[shevek]

There is this (apocryphal?) story that the Italians would still have won (nearly?) all those early Bermuda Bowls (from 1957 - 1975) if they had bid NO slams. That is, missing out on those cold mama-papa slams bid at the other table wouldn't cost. That loss would have been offset by staying out of the flaky, failing slams that cost actual IMPs.
Did someone actually do that analysis? Who? Which events? Might it still hold in the modern game?

[NickRW]

I'm sure I read somewhere (can't remember where now) that the non Italian slam bidding during that time was diabolically bad. The Italians were a little better, but not a lot.

[PhilKing]

These days slam bidding is pretty accurate - I did a study of a quite a few top events and the percentage of bid slams that make is certainly upwards of 70% and seems to be improving year by year. My guess is that the figure is over 80% over the last few years, but it somewhat depends who gets to the final if we are just looking at the Bowl.

However, even if you go back to the early days, conducting a p&l for slam bidding is not that simple, since often it comes down to the lead or play. Take the first slam swing from the 1957 final. The auction at both tables started:

1♠-2♣
2♠-3♦
4♣-4♥

At this points, one player jumped to 6♣, the other checked on aces and then bid 6♣. North now had to find a lead from:

♠7
♥KJ62
♦T843
♣9642

Just to clarify, the 1♠ bidder is on your left. Your go ...

The point is Belladonna made a lead that beat slam, whereas his counterpart did not, so the Italians would still have gained if they had stayed low. Anyway, I will show the full deal in a day or two.

On the second slam hand from 1957, partner opens 1♠ and you hold:

♠KJ95
♥AT
♦AK
♣AKJ95

The "don't bid any slams" strategy was not infallible, even then. Both players drove to the cold grand.

The third deal is an absolute cracker, and I will try and post it later.

[Fluffy]

I guess dummy has some 7330 or 7420 perhaps? I think heart lead stands out, it might work on different forms.

[jogs]

Wasn't it Belladonna who said against a small slam, if you have a singleton, lead it.
Did he lead the ♠7? Should work if pd holds a black ace.

[NickRW]

jogs, on 2015-January-15, 17:05, said:

Wasn't it Belladonna who said against a small slam, if you have a singleton, lead it.
Did he lead the ♠7? Should work if pd holds a black ace.

You can google Bermuda bowl 1957. I won't spoil it by telling what happened.

[PhilKing]

---

Belladonna's chose a heart, which would probably be considered standard these days. The singleton spade lead was ineffective.

And the advice to lead singletons was attributed to Garozzo, but it does not really stack up considering that the spade bidder bid slam over 4♥.

[PhilKing]

---

This was the second slam swing from 1957. The contract was awful, but made on the spectacular line found by Chiaradia (use the next button to see what happened). Yes the defence erred, but the reinforces how much better the Italians were.

[jogs]

PhilKing, on 2015-January-16, 16:56, said:

---

Belladonna's chose a heart, which would probably be considered standard these days. The singleton spade lead was ineffective.

And the advice to lead singletons was attributed to Garozzo, but it does not really stack up considering that the spade bidder bid slam over 4♥.

Actually the correct lead is a club.

Change ♥xx ♦ A to ♥ x ♦ Ax. 6♣ makes with a heart lead. A club beats both combinations.

[benlessard]

Quote

I did a study of a quite a few top events and the percentage of bid slams that make is certainly upwards of 70% and seems to be improving year by year. My guess is that the figure is over 80% over the last few years

Im not sure a higher percentage mean more accurate bidding, there is a sweet spot somewhere. Assuming that we are only looking at small slams in imps, in a perfect world you would like to bid all 51% or better slams and none of the 49% or less slams but you will always have a fair amount of slams that are around 50% (assuming the other pair will always be at least in game). Its hard to estimate a curve but lets just say that 1/3 of the slams are cold 1/3 are 75% and 1/3 are around 50% and you bid no slams that are 40% or less. Everyone would be very proud to have this "curve" wich contain very few slams under 50%. But you will still have a 25% failure rate. Its just a guess but I feel that if your slams success rate is higher than 75% you are probably not agressive enough in your slam bidding.

I see a good amount of slams that need...

a 3-2 break 68%
either finesse working 75%
pickup the Q of trumps in 9 card fit 53% or 58% if you can deal with a 4-0 break.

Im probably biased here, slam that are cold are often bid at both table, easy to play and easy to forget while the non-cold slams are more suspenseful so they will leave a bigger impression.

[PhilKing]

benlessard, on 2015-January-16, 23:21, said:

Its just a guess but I feel that if your slams success rate is higher than 75% you are probably not agressive enough in your slam bidding.

I think this is broadly correct.


http://www.bridgebas...653#entry708653

[PhilKing]

jogs, on 2015-January-16, 18:28, said:

Actually the correct lead is a club.

Change ♥xx ♦ A to ♥ x ♦ Ax. 6♣ makes with a heart lead. A club beats both combinations.

I decided to open up this post for old times sake.

I might be being a bit thick, but I don't see how a club lead beats it. I just win and play two rounds of spades. If South wins this, I can cash winners and crossruff. If instead North ruffs and plays a second trump, I can establish spades.

Since the only danger is that both black suits are 4-1, this seems an obvious line.