Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Helen, I am a bit confused by the layout. What did East and South bid on the first round of bidding?
Yes, I think that I paid $10, based on a personal contact. It is an interesting app, but not an essential one.
What was West’s 2H bid Gordon? Many play this as a Michaels Cue Bid showing a five-card spade suit and five cards in one of the minors – a brave choice as West is vulnerable and missing the top four cards in spades! If it was Michaels, I would have doubled with your partner’s hand indicating a wish to make a penalty double and you would have collected a very hefty penalty from your opponents – possibly even greater than the reward for bidding a non-vulnerable slam.
Thanks Julian. Yes afterwards partner was berating herself for not leading the queen to ask for an unblock and I was beating myself up for not unblocking anyway. In truth we were both to blame for not having a clear agreement! I like the concept of the queen asking for the block if I held the impossible card – sounds like the better agreement.
Sean, partner knows that I don’t have a singleton – that would mean that declarer opened 1NT with a six-card major! I like partner’s pass – at that point, she believes that she has good defence against a no-trump contract.
I think that David is right, I haven’t played strong two’s etc. for a while. KQx is one playing trick, but Kxx is only half a playing trick and KJx is still half a playing trick (but with a plus factor).
But you are quite a bit short of a strong two anyway!
Hi Gordon,
If you have assessed the hand as worth 18 then you have maybe taken the High Card Points (16) and added on two for length? The problem is that if you have length in one suit, you also have shortage in another suit – you only have 13 cards in your hand! There are different methods of adjusting the High Card Points to account for distribution and some methods do add on points for shortage. But if you add on points for length AND shortage there is a likelihood that you are “double dipping”!
It seems that you play Strong Twos and I would assess this hand as quite a bit short of a Strong Two opening. Another method of evaluating a hand and judging whether to open a Strong Two is to count the “Playing Tricks”. You have six certain heart tricks against all but the most perverse distributions and it is reasonable to assess KJx as a seventh trick, but I would count zero in the spade suit. A hand with seven Playing Tricks is strong, but you really need eight (or better 8½) Playing Tricks to open a Strong Two.
Note that the valuation will change as the auction progresses and a fit is revealed (or not!). It would be interesting to see both hands and we can better judge whether a slam is reasonable. (Just because you make 12 tricks, doesn’t necessarily make it reasonable).
Hi Julian, I am interested in this response.
What is your opinion of double dummy lead simulations? The Bird and Anthias book “Winning No Trump Leads” has a chapter on leading from a weak hand. Their first conclusion at the end of the chapter is:
- When you have a very weak hand it is usually a waste of time leading from a long suit, particularly when it is a minor.
I think that the reason is that you have no entries, even if you establish the suit. On the basis of their advice, I would have chosen the seven of spades. I decided to run a simulation (using Lead Captain) and the results surprised me! The jack of diamonds came out as best – at both IMPs and pairs:
- ♦J – sets the contract: 24.02%; Average expected tricks: 3.40 tricks.
- ♠7 – sets the contract: 21.95%; Average expected tricks: 3.32 tricks.
- ♥9 – sets the contract: 20.16%; Average expected tricks: 3.24 tricks.
I acknowledge that my simulation does not allow for the possibility that partner might have made a lead-directing double (it is difficult to model that). I know that these double dummy simulations are controversial and would be interested in your thoughts.
Thanks Judy, I was intending to ask this question.
Perhaps a couple of example auctions might help:
- (1NT)-Dbl-(2C)-Pass*
- 2C-(Pass)-2H-(4S)-Pass*
The final pass in each auction would be forcing for us. In the first example, we have specifically discussed the auction and agreed the pass as forcing. In the second auction, general bridge principles and partnership experience tells us that we would regard the pass a forcing.
I would be interested in whether either, or both should be alerted. Thanks.
I agree with you both about robot alerts. There used to be a facility on BBO where you could set up a “convention card” for a partnership, which would automatically alert bids with the explanations.
This had the potential to be a useful feature, but also was visible to partner for some strange reason.
Thanks David. Yes, I agree that the director should always visit the table, but I can imagine situations where a director is dealing with a question at another table and types “How can I help?” By private message. It is one of those things that would be immediately apparent in a face-to-face environment, but less so when on line.
Yes, I agree that it is generally very difficult to locate a second fit once an eight-card fit in a major is found – certainly in Acol. Things are slightly different if playing five-card majors, when the usual advice is to respond with a four-card major rather than immediately supporting partner’s major-suit opening with three-card support.
David, I am not a director, but is it possible that the director has typed “How can I help?”, without actually visiting the table? And would I be correct in thinking that the director would then be unaware of Bruce’s reply to the table?
