Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This practice hand was part of a topic on declarer play and Bernard was not suggesting in the commentary that it was realistic to finish in 7♠.
I can see a lot of logic in Bernard’s method. After we open one heart, a one spade overcall doesn’t deprive us if any bidding space other then the ability to respond one spade. So we can continue bidding as if there were no interruptions with two-of-a-minor promising 10 or more points and a four-card or longer suit. In an uncontested auction we would respond 1NT if lacking the values for a two-level response and we can continue to do that if we have a spade stopper. Double is an idle bid and Bernard chooses to use the bid to show a 1NT response without a spade stopper.
The question in my mind is whether knowing that partner holds 6-9 is the vital information that partner needs. I would like my hand with fewer points if I have three-card heart support, An honour doubleton in hearts is an attractive holding, but a misfitting nine-count might be a good reason to pass.
I believe that Bernard suggested that in his methods it is 6-9 points.
Personally, we play that a new suit in a competitive auction shows at least five (except 1C-1D-1H/S which shows four or more). On your example shape we would double, safe in the knowledge that if partner bids a minor she will have at least five hearts and we will have a heart fit.
I am considering whether Bernard’s approach offers any advantages.
Julian, the full hand was:
I must admit that I thought that passing for penalties at teams was on the aggressive side. Partner held an 18-count as you can see and the contract was one-off.
Benji isn’t such a bad system if played correctly. There is a gap in the system with hands that risk missing game if you open at the one-level, but are not quite strong enough to force to game. Benji is designed to fill that gap (in the way that Acol Two bids previously filled the gap). To that extent it is useful, but much of the problem with Benji is that players use it on unsuitable hands.
I choose to only have one strong bid with my main partner (using 2D as a multi), but I do this understanding and accepting that this leaves a gap and the upper end of our one-level openings tend to be rather more than 19. With another partner I play Benji and I am quite happy to do that. I don’t have strong feelings either way.
Indeed Jerry. bird and Antonia’s give this hand (page 71/72 hand 7):
1064
7
984
Q98642
The H7 ranked best at IMPs or MPs with the S4 as next best.
I am at a complete loss why Jack is giving a rather different result. Can you download the hands Reg/Geoff?
Hi Reg, you state that your analysis produced results similar to mine above. Then you later state that the club wins the day – which was the exact opposite of my simulation. I’m confused?
Sean,
A few thoughts:
- In my opinion, the reason for playing Benji is to cover the gap between the top end of a one-level opening and making a game-forcing opening.
- I expect a 2C opening to be a strong hand of quality, with some defence as well as the 8/9 playing tricks. In practice, this means that I would rarely go below about 18 HCPs when playing Benji.
- The hand will (almost) never be passed out in 1C when there are 24 points between the three hands and the hands are highly distributional.
- By opening 1C, you have started to show your suits if there is interference.
- You have the spade suit, so anyway you are less worried about interference.
- It is usually easier to describe two-suiters if you start low, giving the space to show your shape.
- On this hand, you didn’t show your second suit until the five-level! (And as David points out, that was only because N/S were very timid).
Thanks for this Geoff.
You are correct, in a program such as Lead Captain, you define the expectations for the three unseen hands. In this case, I defined declared as 12-14 and balanced (4333, 4432 or 5322). I also added a condition to exclude hands with a five-card major and two top honours – as an approximation to Bernard’s attitude to opening 1NT with a five-card major. I defined the responding hand as being in the range 12-17 and either balanced or semi balanced (I allowed a six-card minor and I allowed 5-4 in the minors, but I excluded hands with singletons). I excluded hands with a a four-card or longer major except that I allowed any 4333 shape. I didn’t put any restrictions on partner’s hand.
I have played with these settings, but the results don’t seem very sensitive to minor changes in the conditions.
Lead Captain uses a double dummy analysis. After the opening lead it calculates the optimum double dummy result. Jack clearly uses a different method – the results for leading (say) the 7D and the 6D would be identical, double dummy and Lead Captain saves processing and calculates a single result for touching cards. I guess that Jack places itself in all four seats and plays the hand, but it is very strange that the results are so very different which makes me suspect that one of us has set things up wrongly.
Reg, partner can hold three clubs, of course. Based on 100,000 deals, West held three clubs on 14,697 occasions (no double dummy involved in that). Maybe that is what you meant by a “very good chance”?
Of course, you don’t always defeat 3NT, even if partner does have three. Declarer will often have the power to make the contract anyway. But I still think that your best chance is to find partner’s suit, which is still a long-shot, but a slightly better one.
Hi Geoff, I am not sure what methods Jack is using? E/W will have a minimum of 24 or 25 points and a maximum of 31 or 32 points, but the average score of -315.6 in your simulation seems to imply that we will defeat 3NT around 20% of the time if we lead the six of clubs, which intuitively feels rather optimistic and is at complete variance with the double dummy simulation using 100,000 deals in Lead Captain, which produced a 3.72% chance of defeating 3NT on a low club lead.
Reg, I agree that a club lead works best on Bernard’s construction.
I don’t really agree with your assertion that there is a very good chance that partner holds three clubs. Why?
I would open 1C. The continuations will depend on whether South choses to overcall or double.
Maybe:
1C-1D-Pass-2H (fit jump)
2S-4C-Dbl-Pass (4C is a splinter, pass denies first-round control)
4S-5C-Pass-5D (5C first-round control)
Pass-6H
But lots of possibilities on these distributional hands.
I would like to clarify please:
- Will the deals be random?
- The start times appear to be deliberately chosen to not conflict with club bridge. Is that a deliberate policy? Will that policy continue going forward?
- The number of boards is short and the cost / board for an eight-board duplicate is more than $0.30 per board. Are there plan to introduce longer (more cost effective) sessions?
