[Lesh18]

Hi all

Today I (well, rather we, me and my partner) bid a small slam 6♥(first for me ever!) and made it with an overtrick. It was on bridgebase and the funny thing is that 6 other pairs also bid 6♥ and made it with one overtrick (13 tricks).
The hands did not have 37 points required for a grand slam, but could have bid 7♥ and easily make it.

I was sitting south. And responded to my partner opening 1♥. My question is: Was it possible for us, given the information we had (about our own hands) to come to a conclusion that 7♥ could be successful? If so, what went wrong and who made a mistake? Should have I bid 7♥ after partner's 6♥?

---

[Lord Molyb]

if the opponents find a club lead 6♥ is down. So staying out of the grand is fine.

Additional info because I sounded snappy and cranky:
-5NT in a blackwood context promises all the aces/keycards. So you can bid 7♥ knowing that your solid side suit will probably provide enough tricks.
-Normally, a 4♥ raise is made with a weaker hand with more distribution like ♠xxxxx ♥QJxxx ♦- ♣Kxx
So you need to discuss with your partner which type of hand you should be raising directly to four with. With the hand I gave you, 6♥ is at least 50% even with a club lead through the king so that's not a huge deal in this case, because your partner should be looking for slam opposite any raise you give him. With the hand you actually held, you might respond 1♠ and then bid 4♥ over your partner's rebid, showing an opening bid with heart support.
-Blackwood should not have been made with a low doubleton in an unbid side suit- usually opponents happen to find those leads. When a suit has been agreed on, most partnerships bid first round controls (aces and voids) up the line in order to make sure the opponents can't take two tricks off the bat. A better auction might have been 1♥ - 4♥; 4♠ (control bid) - 5♥ (south doesn't have any controls in a minor suit, which north is obviously looking for) - pass.
-Discuss these bids and scenarios with your partner.

[1eyedjack]

There are a few guiding principles to when Blackwood is the most appropriate tool.

One (as already mentioned) is that you should try to avoid it when you have a side suit that is potentially wide open to two cashing tricks. If partner comes up with fewer than all of the missing Aces, you are left in doubt whether he has the Ace of that suit and, if not, whether the King is also missing in that suit. You lack the ability to enquire about the King without committing to 6 in its absence, whereas if he has that King then the missing Ace is likely the only trick for the defence.

Another is that you should try to avoid it when you have a void. If partner comes up with at least one but not all of the missing Aces then you are left in doubt whether he has the Ace opposite your void, when it would be more useful in another suit where you are also missing the Ace.

Sometimes you have no better alternative way of investigating slam, either because you have no other tool at your disposal or because those other routes have their own (greater) potential flaws.
On this hand the 4H response contributes to your problems, but that aside, were you as opener (say) to cue bid 4S to show a Spade control and interest in Heart slam, then this would give partner the opportunity to cue the Club Ace if he has it, or perhaps for him to use Blackwood on opener, already aware of the Spade void (he having the AK opposite the suit cue bid).

But cue bidding (over a 4H response) is not guaranteed to get you home. Responder may have (say) KQ of Clubs and choose not to cue bid 5C, and you are left in doubt whether 6 is safe.

"5 or 7" hands are rare beasts. These are hands that make 11 or 13 (but not 12) tricks. When they arise, the break-even probability of making 7 that justifes bidding it is very low, well below 50%, contrasted with other slam bidding. But it is very hard to recognise and evaluate these hands at the best of times, and particularly so when that probability of success relies on a finite chance of a non-optimal opening lead, which probability in turn varies according to how revealing is your route to slam.

Ironically, use of Blackwood on this hand is probably the route which gives you the best chance of bidding and making 6 (with the overtrick in this case). Cue bidding controls scientifically on the way to slam also tends to pinpoint weak suits vulnerable to attack on opening lead. Likewise just blasting to 6H directly over 4H tends to telegraph the possibility that the opening lead is critical, which tends to favour leading an Ace (or away from a King). If they trust you to have a hand suitable for Blackwood, then as with any psychological strategy, that trust may be their undoing.

At the level of experience suggested by the OP I would suggest keeping it simple: forget about the "5 or 7" factor, try to stick to the golden rules for when to use Blackwood, and be content with making 5 +/- overtricks on this hand.

[Vampyr]

1eyedjack, on 2013-October-12, 04:06, said:

At the level of experience suggested by the OP

Is it simply inexperience that prompts a person to ask whether he should have bid a grand off two top losers?

[BillHiggin]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-12, 09:25, said:

Is it simply inexperience that prompts a person to ask whether he should have bid a grand off two top losers?

Yes!
We know that it takes a lot of experience to learn that resulting is not a valid way to judge hands. The op showed enthusiasm over their first successful slam and a clear lack of awareness that the slam was actually not a good one. We ought to be encouraging the enthusiasm while, possibly, gently pointing out areas for improvement. Had the question about bidding the grand not been asked, I would advocate not pointing out those problem areas at all.

I have no trouble recalling incidents from my early bridge experiences where I was quite excited about something I had accomplished and realized that I had made a major blunder on the way to that accomplishment and simply "got away with it". In fact, just last week ..........

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I can't seem to come up with a lower-level GF auction agreeing ♥ where North can make a 4D Ctrl-cuebid , hence denying a ♣-Ctrl .

Maybe have to be content with a 5-level Ctrl-cue auction:
1H - 4H
5D - 5H
all pass

or
1H - 1S
3D - 4H
5D - 5H
all pass

[1eyedjack]

I am not keen on cue bidding a control by shortage in a suit bid naturally by partner, but it seems to work here:

1♥ - 1♠
3♦ - 3♥
3♠! - 4♥
P(/5♦?) 5♥
P

Or maybe
1♥ - 1♠
3♦ - 3♥
4♦ - 4♥
4♠/5♦ - 5♥
P

Not altogether sure in my mind what would be meant by 4♥
in
1♥ - 1♠
3♦ - 4♥

But it may show this hand, in which case ..
P
or possibly
5♦ - 5♥
P

[Vampyr]

BillHiggin, on 2013-October-12, 11:04, said:

Yes!
We know that it takes a lot of experience to learn that resulting is not a valid way to judge hands. The op showed enthusiasm over their first successful slam and a clear lack of awareness that the slam was actually not a good one. We ought to be encouraging the enthusiasm while, possibly, gently pointing out areas for improvement. Had the question about bidding the grand not been asked, I would advocate not pointing out those problem areas at all.

I have no trouble recalling incidents from my early bridge experiences where I was quite excited about something I had accomplished and realized that I had made a major blunder on the way to that accomplishment and simply "got away with it". In fact, just last week ..........

Well. If I were a mod I would delete this thread to avoid further embarrassment for the OP.

[1eyedjack]

If this was the OP’s first slam I would not suggest any cause for embarrassment.

[gszes]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-13, 07:28, said:

Being a beginner does not mean being braindead.

Apparently I can no longer vote DOWN a poster. The these totally negative comments
are of no use to anyone in this forum and do not belong here. The first slam is
a very enjoyable and tell me you haven't jumped to an occasional slam that
made because of an unfortunate lead============and didn't enjoy it----------

Try to add some help with the bidding ie HOW does a new partnership improve
from this experience. Most others note the 2 club losers off the top and provide
some guidance while your posts lacked any merit whatsoever.

These types of hands are referred to 5 or 7 hands. Note that 6 was not the right
place since 5 will go down with a club lead just like 7 but 7 would grant a much
larger reward if a club is not led.

My bidding sequence would go

1h
1s
3d (game force)
3h
4d *cant bid 3s 3n or 4c because they are all have natural meanings)
5h (cant do any less opposite game forcing 3d bid)
pass neither side could show a club control so avoid slam.

[Vampyr]

gszes, on 2013-October-13, 18:37, said:

Apparently I can no longer vote DOWN a poster. The these totally negative comments
are of no use to anyone in this forum and do not belong here.

This entire thread is no use to anyone. The OP asks, apparently in all seriousness, whether he or she should have bid a grand on a hand with two top losers -- obviously these weren't apparent to OP and partner at the virtual table, but in the diagram they are clear; presumably even to the OP.

If he or she had posted to ask what they did wrong, and how to avoid getting to slam on these hands, I would have found the question valid and reasonable. The actual question was not.

Quote

tell me you haven't jumped to an occasional slam that
made because of an unfortunate lead============and didn't enjoy it----------

I don't find anything particularly enjoyable about this kind of situation. And when these no-play contracts do make when the killing lead was not found, I apologise to my opponents.

[RSClyde]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-13, 19:03, said:

This entire thread is no use to anyone. The OP asks, apparently in all seriousness, whether he or she should have bid a grand on a hand with two top losers -- obviously these weren't apparent to OP and partner at the virtual table, but in the diagram they are clear; presumably even to the OP.

If he or she had posted to ask what they did wrong, and how to avoid getting to slam on these hands, I would have found the question valid and reasonable. The actual question was not.



I don't find anything particularly enjoyable about this kind of situation. And when these no-play contracts do make when the killing lead was not found, I apologise to my opponents.

Asking if you should be in 7 on this hand is clearly silly.

However I don't agree with the rest of your thought.
Contracts where a killing lead is not found can still be good bridge. What if the only way to beat a normal contract is to lead from AQxx? But even if we're not talking about those kinds of hands, "they may not find it" is part of the game. Suppose partner opens 5♦ and you hold
xxx
AKQx
Kx
AKxx
If partner has a stiff spade you're home (or on a rare day the K/A). If that's all you have to go with then it's just a guess what's right: probably pass. But you have the extra chance that they may not find a spade lead anyway. Since it was probably pushing 50% anyway, this has to push it over the top.

Furthermore in other situations, good tactical bidding can minimizes the chance of the right lead. It's not always just dumb luck when you "get away with it". The other day my partner made a conventional club raise of 2♥ which was doubled for a lead. I was pretty sure that this wasn't the right lead and so I took the slightly aggressive (not egregious) route and bid 3nt. I had KTxx of hearts and Ax of spades. It turns out, as suspected, a spade lead beats me, but aren't I allowed to use the fact that the leader heavily rates to lead a heart?

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-13, 19:03, said:

And when these no-play contracts do make when the killing lead was not found, I apologise to my opponents.

Why? Let them apologize to each other for not finding the killing lead.

Bidding doesn't take place in a vacuum. The IMPs at the end are all that counts. If they can't find the right lead, you have done something right (or they have done something wrong). No reason to apologize.

I think that you are confused with a different situation:
It has happened that we got to a technically inferior contract through a bidding misunderstanding that -as the cards lie- turned out to give the best result (independent of the defense). That is something that I will apologize for.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Congratulations on bidding and making your first slam Lesh. I am sure this was very exciting for you. Were you very nervous of getting a club lead when you saw the dummy? That is actually something of a problem if you had been in 7♥ instead of 6♥. It is quite possible that if the defender holding ♣A (and not the king) was on lead, they would lead it against a grand slam but not against a small slam. In this respect, 6 is better than 7 despite the "5 or 7" comments above.

In terms of bidding, the strong 1M - 4M response is no longer played by more advanced players because it eats away too much bidding space on precisely those (slam) hands that require it the most. A common convention is to use an artificial 2NT response for such a hand, leaving more space for slam investgation. You may not want to look into that just yet, only that you are aware of the possibility.

On hands with support for partner's major suit but a good side suit of your own, an excellent alternative to an immediate raise is often to respond in the side suit and then support partner's major later. By bidding in this (slower) way, more information can be exchanged and the club weakness should come to light.

Using Blackwood with a void is also fraught with problems. Here you cannot tell the difference between Responder holding ♣AK, where grand will often be right, or ♠AK, where even a small slam will go down if Opening Leader has ♣AK. Similarly to bidding around the club weakness with heart support and a good spade suit above, a common technique for a hand with a void and a side weakness in slam exploration is to bid around this. So a 5♦ bid from Opener after 4♥ might show something like this hand and now Responder can judge cooperatively whether to push on to the slam or not. There are different styles here though so it is important to discuss this sort of thing with a regular partner.

However, it is just very difficult to have a good auction after a 4♥ response, even for advanced players. The space is too cramped. Hence the popularity of the artificial methods mentioned before. In any case, I hope that this was the first of many slams to come. Slam bidding is generally one of the areas of the game where the better players make much better decisions than beginners and club players. It takes some practise and, often, good visualisation skills. Don't worry, those will come. In the meantime, enjoy the slams you make!

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-14, 05:52, said:

I think that you are confused with a different situation:
It has happened that we got to a technically inferior contract through a bidding misunderstanding that -as the cards lie- turned out to give the best result (independent of the defense). That is something that I will apologize for.

Yes, maybe you are right.

[billw55]

Vampyr, I am astonished by your hostility towards an obvious beginner. His first slam ever? How many hands do you think he has played? This kind of attitude is really terrible for the game. I expect that very few of your own superiors in technical skill would treat you this way.

[eagles123]

congrats on the slam Lesh, first of many I hope but people have a point that you are in trouble on a club lead

Also, I have to agree with everyone else that Vampyr's comments are totally unnecessary and please be aware it's not reflective of the generally very helpful nature of BBO posters (as i've found out many times in the past when being helped with issues in the N/B forum)

Eagles

[dustinst22]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-13, 05:14, said:

Being a beginner does not mean being braindead.

If I were a mod I would delete this thread to avoid further embarrassment for the OP.

Yikes, that's harsh and really unhelpful.

Sensible auction:

1H - 1S ; 3D - 3H ; 4D - 4H

This should indicate we're off 2 tricks in clubs

Not sure if 3S over 3H would just show a control or patterning out something like 3550

[johnu]

Lesh18, on 2013-October-11, 17:59, said:

The hands did not have 37 points required for a grand slam, but could have bid 7♥ and easily make it.

Lesh18 - Did you enter the 2 hands correctly? Your comments indicate that losing the first 2 club tricks was not a consideration.

[Zelandakh]

johnu, on 2013-October-14, 18:42, said:

Lesh18 - Did you enter the 2 hands correctly? Your comments indicate that losing the first 2 club tricks was not a consideration.

You can find the deal in the BBO hand records and the N-S cards are correct, albeit rotated through 180 degrees. Opening Leader had ♠J964, ♥842, ♦98, ♣K865 and chose ♦9. The only pair in 7♥ got ♣5 as opening lead. The "best" auction on the hand seems to be 1♥ - 1♠; 3♦ - 3NT; 4NT - P. 4NT was not a great success, especially when declarer managed to misclaim -9 (should be -2).