[nigel_k]

---

IMP scoring.

[Mbodell]

I blame S more than N, but voted no blame. I'm presuming that 4nt shows a hand with clubs and better diamonds, often 6=4, asking partner to choose?

[Cascade]

I think south needs to be at least as good as

♠xx
♥x
♦AKxxxx
♣AKxx

to bid this way. And quite possibly considerably better.

Therefore north must have some blame and perhaps all of what is apportioned. South could of course have two hearts occasionally - perhaps the overcall was on a four card suit.

Whether south can do something better than 4NT will depend on their methods.

[gwnn]

I think S should bid 4♥ followed by 5♦, that should show a very strong 1-suiter. Offering clubs seems pointless right now. Yes, they can be where we belong, but we can't find out in time.

[Cyberyeti]

Does everybody agree with N's X ?

To us this is both blacks not just spades, and a correction of clubs back to diamonds would suggest 3-3 rather than 4-2 in the minors.

In our system this would be very tricky, but I think I'd probably bid a slightly underweight 2♦ inverted not denying 4M, but I'm not sure what you do playing standard if 1♠ shows 5.

[the_dude]

You missed a 24 point slam in an auction where the opponents preempted to 3H. Not much blame to go around imo.

North could easily have another spade instead of 7th diamond, or a 6-5 with KJxxx of clubs - or even QJxxx - or whatever and bid the same.

[gwnn]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-December-23, 03:54, said:

Does everybody agree with N's X ?

To us this is both blacks not just spades, and a correction of clubs back to diamonds would suggest 3-3 rather than 4-2 in the minors.

In our system this would be very tricky, but I think I'd probably bid a slightly underweight 2♦ inverted not denying 4M, but I'm not sure what you do playing standard if 1♠ shows 5.

In your system maybe it's tricky but 90+% play X as only 4 spades and nothing else. What do you do if you the same hand but 8 points? 7?

[Mbodell]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-December-23, 03:54, said:

Does everybody agree with N's X ?

To us this is both blacks not just spades, and a correction of clubs back to diamonds would suggest 3-3 rather than 4-2 in the minors.

I think 4 spades and somewhere else to play. Often that is clubs. Quite frequently it could be diamond support (as here). Occasionally it could be nt with both majors.

[MrAce]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-December-23, 03:54, said:

Does everybody agree with N's X ?

I myself %100 agree with DBL and i dont see what else North could do over 4NT. I dont buy Cascade's "pd should have at least this or that to bid 4NT so North should bid precisely with his balanced 9 hcp and QJxx ♦" kinda argument.

[neilkaz]

I prefer a 4♥ call from S here rather than 4NT but before any opinion, I need to ask the OP what was meant by 4NT?

Very clear negX from north playing a system where 1♠ shows 5 when bid over opp 1♥ o/c. NegX shows 4♠ and implies somewhere else to play, which in this case will be ♦ bid over opener's potential ♣.

[Cascade]

MrAce, on 2011-December-23, 11:25, said:

I myself %100 agree with DBL and i dont see what else North could do over 4NT. I dont buy Cascade's "pd should have at least this or that to bid 4NT so North should bid precisely with his balanced 9 hcp and QJxx ♦" kinda argument.

Describing the north hand as a balanced nine-count is dismissive of what has happened in the auction.

North has shown just a minimum opening with no fit. South has forced to game opposite this. The actual south hand has four losers. This seems about normal to me for a hand that would force to game opposite a possible minimum response. In other words south needs a couple of cover cards for 5minor to make.

Additionally the opponents have bid and raised hearts strongly in terms of fit if not high cards. They almost certainly have at least nine hearts and therefore partner almost certainly has at most one.

In terms of cover cards we have ♠A almost certainly, ♠Q possibly useful, ♦Q almost certainly - partner would need something like Axxxxxx and a losing finesse (or drop) to have a loser, ♣xx along with four trumps means we can almost certainly ruff some clubs which will only not be needed if partner's clubs are fantastic. Most of the time this is 3+ cover cards which will give us a surplus cover card over what is required for game.

I did various simulations specifying partner's relative minor suit lengths and tweaking the parameters for strength and losers. When a singleton heart was guaranteed slam was for any sensible range in south's hand better than 50% (double dummy), often well over the 50%, and even when I allowed south to have two hearts slam was usually at least close to reasonable. Clearly partner with two small hearts is going to be reluctant to bid 4NT as it means often (except when partner is short in hearts) that partner (or luck - finesses etc) would have to cover every other loser for game to make.

I am not convinced about the 4♥ cue. I think this is better used as a spade raise if partner has guaranteed four spades. We are taking up a whole level of bidding and just giving some vague information about our strength/power. In addition there is not another convenient powerful raise of spades.

I would prefer to use a more flexible double to show a strong hand without a spade fit. After they bid and raise this double should clearly be for takeout so that we can show extra strength and investigate alternative contracts including 3NT.

On the actual hand I don't mind the 4NT bid. It should show some disparity between the suits at least 6=4. There is no law against partner having five clubs on this auction which is one scenario when 5♣ will likely play better than 5♦.

[mike777]

nigel_k, on 2011-December-22, 23:52, said:

---

IMP scoring.

south 65% south has about an adjusted 3-3.5 loser hand which is more than north will expect

north 15% north has about 2-3 cover cards. which is a bit more than south will expect.

20% rub of the green, 26 hcp minor suit slams are tough to bid when the opp preempt.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

nigel_k, on 2011-December-22, 23:52, said:

---

IMP scoring.

What about a "Competitive DBL" ( Richard Pavlicek ) instead of the ambiguous 4NT by Opener ?
1D - ( 1H ) - X - ( 3H )
X = Certain doubles, while penalty in standard bidding, are best played as competitive meaning, “I want to compete further but I am not sure what to bid.”

The bidding would stay lower and Opener would get an opportunity to key card-ask after partner supports.

The competitive DBL by Opener certainly fits the criteria set forth by Pavlicek for such an action after partner's Neg-DBL and opps' preemptive raise of their suit [ http://www.rpbridge.net/7g19.htm ] .

[AlexJonson]

North's bidding looks normal. South should bid 6D - so South 100%

[ggwhiz]

I agree with 80% of what has been mentioned along the lines of a 4♥ bid by South being better than the 4nt bid.

It might show spades now but when you remove to 5♦ (forget clubs) North should find the raise. After 4nt and a simple preference to 5♦ (which is all North can afford to bid) South has the last chance without nearly enough info as to the flavor of North's hand.

When the opener feeds any final decision to the responder they have 1 extra chance to pass the info. I voted South just 60% since it's a tough one.

[Cascade]

AlexJonson, on 2011-December-23, 14:27, said:

North's bidding looks normal. South should bid 6D - so South 100%

I don't think that south has nearly enough information to bid 6♦.

Its only about 1/3 that partner has the ♠A.

Similarly for the club king, although there are other holdings that will avoid a club loser. Against that even with the ♣K it is possible there will be a club loser.

There is a small chance that there is a diamond loser.

Overall I think that it is odds against that there will be only one loser at most.

[MrAce]

Cascade, on 2011-December-23, 13:18, said:

Describing the north hand as a balanced nine-count is dismissive of what has happened in the auction.

North has shown just a minimum opening with no fit. South has forced to game opposite this. The actual south hand has four losers. This seems about normal to me for a hand that would force to game opposite a possible minimum response. In other words south needs a couple of cover cards for 5minor to make.

Additionally the opponents have bid and raised hearts strongly in terms of fit if not high cards. They almost certainly have at least nine hearts and therefore partner almost certainly has at most one.

In terms of cover cards we have ♠A almost certainly, ♠Q possibly useful, ♦Q almost certainly - partner would need something like Axxxxxx and a losing finesse (or drop) to have a loser, ♣xx along with four trumps means we can almost certainly ruff some clubs which will only not be needed if partner's clubs are fantastic. Most of the time this is 3+ cover cards which will give us a surplus cover card over what is required for game.

I did various simulations specifying partner's relative minor suit lengths and tweaking the parameters for strength and losers. When a singleton heart was guaranteed slam was for any sensible range in south's hand better than 50% (double dummy), often well over the 50%, and even when I allowed south to have two hearts slam was usually at least close to reasonable. Clearly partner with two small hearts is going to be reluctant to bid 4NT as it means often (except when partner is short in hearts) that partner (or luck - finesses etc) would have to cover every other loser for game to make.

I am not convinced about the 4♥ cue. I think this is better used as a spade raise if partner has guaranteed four spades. We are taking up a whole level of bidding and just giving some vague information about our strength/power. In addition there is not another convenient powerful raise of spades.

I would prefer to use a more flexible double to show a strong hand without a spade fit. After they bid and raise this double should clearly be for takeout so that we can show extra strength and investigate alternative contracts including 3NT.

On the actual hand I don't mind the 4NT bid. It should show some disparity between the suits at least 6=4. There is no law against partner having five clubs on this auction which is one scenario when 5♣ will likely play better than 5♦.

Deleted- Nevermind i dont even know why i am arguing this, but basically i disagree with big majority of your analysis starting with high standarts for 4NT bid that you draw for so many reasons that i kept replying and adding by edit that it came to a full page which made me delete it all. This hand doesnt worth to spend that much energy imo.

To OP: My vote was a misclick, i meant to click the bottom option and clicked on the one above. Imo it is out of question for N to bid slam. Imo it is also very tuff for South to bid it without knowing a keycard and doubleton ♣. I think they both took reasonable actions and went after a plus score. I would not blame them for this.

[kayin801]

In this case, X instead of 4NT will fetch 4♦ from partner after which point we have a shot. If partner can pass the X they're probably in over their heads, though I don't think the penalty we collect will make up the game bonus :/

4NT is reasonable, blame the opponents, next hand.

[ggwhiz]

MrAce, on 2011-December-23, 17:04, said:

I would not blame them for this.

I gave several of your T-shirts as Christmas gifts and blamed you.

[Cascade]

MrAce, on 2011-December-23, 17:04, said:

Deleted- Nevermind i dont even know why i am arguing this, but basically i disagree with big majority of your analysis starting with high standarts for 4NT bid that you draw for so many reasons that i kept replying and adding by edit that it came to a full page which made me delete it all. This hand doesnt worth to spend that much energy imo.

To OP: My vote was a misclick, i meant to click the bottom option and clicked on the one above. Imo it is out of question for N to bid slam. Imo it is also very tuff for South to bid it without knowing a keycard and doubleton ♣. I think they both took reasonable actions and went after a plus score. I would not blame them for this.

I am not sure what exactly you mean by high standards. I was pretty vague about the standards that I applied earlier. Mostly because I was not really sure where the boundary would be. I did at one stage suggest a 14 count with four losers was around the minimum. One of the example hands that you posted (and deleted) I believe was something like x x AKxxxxx KQJx. I certainly have included four loser 13 hcp hands in many of my simulations. Most of the boundaries I considered slam was better than 50% from the north side. This particular example obviously is a failing case. But in this case our doubleton club is duplicated by solidity of opener's clubs and the ♠Q is no value. Other times one or both of these features will be useful and we will make more tricks.

Where do you see the lower boundary for 4NT?

Some results of my analysis have been:

Opposite a four-loser 13 count slam was under 40%.

Opposite a four-loser 14 count slam was over 50%.

Opposite a four-loser 13+ count hand slam was close to 50%.

These seem close to the lower boundary to me. And close to making slam reasonable.