[Phil]

AQJxx T KQT9x Kx

Pairs

Opps are silent

1N- 2♥
3♠ - 4N
5♦ - ?

3♠ just shows a max with 4 spades. 5♦ is 1430.

[Statto]

6♠ seems right, as 5♦ must be 3 keys, tho u don't state the strength of the 1NT which would be helpful. I might prefer 4♦ to 4NT if it would be natural (I'd bid 3♦ without the superaccept).

[Phil]

The NT range is 15-17 so assume partner likes his 16 and doesn't hate his 17.

Sorry, not trying to be a jerk here, but if this were simply a matter of adding up key cards and if they total 4 to bid 6, I would not have posted the hand.

Agree with you about your comment regarding 4♦ but the call hasn't been specifically discussed, and you aren't sure if partner would take it as a suit or a cue.

[Fluffy]

It is very hard to calculate, at my local club 6♠ is worth more than enough MPs and there is no need to risk.

On a serious field where 90% will be on some form of slam, 6NT I think will make more than 60%, and will make an overtrick sometimes.

6♠ will make an overtrick more often due to diamond discards, but they cancel with chances of a diamond ruff to put it down. So on average I think 6NT is worth it on a serious field.


Why 60%?, my calculations are that ♦J runs diamods 100%, ♦Axx runs diamonds 95%. ♦Ax runs them only 57% I think (and you have to add spade king onside to that), and ♦xx runs them only 50%.

You have to substract from that that they have a killing lead, and that they find it, but IMO this percentage is pretty low (below 10%)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Phil, on 2012-January-16, 02:25, said:

The NT range is 15-17 so assume partner likes his 16 and doesn't hate his 17.
...... if this were simply a matter of adding up key cards and if they total 4 to bid 6, I would not have posted the hand.

Agree with you about your comment regarding 4♦ but the call hasn't been specifically discussed, and you aren't sure if partner would take it as a suit or a cue.

I think 4♦ would be a Ctrl cue and deny a ♣-Ctrl .

The ♣ Ace as the missing key card could easily result in down 1 .

What would 3NT mean after 3♠ ?
If it means commence with cuebids, then a 4C cue by Opener would allow you to proceed with confidence.

[gnasher]

I'd play it in spades. There are lots of ways that 6♠ can be better than 6NT:
- Two fast heart losers
- A heart lead when partner has Axx
- A club lead when partner has Qxx
- Needing to set up the diamonds opposite xx or Ax
- An elimination opposite ♦xxx
- An overtrick in 6♠ when we throw our club or heart losers away.

[Fluffy]

gnasher, on 2012-January-16, 05:33, said:

I'd play it in spades. There are lots of ways that 6♠ can be better than 6NT:
......
- A club lead when partner has Qxx

.....

Am I missing something?


EDIT: To add to that, if partner has ♥Axx we have 50% top 50% bottom since we will be missing exactly ♠K and ♥KQJ Assuming all the field is in slam. ♥AJx might be worse though, still they need to lead the right one..

[JLOGIC]

6S, not even close

[billw55]

Is there any gadget out there (in lieu of transfers) that allows responder declare with hands like this? 6♠ by responder is almost surely cold, but played by opener can easily go down on a club through the king.

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on 2012-January-16, 05:57, said:

Am I missing something?

No, I was.

[Phil]

Sim time?

[Phil]

billw55, on 2012-January-16, 07:48, said:

Is there any gadget out there (in lieu of transfers) that allows responder declare with hands like this? 6♠ by responder is almost surely cold, but played by opener can easily go down on a club through the king.

Some play 3♠ over 1N as natural and GF.

[Statto]

gnasher, on 2012-January-16, 05:33, said:

- A heart lead when partner has Axx

That was one of my reasons for 6♠ - sending partner 2 or more off in 6NT would not look good in the post-mortem. However, trying to construct a hand with such a holding consistent with the superaccept doesn't seem to be trivial. It may depend on style, e.g. would you bounce with ♠109xx, or on some other hand break to 3♦ with Jx (showing a weak doubleton)?

[Fluffy]

Phil, on 2012-January-16, 15:29, said:

Sim time?

You can´t sim the miss of the killing lead or guessing diamonds, but since the play and lead will mainly be straightforward dealing some hands would help.

[gnasher]

Statto, on 2012-January-16, 22:18, said:

That was one of my reasons for 6♠ - sending partner 2 or more off in 6NT would not look good in the post-mortem. However, trying to construct a hand with such a holding consistent with the superaccept doesn't seem to be trivial. It may depend on style, e.g. would you bounce with ♠109xx, or on some other hand break to 3♦ with Jx (showing a weak doubleton)?

I doubt that Phil plays that a 3♦-break would show a weak doubleton. Or at least I hope he doesn't.

Would I bid 3♠ with 109xx Axx AJ AQJx? Yes.

[phil_20686]

If i was thinking about playing in NT, I should havetried to find out more about what partners controls are. 6N could just be off the AK of hearts.

Just seems absurd to do anything other than bid 6S.

[billw55]

JLOGIC, on 2012-January-16, 06:15, said:

6S, not even close

phil_20686, on 2012-January-17, 07:01, said:

Just seems absurd to do anything other than bid 6S.

I see the feelings here, it seems automatic, but ..

Fluffy, on 2012-January-16, 02:45, said:

It is very hard to calculate, at my local club 6♠ is worth more than enough MPs and there is no need to risk.

On a serious field where 90% will be on some form of slam, 6NT I think will make more than 60%, and will make an overtrick sometimes.

... this also makes sense to me. I would think that at matchpoints a 60% shot at a top vs. a bottom is theoretically correct play? Take a classic book example: playing 3NT with an AKQxx suit in dummy, no side entry, opposite xxx in hand, with five tricks elsewhere. The books always say to scorn the safety play at matchpoints. OK, the current example is during the auction, but it feels very similar to me.

What would Barry Crane do?

[Phil]

gnasher, on 2012-January-16, 05:33, said:

I'd play it in spades. There are lots of ways that 6♠ can be better than 6NT:

Andy captures the technical views of the 6♠ bidders, I think.

Quote

- Two fast heart losers
- A heart lead when partner has Axx

These just seem wildly remote. Mostly because there is hardly any room to be off the ♥AK, and there was no double of a the 2♥ transfer, and if the hearts are split, they probably aren't being led against 6N anyway.

Quote

- A club lead when partner has Qxx

More reasonable, but it still requires the right lead, and the ♣A in the wrong hand.

Quote

- Needing to set up the diamonds opposite xx or Ax

This appears to be the crux of the problem. However, if partner flashed ♦Ax, wouldn't you bid 6N?

Quote

- An elimination opposite ♦xxx

Possible and I admit I hadn't thought of it.

Quote

- An overtrick in 6♠ when we throw our club or heart losers away.

This is simply the inverse of "not being able to run diamonds".

-----------------

I think that many 6♠ bidders are seeking low variance while sacrificing a little EV+ in the process.

I also think that there is an innate need to go plus on hands like this, because maybe the field will have trouble bidding this slam (I cannot fathom why), but we have all been in lousy pair games where 980 is 65%, even if 990 is 95%.

Last, there is a psychological bias that being +10 against the field is not as valuable as being +1100, even though the matchpoints might be the same.

I still believe a sim would be useful here. FWIW, partner held 8xxx AKQx Axx Ax.

[RunemPard]

Worth a shot @ 7S or 7N IMO as long as the 3 ace hold is understood. But then again...I do take some risks.

[wyman]

RunemPard, on 2012-January-17, 17:58, said:

Worth a shot @ 7S or 7N IMO as long as the 3 ace hold is understood. But then again...I do take some risks.

Partner has 3 KC, not (necessarily) 3 aces. A large fraction of the time you're missing an ace.