[asc]

Scoring: MP

---

[han]

7NT.

[kenrexford]

Same -- 7NT.

[pclayton]

Very, very close, but I think we have just enough for 7.

My mental napkin brings it in around 66-67%.

[Apollo81]

7NT because of the ♣10 and because even a bad field should get to 6NT on these cards.

[FrancesHinden]

If I could play double dummy, 7NT will be huge.

[jdonn]

Couldn't you give north the ten of spades so I could say 7♠?

Oh wait, mps, 7NT it is.

[whereagles]

pclayton, on Apr 22 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

My mental napkin brings it in around 66-67%.

that is indeed extremely close to the actual odds.

[dcvetkov]

7 also, but I know what is going to happen;)

When J♣ does not drop, you will have cold sweats whether to finesse the heart at trick 10, or play for the drop. Discards may reveal something, but good opposition will not tell you anything.

[jdonn]

Why have cold sweats when the finesse is clearly percentage over the drop? You just finesse and pray

[neilkaz]

jdonn, on Apr 22 2008, 10:49 AM, said:

Why have cold sweats when the finesse is clearly percentage over the drop? You just finesse and pray

Yep..so I prefer 7NT at MP's also.

[OleBerg]

Easy 7nt. (How can you even ask???)

Also easy 7nt at imps.

Best Regards

Ole Berg

[FrancesHinden]

dcvetkov, on Apr 22 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

7 also, but I know what is going to happen;)

When J♣ does not drop, you will have cold sweats whether to finesse the heart at trick 10, or play for the drop. Discards may reveal something, but good opposition will not tell you anything.

But we are asked what contract we prefer, if we knew all cards. You don't have to sweat about finesse or drop, you know all the cards.

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 22 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

dcvetkov, on Apr 22 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

7 also, but I know what is going to happen;)

When J♣ does not drop, you will have cold sweats whether to finesse the heart at trick 10, or play for the drop. Discards may reveal something, but good opposition will not tell you anything.

But we are asked what contract we prefer, if we knew all cards. You don't have to sweat about finesse or drop, you know all the cards.

If we interpret the question this way, then I'd rather see all the cards before deciding.

[gnasher]

I thought we had to bid it single dummy, but could then play it double dummy.

[gnasher]

Even if I have to play it single dummy, I think it's a good enough grand slam to bid at IMPs. The two main chances are:

♣Jxx = 0.622 *3/7 = 0.267
♣Jx = 0.305 * 2/7 = 0.087
♣J singleton = 0.068 * 1/7 = 0.009
Subtotal = 0.363

♥Q onside = (1-0.363) / 2 = 0.318

So I've already got to 68%, without including either singleton ♥Q offside or the showup squeeze when LHO has ♣Jxxxx and ♥xxx.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Apr 22 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

Even if I have to play it single dummy, I think it's a good enough grand slam to bid at IMPs. The two main chances are:

♣Jxx = 0.622 *3/7 = 0.267
♣Jx = 0.305 * 2/7 = 0.087
♣J singleton = 0.068 * 1/7 = 0.009
Subtotal = 0.363

♥Q onside = (1-0.363) / 2 = 0.318

So I've already got to 68%, without including either singleton ♥Q offside or the showup squeeze when LHO has ♣Jxxxx and ♥xxx.

I think the showup squeeze requires a star trek style device to beam you from dummy to your hand after running all the tricks.

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on Apr 22 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

Even if I have to play it single dummy, I think it's a good enough grand slam to bid at IMPs.  The two main chances are:

♣Jxx = 0.622 *3/7 = 0.267
♣Jx = 0.305 * 2/7 = 0.087
♣J singleton = 0.068 * 1/7 = 0.009
Subtotal = 0.363

♥Q onside = (1-0.363) / 2 = 0.318

So I've already got to 68%, without including either singleton ♥Q offside or the showup squeeze when LHO has ♣Jxxxx and ♥xxx.

You dont need all those calculations. Assuming they always bid 6nt at the other table, it's just good enough without the ♣10. Only Just.

Best Regards

Ole Berg

[dburn]

OleBerg, on Apr 22 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

gnasher, on Apr 22 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

Even if I have to play it single dummy, I think it's a good enough grand slam to bid at IMPs.  The two main chances are:

♣Jxx = 0.622 *3/7 = 0.267
♣Jx = 0.305 * 2/7 = 0.087
♣J singleton = 0.068 * 1/7 = 0.009
Subtotal = 0.363

♥Q onside = (1-0.363) / 2 = 0.318

So I've already got to 68%, without including either singleton ♥Q offside or the showup squeeze when LHO has ♣Jxxxx and ♥xxx.

You dont need all those calculations. Assuming they always bid 6nt at the other table, it's just good enough without the ♣10. Only Just.

Best Regards

Ole Berg

I'm not sure I understand this. Without the ♣10, you will make 7NT when West holds ♥Q, when East holds it singleton, and when East is void in hearts, all of which comes to about 57%.

That would not be good enough odds if there were only one other table (at IMPs - BAM is a different matter). Experience suggests that it is not good enough odds at matchpoints either, unless playing in a small field of uniformly high standard. One could imagine a number of pairs agreeing hearts at an early stage in the auction, finding out that ♥Q is missing, and settling for a small slam in hearts. Without ♣10, I would be content with 6NT in most fields at matchpoints (the form of scoring specified in the original post).

Even with ♣10, I still consider that many pairs will find it difficult to bid to 7NT, and I would estimate that 6NT making seven would score pretty well.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Apr 22 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

I think the showup squeeze requires a star trek style device to beam you from dummy to your hand after running all the tricks.

True. Luckily, I swapped my right to look at the opponents' cards for a helicopter.