh yes I agree you can allocate arbitrary percentages that make it mathematically possible. I'm saying such percentages to not exist on any actual bridge hand (and I don't feel I require an example hand to prove that). You are saying partner holds hands where

- He is confident enough in making 7NT to bid it opposite a minimum 6♥ bid.

But

- He is not confident enough in making 7NT to bid it opposite a random 6♥ bid (and thus avoid the inherent risk of a ruff that exists in 7♥).

Just think about that logically. How can it be?

Over 6♥ he is just bidding the grand that is safer. Over 7♠ he is bidding 7N if he thinks that may make. Is that really so unrealistic?

Anyway, you can reverse that argument. He didn't bid 7N right away, so he was thinking he might need a ruff. What in your hand makes you think he won't need this ruff, given partner knew you had the values for a 6♥ bid?

[MarkDean]

jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

Oh yes I agree you can allocate arbitrary percentages that make it mathematically possible. I'm saying such percentages to not exist on any actual bridge hand (and I don't feel I require an example hand to prove that). You are saying partner holds hands where

- He is confident enough in making 7NT to bid it opposite a minimum 6♥ bid.

But

- He is not confident enough in making 7NT to bid it opposite a random 6♥ bid (and thus avoid the inherent risk of a ruff that exists in 7♥).

Just think about that logically. How can it be?

I conceded in that post that double will almost certainly end the auction. If you feel it is 100% that is fine, I do not feel the need to discuss it further.

What I am saying is that there are hands where partner felt confident enough to bid 7H but not 7NT, and now, with the additional information that we pass 7S, he is willing to bid 7NT.

There are two (possibly 3) possible calls for us here, it surely makes sense to have each pass and double define some hands. I have suggested which hands I would make the other call with (7th heart, either minor queen). I now ask that you provide a hand you would double with.

If you think double is impossible, you are saying that you think partner already has enough information to decide...so by your own logic since he did not bid 7NT last time, he must double this time.

[MarkDean]

mikeh, on Dec 2 2008, 08:22 PM, said:

MarkDean, on Dec 2 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

One thing not yet said is that partner is never going to bid 7NT if we double, it's silly that people keep suggesting that is possible. If partner is so sure that 7NT makes that he is willing to overrule us if we say it won't make, then why wouldn't he have bid it last round?

I think it's silly to ask for example hands Han, none of us have ever had this auction before. Someone show me the example where partner overcalls 3NT, raises 6♥ to 7♥, then pulls our double to 7NT.

I agree that double will almost certainly end the auction, but I could construct a scenario where it does not:

Suppose partner felt 7H was 95% and 7NT 90%. Now we double, and it goes down to 85%, wouldn't s/he still be tempted to bid 7NT? Would that not be consistent with the bidding so far?

Anyways, I agree that, in practice, double is the final decision.

But we have a range of hands with which we would have bid 6H. I believe this one to be on the worse side for 7NT puproses, so I double. You must think that it is in the better side. I would pass with a seventh heart, or with a queen behind one of my kings. What would you double with? Surely there must be a hand, otherwise there is no infomation in your pass.

Maybe I should let josh answer this one, but this kind of post infuriates me (nothing personal.. and I mean that)... no way do either josh or I consider this to be a maximum 6♥ call, and if you had actually read our posts, you'd know that. Both of us chose a bid of 5♥ over 4♠... josh said that this was 'plenty'.. I suspect I was a little closer to 6♥ than he was.

I know that my point, and I suspect josh's, was that 3n is such an ill-defined bid, and it carries virtually no promise of liking for hearts.

But, whether one chose 5♥ and saw partner bid 5♠, or one chose 6♥ and saw partner raise to the grand, we HAVE LEARNED SOMETHING NEW!

We have learned that partner not only likes hearts but that he has a SUPER hand for hearts... and NOW, based on this knowledge, unavailable to us the previous round, we can see that there are hands on which, if suitably encouraged, we may have 13 Aces in 7N. But, and this is critical... we can't tell. When we can't tell, we pass.

If we had bid 6♥ on, say, void AQJxxxx KJxx xx, I think we don't pass 7♠... we bid 7N.

I can't think of a hand that I would bid 6♥ on that didn't offer a chance for 7N, unless it was an outright freak.... void AJxxxxxx x Axxxx... maybe this hand.. and now we need some specific help for 7N, and I'd double with this... and possibly be wrong... I am not going to waste much time or energy on it.. because my point was and remains that partner knows why he bid seven. We don't.

Maybe, on a pure level, we double and partner pulls with the duke, but he has already made a mildly aggressive and unusual call to get to the grand, and he'd need a will of iron not to be influenced by a double on our part.

You have three possible actions.

You can bid 7NT, you can pass, or you can double.

There is a spectrum of hands for suitability for 7NT, so you agree that we should break that spectrum into three pieces for each of the three calls?

Perhaps it is just a termonology issue, but there are some hands along this "suitability for 7NT" which go into double. I believe that this hand is one of them. You clearly disagree. So I am asking which hands you would double with. I agree we are evaluating along a different metric, and with more information, than we were last round, but there are still "maximums" and "minimums" for the auction so far for the purposes of partner's decision. Why is that infurating?

[nige1]

mikeh, on Dec 2 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

Sorry... he bid 7♥ on KQxx in spades, the opps bid 7♠, and you can construct a hand on which partner can play you for the spade Ace? Where do you find these players?

Pass is a clear grand-slam try. The example that I gave was just an extreme example to show why _X is mandatory.
Obviously, there are many other hand-types (e.g. ♠ Kx ♥ KQx ♦ AQJ ♣ AQJxx) where partner

• Might well bid a grand over your majestic leap to 6♥.
  
• Needs you to have ♠A for 7N.

Furthermore ...

• In high level competitive auctions, I tend to trust a vulnerable expert partner, rather than random non-vulnerable opponents.
  
• I'm sure that _P promises ♠A. But suppose that in your methods, it does not. Here we are minimum for our previous commitments (many would have have bid a simple 5♥ -- or tried for a slam with 4N followed by 5♥ -- rather than booting a macho 6♥).

[cherdano]

Why is it infuriating to think that there are hands that bid 6♥ and double 7♠?

[jdonn]

nige1, on Dec 2 2008, 08:58 PM, said:

mikeh, on Dec 2 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

Sorry... he bid 7♥ on KQxx in spades, the opps bid 7♠, and you can construct a hand on which partner can play you for the spade Ace? Where do you find these players?

The hand I gave was just an extreme example.
Obviously, there are many other hand-types (e.g. ♠ Kx ♥ KQx ♦ AQJ ♣ AQJxx) where partner

• Might well try a grand over your majestic leap to 6♥.
  
• Needs you to have ♠A for 7N.

In high level competitive auctions, I tend to trust a vulnerable expert partner, rather than random non-vulnerable opponents

If partner bids 7♥ with that hand then he doesn't deserve my trust.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on Dec 2 2008, 09:02 PM, said:

Why is it infuriating to think that there are hands that bid 6♥ and double 7♠?

who said that was infuriating... what I said was 'if you actually read our posts' he wouldn't have argued that josh and I felt that a fp was because we had a maximum for a bid of 6♥, when neither of us voted for 6♥... we both chose 5♥. I guess now I can add your post to the list of infuriating ones

Of course, some of mine belong there as well

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Dec 2 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

Oh yes I agree you can allocate arbitrary percentages that make it mathematically possible. I'm saying such percentages to not exist on any actual bridge hand (and I don't feel I require an example hand to prove that). You are saying partner holds hands where

- He is confident enough in making 7NT to bid it opposite a minimum 6♥ bid.

But

- He is not confident enough in making 7NT to bid it opposite a random 6♥ bid (and thus avoid the inherent risk of a ruff that exists in 7♥).

Just think about that logically. How can it be?

Over 6♥ he is just bidding the grand that is safer. Over 7♠ he is bidding 7N if he thinks that may make. Is that really so unrealistic?

Yes completely unrealistic when combined with the other criterion. Don't even come up with an exact hand, just describe the type of hand that would bid 7♥ then overrule us the next round to bid 7NT, but wouldn't bid 7NT a round earlier.

Quote

Anyway, you can reverse that argument. He didn't bid 7N right away, so he was thinking he might need a ruff. What in your hand makes you think he won't need this ruff, given partner knew you had the values for a 6♥ bid?

The king of whichever minor suit he was hoping to set up with ruffs in 7♥. Which quite honestly is the only reason I can fathom that he would bid 7♥ if he was very confident in having enough tricks for 7NT opposite a hand like ours (that being a minor suit like AQJxxxx where if I don't have the king he hopes for a singleton.)

I have (purposefully) avoided even trying to come up with a 6♥ bid that would double 7♠, but I guarantee it would be more shapely and weaker in high cards than this hand. However at risk of repeating myself, I can't even think of a type of hand or a quality in a bridge hand that would bring on 7♥ (7♠) X (P) 7NT.

[nige1]

nige1, on Dec 2 2008, 08:58 PM, said:

The hand I gave was just an extreme example. Obviously, there are many other hand-types (e.g. ♠ Kx ♥ KQx ♦ AQJ ♣ AQJxx) where partner

• Might well bid a grand over your majestic leap to 6♥.
  
• Needs you to have ♠A for 7N.

In high level competitive auctions, I tend to trust a vulnerable expert partner, rather than random non-vulnerable opponents

jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 09:16 PM, said:

If partner bids 7♥ with that hand then he doesn't deserve my trust.

IMO

• His Partner might lose JDonn's trust but
  
• he'd gain a well-deserved grand-slam unless
  
• Spoil-sport opponents find the 7♠ sacrifice.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Dec 2 2008, 09:56 PM, said:

Partner might lose your trust but he'd gain a well-deserved grand-slam ...

He would huh? I wonder what the opponents should lead...
Oh yeah they sacced, I guess he is an expert after all

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 03:28 AM, said:

Don't even come up with an exact hand, just describe the type of hand that would bid 7♥ then overrule us the next round to bid 7NT, but wouldn't bid 7NT a round earlier.

A hand where he thinks that:
- 7♥ is more likely to make than 7NT
- 7♠ is going for about 1400
- 7NT is making more than 17/30ths of the time. (Assuming that in the other room either they save or they defend 6♥, 7NT stands to gain 13 or lose 17.)

You didn't ask for an example, but here is one:

Axx
KQx
Ax
AQ109x

He bid 7♥ inferring that we had ♥A and either both minor-suit kings or a useful diamond suit. This is likely to be better than 7NT, because of the possibility of ruffing a diamond loser or ruffing out the clubs.

Once we're prevented from playing in 7♥, he bids 7NT because it's likely to make often enough to gain IMPs.