[Fluffy]

---

Match points, In case you don't get the bidding I will hint what partner has:

Spoiler

Partner has ♠KQx, ♥x, 11 points, and dreadful clubs, so probably ♦KQJ and 4 bad clubs.

[mcphee]

I am bidding 6 clubs and hope I have not missed 7. Might even fail should partner hold 4 poor trumps, but thats that my fault, they did introduce the suit.

[whereagles]

Pard tried to apply the breaks a few times, so he's probably min (11-12). Seems like 6 is the limit, so I'll bid that.

[yunling]

How often will p rebid 1NT on 5m4m22?

[Fluffy]

I though always, but I learnt today that it is not true.

[dake50]

Pard tried to apply the breaks a few times, so he's probably min (11-12). Seems like 6 is the limit, so I'll bid that. -- whereagles

*** Of course his ace-less hand is braking, braking.
That's his good judgment. But I-I have them all.
Though I do think 7C hopes too many perfect cards
- wish I could have questioned and gotten answers lower.

[Winstonm]

It is fairly obvious partner has bad clubs or really soft values: QJx, K, Qxxxx, KJxx maybe. Regardless, if he has soft values I want to play game in NT and if he has bad clubs I don't want to be in slam.

In this auction, I would respect partner's bidding and pass 4NT.

[gnasher]

Bad clubs wouldn't necessarily make us stay out of slam. 6♦ is OK opposite KQx x KQJxx 10xxx, good opposite KQx x KQJxx 87xx, and very good opposite KQx x KQJxx 108xx. I'm not sure if he can have those hands, though. Shouldn't he have bid 3♦?

[msjennifer]

I am a beginner.What I was taught by my Granny ,"if there are no long suits then count your losers AND quick winners".I have only 4 winners partner has never shown me any long suit and a weak hand.His 3 NT was a desperate attempt, after all my forcing bids(which I feel indicated a slam AMBITION,to sign off.He certainly would have made some sort of cue bid as per partnership understanding after my 4 club bid.It is ,therefore obvious that his 4 NT is neither quantitative nor any type of Blackwood.PASS and a QUICK ONE AT THAT is the bid.Any adventure seeking Scaramouche South may bid 6NT(or an ambiguous 5NT so that he can blame partner later).

[Fluffy]

 gnasher, on 2014-July-06, 01:00, said:

Bad clubs wouldn't necessarily make us stay out of slam. 6♦ is OK opposite KQx x KQJxx 10xxx, good opposite KQx x KQJxx 87xx, and very good opposite KQx x KQJxx 108xx. I'm not sure if he can have those hands, though. Shouldn't he have bid 3♦?

He would rebid 3 clubs with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs since 4-5 is the "unexpected" length. But with 5-4 he won't bid diamonds over 2 spades and 2NT takes preference.

Over 3 clubs with 4 small clubs he won't make a forward move towards slam and bid 3NT.

[Mr Rat]

 Fluffy, on 2014-July-06, 02:45, said:

He would rebid 3 clubs with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs since 4-5 is the "unexpected" length. But with 5-4 he won't bid diamonds over 2 spades and 2NT takes preference.

Over 3 clubs with 4 small clubs he won't make a forward move towards slam and bid 3NT.

So it seems that he has a horrible 3154 or 2254 with bad clubs. 3154 is more likely since he's shown a spade stop so he's likely to have ♠KQx since there's nowhere else for his values to be if he has bad clubs and a stiff heart, even with all the remaining ♦ honours the rest of his opening hcp will be in spades.

If we piece together what we know - placing him with minors of KQJxx xxxx and a known stopper in spades, I expect him to have either:

♠Kx ♥Kx ♦KQJxx ♣xxxx or
♠KQx ♥x ♦KQJxx ♣xxxx

So this looks like slam needs to play AQ9x opposite xxxx for one loser, which will also get us 12 tricks (3♣, 5♦ and 4 in the majors) so even 10-high clubs would improve the odds. How to play the particular combination at MPs will depend on the exact combination that turns up and how unusual a contract we feel our slam to be, any safety plays available etc.

On that basis I'd rather be in 6NT opposite the first hand, but if our partnership bidding style means that he may have a frisky ♠KJx then I'll opt for 6♦ over 6♣ since I can ruff the spade loser in the short hand and then take my time to gather as much info as possible before tackling clubs.

If partner's 'bad clubs' could turn up with the ♣J then I'm even more happy to play 6NT opposite the first hand but since we expect the 2nd hand we won't want to play 6N on a heart lead, so 6♦ it is.

[Winstonm]

 Mr Rat, on 2014-July-06, 07:21, said:

So it seems that he has a horrible 3154 or 2254 with bad clubs. 3154 is more likely since he's shown a spade stop so he's likely to have ♠KQx since there's nowhere else for his values to be if he has bad clubs and a stiff heart, even with all the remaining ♦ honours the rest of his opening hcp will be in spades.

If we piece together what we know - placing him with minors of KQJxx xxxx and a known stopper in spades, I expect him to have either:

♠Kx ♥Kx ♦KQJxx ♣xxxx or
♠KQx ♥x ♦KQJxx ♣xxxx

So this looks like slam needs to play AQ9x opposite xxxx for one loser, which will also get us 12 tricks (3♣, 5♦ and 4 in the majors) so even 10-high clubs would improve the odds. How to play the particular combination at MPs will depend on the exact combination that turns up and how unusual a contract we feel our slam to be, any safety plays available etc.

On that basis I'd rather be in 6NT opposite the first hand, but if our partnership bidding style means that he may have a frisky ♠KJx then I'll opt for 6♦ over 6♣ since I can ruff the spade loser in the short hand and then take my time to gather as much info as possible before tackling clubs.

If partner's 'bad clubs' could turn up with the ♣J then I'm even more happy to play 6NT opposite the first hand but since we expect the 2nd hand we won't want to play 6N on a heart lead, so 6♦ it is.

Do we really want with these hands to be in slam at matchpoints? Form of scoring is to me the key ingredient in this recipe....for disaster....not bidding slam or bidding slam.

[Mr Rat]

 Winstonm, on 2014-July-06, 10:09, said:

Do we really want with these hands to be in slam at matchpoints? Form of scoring is to me the key ingredient in this recipe....for disaster....not bidding slam or bidding slam.

It's a fair question. This seems a difficult situation to assess - the decision for 6♦ comes down to how we feel about playing clubs AQ9x opposite 4 cards of unknown quality.

Case 1: 8xxx or worse, we need C 3-2, K onside. That's 34%
Case 2: 87xx we have a chance to pick up JTx onside. Even without the 7 we may be able to pick up a doubleton 7 offside.
Case 3: Txxx it's now at worst a '1 of 2 finesses' scenario, 75%
Case 4: Jxxx
Case 5: J8xx
Case 6: JTxx

As the pips get better, from Txxx onwards the chances of 3 tricks increase significantly - and there are various safety plays available since we will want to ensure 12 tricks here even at MPs. It's difficult to condense all these possibilities into an overall % for the slam from the perspective of a bidding decision, the acid test is "better than 50%" so it seems that we need to make an informed judgement as to how we feel about our chances here...

And it may not be entirely a statistical decision - it would be if we were playing the first board of an event, but if later in the event... do we need a good board? Are we already winning, so play with the field?

All in all, if someone were to say to me "I wouldn't want to be in 6 with those cards" then I wouldn't say they're wrong. It just feels better than 50% to me and at the table these decisions can't be made on the basis of calculating the above in detail, you have to get a rough idea and go with it.

If, at the end of all that, partner puts down ♣Kxxx we can sue him for mental cruelty - or at least tell him to buy the beer

[gnasher]

 Mr Rat, on 2014-July-06, 12:08, said:

Case 1: 8xxx or worse, we need C 3-2, K onside. That's 34%

You also make with J10(x) or KJ10x onside, so it's actually around 60%

Quote

Case 2: 87xx we have a chance to pick up JTx onside. Even without the 7 we may be able to pick up a doubleton 7 offside.

You already had J10x onside, but now you have J10xx onside too, for an extra 3%.

Quote

Case 3: Txxx it's now at worst a '1 of 2 finesses' scenario, 75%

That's not quite true: it's one of two finesses if the suit is 3-2, but you can't also pick up all the 4-1s with the honours split.

[Fluffy]

 Mr Rat, on 2014-July-06, 07:21, said:

So it seems that he has a horrible 3154 or 2254 with bad clubs. 3154 is more likely since he's shown a spade stop so he's likely to have ♠KQx since there's nowhere else for his values to be if he has bad clubs and a stiff heart, even with all the remaining ♦ honours the rest of his opening hcp will be in spades.

If we piece together what we know - placing him with minors of KQJxx xxxx and a known stopper in spades, I expect him to have either:

♠Kx ♥Kx ♦KQJxx ♣xxxx or
♠KQx ♥x ♦KQJxx ♣xxxx

So this looks like slam needs to play AQ9x opposite xxxx for one loser, which will also get us 12 tricks (3♣, 5♦ and 4 in the majors) so even 10-high clubs would improve the odds. How to play the particular combination at MPs will depend on the exact combination that turns up and how unusual a contract we feel our slam to be, any safety plays available etc.

On that basis I'd rather be in 6NT opposite the first hand, but if our partnership bidding style means that he may have a frisky ♠KJx then I'll opt for 6♦ over 6♣ since I can ruff the spade loser in the short hand and then take my time to gather as much info as possible before tackling clubs.

If partner's 'bad clubs' could turn up with the ♣J then I'm even more happy to play 6NT opposite the first hand but since we expect the 2nd hand we won't want to play 6N on a heart lead, so 6♦ it is.

Your analysis is pretty similar to mine, except that I could discard the 5422 scenario, partner would always rebid 1NT with that having a positional stopper in spades. He rebid 2 clubs on a 5422 yesterday, but he had low doubleton on the unbid suit (even then I told him that it was a very bad iea to allow 5422s into the already overloaded 1♦-2♣ start)

[Fluffy]

 Winstonm, on 2014-July-06, 10:09, said:

Do we really want with these hands to be in slam at matchpoints? Form of scoring is to me the key ingredient in this recipe....for disaster....not bidding slam or bidding slam.

Spoiler

Actually I didn't bid the slam that was on with the favourable club lie out, and I got a bottom since RHO read the bidding and led a heart getting 1♥ + 1♣ for +660 when everyone was getting +690

[whereagles]

Gonzalo, don't try and get perfectionist after a nebulous 1♦ opening. Just assume the downsides of it and try to compensate it with the plus-values of the rest of the system. You need a full relay system (like Grotheim's viking precision) untangle all the mess of that opening. Natural is not gonna cut it.

[Fluffy]

Our system happens to be Grotheim's Viking precision lol (well it started as it, now it has evolved). But we ditched the relays after 1♦ after 2 years, we haven't regret.

[AyunuS]

I don't really feel like it's worth it to go for 6♣. If you go by partner has a balanced (or close to it) 11-12 HCP, then it doesn't seem to me that most hands that meet that description would be able to make this bid. I don't even think it's good to bid 6 with ANY 11 HCP partner could possibly have. Count up the losers in any case of a balanced 11 HCP. There's always 2 unless you count getting lucky finesses.

Alternatively, partner could be short in hearts. But then seeing that partner has likely bad clubs, you'd have to ruff 3 hearts and still not get endplayed on clubs. You likely would get endplayed on clubs or get stuck getting counterruffed on hearts when you led the 4th round of hearts so that they'd probably be able to get 2 tricks with their clubs.

[whereagles]

lol.. no kidding gonzalo? I swear I didn't know it