[Zelandakh]

aawk, on 2017-May-09, 12:35, said:

1♠-1nt
3♣-3♦
3♥-??

Doesn't everyone play this 3♥ call as a grope rather than showing 4 hearts? What are you bidding with a 5224 hand and xx in hearts for example?

And this points towards the inherent problem on these auctions. Let's modify Opener's hand somewhat to ♠AK532 ♥AKQ ♦4 ♣AKQ5. As this is considerably stronger than the OP hand I assume everyone would open 2♣. Following P_Marlowe's auction: 2♣ - 2♦; 2♠ - 3♦....and now? If we bid 4♣ now, we're never getting back to hearts. A natural 4NT would probably do the trick but not everyone will have that available.

In essence, the choice is to treat Responder's hearts as a 4 card suit. That works out wonderfully when we can see that Opener also has 4 hearts and will bid them but perhaps not so well when we need to find a 5-3 fit. There are other solutions available but they come with downsides - Responder could rebid 2NT to stay out of Opener's way and then bid both red suits over 3♣. Pity if we needed to play in 3NT of course.

The 1♠ route is also no panacaea. The above auction is just one way in which the heart suit could get lost, quite aside from the other downsides of not geting the full playing strength of the hand across and possibly getting passed out.

I would not even claim that my system is solving the issues either. There are 3 ways Opener can sell the hand:-

1♣ - 1♦; 1♠ - 1NT; 2♣ = strong 3-suiter
1♣ - 1♦; 1♠ - 1NT; 2♠ = GF with 5+ spades
1♣ - 1♦; 2♠ = Acol 2 (8PTs) in spades

Each of these has a downside - in the first the 5th spade is lost. The second is similar to the issues with a 2♣ opening and the bonus, knowing that Responder has a maximum 1♦ response, is not going to help very much in reclaiming the heart suit. The last auction is similar again - now Opener has not overstated their values but Responder has not shown any values and the space is still such that the heart suit could be lost.

To solve this hand fully really needs a system where Opener can show a strong 3-suiter with 5 spades but who plays such a method these days outside of reverse relayers? To accomodate this one hand you end up giving up much more on other, more common, deals. For what it is worth, I have no problem with the 2♣ openers. It is a 9 PT hand at the end of the day. It seems preferable to open this one 2♣ than the same hand with the ♥T moved to clubs. it is not like opening 1♠ and jumping is going to give us enough space to bid all 3 suits anyway. At the same time, I would not criticise anyone choosing 1♠ - that also seems fine to me.

The second hand has an easy solution, which can be seen in SEF. There 1♠ - 2♥; 2NT basically shows a strong NT and 5233 shape, as a weak NT would rebid 2♠ instead and a stronger balanced hand rebids 3NT. That ought to solve the hand completely.

My system uses a completely different approach, treating the South hand as a strong NT and opening 1♣. The correct response is 1NT (showing a GF with ♥ or ♥+♣ and now Opener's 2♠ rebid shows a strong NT with 5 spades. Easy stuff. If you were willing to move over to an unbalanced 1♠ opening in Standard, Transfer Walsh could of course do something very similar, for example after 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥, a 2♠ follow-up from Opener would now presumably show this hand fairly precisely.

So lots of options are available, it is just a matter of which agreements you choose. For both hands, it is easy to choose agreements that disadvantage you on the specific hand but are perhaps overall good. Such is the nature of system design.

[aawk]

[quote name='Zelandakh' timestamp='1494411072' post='922173']
Doesn't everyone play this 3♥ call as a grope rather than showing 4 hearts? What are you bidding with a 5224 hand and xx in hearts for example?

For the first hand the question was would you go to slam or not.

I just gave all possible bidding situation leading to 3h which could or would show a 4 card ♥ and this all depends on the agreements in your system. So if you don't show a 4 card ♥ after 1♠-1nt-3♣-3♦-3♥ doesn't mean other players could show a 4 card ♥ and if this agreement is good or bad is not the point.

I would open 2♣ the hand is way to strong for 1♠.

[JonnyQuest]

hirowla, on 2017-May-07, 23:34, said:

---

Addressing hand 1 only:

Curious what the cognoscenti would choose, I posted a poll on BW: 1 Spade or 2 Clubs?

Personally, I prefer 1♠, but would not shoot partner for opening 2♣.

[RedSpawn]

proas, on 2017-May-09, 04:03, said:

#1
Opening with hand W can only be 2♣. Because after opening 1♠ can missing a game in 4♠/♥ or a slam, if the responder bids Pass. Even with the shape at E: ♠4 ♥87652 ♦65432 ♣J4 slam in ♥ is real!

Very valid point as well.

One of the criteria for if you should consider opening 2♣ is if you could miss game/slam if your partner passes. The scenario you present with a near yarborough demonstrates how strong West's hand really is.

I think it is high time 2♣ comes off of its pedestal and gets used for hands like this.

[miamijd]

Stephen Tu, on 2017-May-09, 21:08, said:

??? Why is better than 50% not good enough at IMPS? Isn't 50% the breakeven point at IMPS? I think the contract is around 46% on a spade lead, and way higher on other leads, may be close to 60% overall.
MP is a difficult calculation depends on strength of field.



T of spades dropping in 3 rounds is about the same as hearts breaking, in the 35-36% range. Needing only one of those two is like 58% or so, plus some small squeeze chances I guess if the CQ drops?
I definitely want to be in it looking at all the cards. But I am not going to bid it without seeing both hands, it really hinges on that 98 of spades to be a good slams, and I think with the major suit misfits you should stay low, and avoid the horrible slam the many times South is missing either one of those crucial spots.

Hi Stephen! Good to hear from a fellow Bay area player.

Sure, you're right - 50% is the break-even point at IMPs. But that assumes double-dummy play, and having just watched the USBF finals and seeing players far better than I take substandard lines on key hands, I don't want to be in 50% slams for the most part.

I agree with you on #2. There's no way to evaluate the 98 of spades. You know partner is short, and there's no guarantee he has the Q.

[Stephen Tu]

miamijd, on 2017-May-10, 15:30, said:

Sure, you're right - 50% is the break-even point at IMPs. But that assumes double-dummy play, and having just watched the USBF finals and seeing players far better than I take substandard lines on key hands, I don't want to be in 50% slams for the most part.

Still don't understand the "assumes double-dummy play" thing. I want to be in any small slam that is > 50% *single dummy* success rate, which includes possibly both sub-optimal declarer play from me, and sub-optimal defense from the opponents. Against double dummy defenders, we never want to be in this slam, because opps cash their spade ace and we are less than 50% to pick up the trumps (single dummy). But in real life significantly often they won't cash the spade on the go, and some of the time you may even get an immensely helpful diamond lead.

Even if a player ends up taking a substandard line, it's still +EV to be in slam if their substandard line is still > 50% to make, like if their line turned say a 57% slam into a 51% slam. It's only if the slam is like 52% on optimal play and their substandard line dragged it below 50% that it is a "mistake" to be in the slam, and in that case, do we say the bid was a mistake or the play was a mistake? What if other table bid slam and declarer took better line and made it?

What matters is single dummy overall success rate. Not double dummy play. Not assuming 100% accuracy from either defense or declarer. Sure don't bid marginal slams if you don't have faith in your declarer play, but I generally have more faith in declaring accurately than being able to tell in the auction whether partner will come down with a dummy that is just laydown or on a hook, which is how you generally end up in these close slams, bidding thinking it's worst case on a hook and catching that case.

[sfi]

JonnyQuest, on 2017-May-10, 08:16, said:

Addressing hand 1 only:

Curious what the cognoscenti would choose, I posted a poll on BW: 1 Spade or 2 Clubs?

Personally, I prefer 1♠, but would not shoot partner for opening 2♣.

Gotta love the single vote for 1C.

[proas]

#1 Opening only 2♣ - unbalanced hand and 21HCP.
Bidding system "2♣ strong" isn't easy in this case. Here are some bidding examples (Opp's bid Pass):

1) P - 2♣
2♥[8+, 5♥+] - 2♠[5♠+]
3♦ - 3♥
4♦!(1) - 5♦!(2)
5♥ - P/6♥(3)
(1) Cue. Don't cue bid in the ♠! If I had a single A♠, then I would cue bid 3♠; (2) Void ♦; (3) analysis and choose

2) P - 2♣
2♦ - 2♠
3♥[5♥+] - 5♦!(1)
5♥!(2) - P/6♥(3)
(1) Exclusion Blackwood; (2) 0 Aces; (3) analysis and choose

3) P - 2♣
2♥ - 3♥
3♠!(1) - 4♣!(1)
4♦!(1) - 5♦!(2)
5♥ - P/6♥(3)
(1) Cue; (2) Void ♦; (3) analysis and choose

4) P - 2♣
2♥ - 3♥
3♠!(1) - 5♦!(2)
5♥!(3) - P/6♥(4)
(1) Cue; (2) Exclusion Blackwood; (3) 0 Aces; (4) analysis and choose


Note!
I don't recommend bidding the 4NT-Blackwood by the opener, because if the respondent shows one ace, it isn't known in what suit (A♦? A♠?). It depends on whether to play 5♥ or 7♥.

[aguahombre]

On hand #2, the conditions are the problem. It is exactly WHY a hand in our NT range with 5M 3-3-2 should be opened 1nt.

After Opening 1S, South can never show more than a minimum opening bid (but less than 18-19) because she will never be asked. Good players have learned not to go slamming in notrump with their 17's opposite partner's 11-14 point 5-3-3-2's as a rule. There are some exceptions, but Responder's hand here is not one of them.