[EricK]

First time partnership, so no real system discussion:

---

1NT was 12-14, 4NT was quantitative.

Clearly 12 tricks are easy on any lead.

Just a perfect fit, or did either partner misjudge the hand?

[TylerE]

Perfect fit. If you N donks it out it's a bit embarassing to catch S on QJ Qxx KQJx Qxx

[Cyberyeti]

This is a real perfect fit and other than through some sort of relay auction where S gets to find out that N has ♠ AK, ♥ AKxx, ♣ A and a bit more, you're unlikely to reach this one, N is the hand likely to do the asking, S has the cards you can't ask for all of (major suit Qs, ♦J10).

The only extra info I can find out by my methods is that S doesn't have a 5 card minor, by our auction it goes 1N-2♣-2♦-3♥(MSS slammy)-3♠(min no 5m), now I suppose I can bid 4N saying "bid 6 unless you're REALLY min" and we might get there.

[aguahombre]

It seems north can't take a position other than the quantitative one he chose. South might have decided to accept with filling queens for the Stayman bidder, a nice KQJT trick source, and a Club prime.

I think in a Strong NT system, we couldn't make South the boss. After a 1C opening, Responder would know the exact opener distribution (2-3-4-4) and 13-14 HCP by the time we got to 3D. But, North would be in charge with no further quantitative try. North would have to just crapshoot 6 NT or not.

[Fluffy]

32 balanced lottery...

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-12, 16:33, said:

It seems north can't take a position other than the quantitative one he chose. South might have decided to accept with filling queens for the Stayman bidder, a nice KQJT trick source, and a Club prime.

I think in a Strong NT system, we couldn't make South the boss. After a 1C opening, Responder would know the exact opener distribution (2-3-4-4) and 13-14 HCP by the time we got to 3D. But, North would be in charge with no further quantitative try. North would have to just crapshoot 6 NT or not.

I don't think S ever accepts, it works because both major Qs are worth full tricks with partner having both AKs, if partner has a different but control rich 19 Axxx, Axx, Axx, AQJ it's a terrible slam.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-12, 17:35, said:

I don't think S ever accepts, it works because both major Qs are worth full tricks with partner having both AKs, if partner has a different but control rich 19 Axxx, Axx, Axx, AQJ it's a terrible slam.

Yep. If the Stayman bidder turns out to not want the Major Queens, our judgment would be shown wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

[cloa513]

If you are going to do quantitative raises- then South has to accept with a good 13 HCP- quant bids aren't science.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-12, 17:57, said:

Yep. If the Stayman bidder turns out to not want the Major Queens, our judgment would be shown wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

I'd suggest that the probability is in between most of the time, he wants one of the major queens, you have an aceless 13 with a nice diamond suit it's not a clear accept, if you're allowed to push the cube back with 5N, you might consider it.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-12, 19:07, said:

I'd suggest that the probability is in between most of the time, he wants one of the major queens, you have an aceless 13 with a nice diamond suit it's not a clear accept, if you're allowed to push the cube back with 5N, you might consider it.

Would she know why I am doing that so she could subside with your example and go with the OP hand? The punt back 5N seems to be a good idea, if it has some definition. In my first post I used "might" in reference to South accepting or not accepting. I didn't say I would have, but I probably would have (and paid off if she had Axx Axxx AXX AQJ).

But, since I don't use weak NT, our problem would have been different ---when I showed 13-14 with exactly this shape (via NMF), she would have to just blast or subside; we don't have another bid to ask how good is your 13-14. 4S would be Wood for hearts, and 4N would be exclusion for hearts.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-12, 19:33, said:

But, since I don't use weak NT, our problem would have been different ---when I showed 13-14 with exactly this shape (via NMF), she would have to just blast or subside; we don't have another bid to ask how good is your 13-14. 4S would be Wood for hearts, and 4N would be exclusion for hearts.

This is interesting, adapting what I play when outside our NT opening range, we'd bit 1♦-1♥-1N(11-14)-2♣(ask)-3♣(13-14, 44m, not denying 3♥) and now 4N would be quant with only 4♥ as with more than 4, 3♥ forcing would be bid. I'm not sure if I'm any better off, or indeed whether I should be blasting 6 knowing partner has 13-14. I think being able to re-ask in the MSS auction I posted originally is probably the most accurate we have although far from perfect.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-12, 20:23, said:

This is interesting, adapting what I play when outside our NT opening range, we'd bit 1♦-1♥-1N(11-14)-2♣(ask)-3♣(13-14, 44m, not denying 3♥) and now 4N would be quant with only 4♥ as with more than 4, 3♥ forcing would be bid. I'm not sure if I'm any better off, or indeed whether I should be blasting 6 knowing partner has 13-14. I think being able to re-ask in the MSS auction I posted originally is probably the most accurate we have although far from perfect.

Continuing our Hijack, the difference in yours vs ours would be opening 1C with bal 4-4m, then:

1C-1H
1N-2D (11-14 & checkback)
3D......specifically 2-3-4-4 and 13-14. We gain on some other hands by knowing the 3 hearts, the shape and the max, all at the same time. But not this time, because the OP isn't solved. Oh, well.

[johnu]

Some players don't believe in simulations. I think you can gain a lot of insight into hand evaluation using simulations. Of course, the obvious problem is that every hand is different and you don't have a simulator available when playing a hand (except playing online )

The N hand is officially 19 HCP but with 3 aces, and concentrated honors, it's more like a 20 or 21. The S hand is 13 HCP, but with a super quacky hand, it's more like 11 or 12. Combined, it's about an average looking 32 combined HCP. From N's point of view, S is likely to have a bunch of quacks, and S should know that N has to have lots of aces and kings.

I first started with the actual north hand and simulated playing 6NT for 200 hands for south assuming no 4 card major.

12 HCP - 50%
13 HCP - 64%
14 HCP - 89%

From North's point of view, 6NT looks good opposite 13, excellent opposite 14, but not worth bidding opposite 12 (and with upgrading epidemic, there's probably some 11's to consider). With standard bidding, I don't see anything else to do than an invitational 4NT by north.

Then, I started with the actual south hand and simulated 200 hands for north with at least one 4 card major and 19 or 20 HCP.

19 HCP - 50%
20 HCP - 80%

Opposite an average 19 HCP hand, 6NT isn't worth bidding, but opposite an average 20 HCP hand, 6NT is excellent.

That seems to indicate that south should take another move to show that while not a maximum, they have 13 and not a bare minimum. If south makes an invitational move over 4NT, should north make the final mistake accept? With prime connected aces and kings, I think so even though on the lower end of the HCP range.

I rarely misbid a hand when partner's cards are face up.

[gnasher]

If you downgrade the South hand because of the lack of aces, you should upgrade the North hand. Similarly, if you upgrade the North hand it's right to downgrade the South hand. Where NS went wrong was in agreeing to play together when they had incompatible approaches to hand-evaluation.

[EricK]

gnasher, on 2013-September-13, 00:41, said:

If you downgrade the South hand because of the lack of aces, you should upgrade the North hand. Similarly, if you upgrade the North hand it's right to downgrade the South hand. Where NS went wrong was in agreeing to play together when they had incompatible approaches to hand-evaluation.

It wasn't the only one of the evening - 1nt + 4 on 13 opposite a prime 11 springs to mind. However we came top almost 10 % above pair in second, so agreeing to play together wasn't a complete error!

[Fluffy]

johnu, on 2013-September-13, 00:13, said:

Some players don't believe in simulations. I think you can gain a lot of insight into hand evaluation using simulations. Of course, the obvious problem is that every hand is different and you don't have a simulator available when playing a hand (except playing online )

The problem is that simulating slams is the most biased scenario possible. There could be a killing lead here and there, but for the most part its a guess the finesse, guess the squeeze, or even play that squeeze that you would never find even double dummy at the table.

[Fluffy]

The slam looks perfect with this combined hands but its just because every card is working, including ♥J and ♦J10, missing jacks and the ace where you have KQJ10 is always a boost. See the difference if ♦A was in north:

if ♠A is changed to ♦A, contract is almost hopeless.
if ♥A is changed to ♦A, contract requires ♥3-3, doubleton ♥A on left, doubleton ♥A on right with 4+ clubs or a missdefence.
if ♣A is ♦A we are 50%


Swithcing which ace is missing we get to something close to 50% average, the 32 balanced Lottery.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2013-September-13, 00:41, said:

If you downgrade the South hand because of the lack of aces, you should upgrade the North hand. Similarly, if you upgrade the North hand it's right to downgrade the South hand. Where NS went wrong was in agreeing to play together when they had incompatible approaches to hand-evaluation.

While I could not agree more in general, the critic is a bit harsh here.
Yes, North has good controls but is also 4333 (a clear detriment when you opt for 6NT opposite a balanced hand).
6NT is really great because of the presence of the ♦T in the South hand among others.
North has 5 top tricks, but it is difficult to see whether a weak notrump will provide an additional seven.
If North bids 6NT and you would assign blame because there is nowhere a play for a twelfth trick on a slightly different South hand, I guess the overwhelming majority would criticize the jump to 6NT. ("Why not invite?" etc.)

A simulation(1000 deals) reveals that the North hand makes 6NT opposite 12-13 HCP, balanced with no 4 card major, 58.2% of the time.
Average number of tricks was 11.6

But we know that on such slam deals DD favors declarer. In practice 6NT will make roughly 50% of the time.

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

rhm, on 2013-September-13, 03:13, said:

A simulation(1000 deals) reveals that the North hand makes 6NT opposite 12-13 HCP, balanced with no 4 card major, 58.2% of the time.
Average number of tricks was 11.6

But we know that on such slam deals DD favors declarer. In practice 6NT will make roughly 50% of the time.

Rainer Herrmann

You should also add that best 13 balanced hand will accept.

[ahydra]

South hand is pretty good - not a clear accept, but he could send the invite back with 5NT

I can't see North raising to 6 though. As others have said you're lucky not to get any duplication in diamonds.

ahydra