[steve2005]

It's always annoying when opponents bid an easy slam against you because your going to get a bad board because the field often will not be bidding the slam.

Yesterday, I played with someone who though a regular partner isn't that strong, we don't play much and we don't have good agreements, we don't even play KC which I consider a minimum agreement. Well my partner took over on 3 hands using Blackwood to bid 3 throw against the wall slams. Only one did the field even have 25% bid the slam, the other 2 hardly anyone bid. He did not stretch on any hands.

So, it made me wonder, why can't the field bid slams when a relatively inexperienced partnership can?

[Bbradley62]

Although your main point may still be valid, I think you have mis-analyzed the stats.

On the hand where you scored 76%, 26 out of 61 pairs got to slam. (If half bid and makes slam and half don't, the successful half averages 75% and the others average 25%).

On the hand where you scored 94%, 14 of 61 pairs found slam but half of those went down (one in grand).

On the hand where you scored 77%, 25 pairs got to slam and 2 pairs did better by doubling opponents. 4 of the 25 pairs got to an unluckily wrong slam.

PS: Is it possible that fewer slams get bid in Speedball because there is less time to think about the auctions?

[steve2005]

Bbradley62, on 2015-July-25, 07:04, said:

Although your main point may still be valid, I think you have mis-analyzed the stats.

On the hand where you scored 76%, 26 out of 61 pairs got to slam. (If half bid and makes slam and half don't, the successful half averages 75% and the others average 25%).

On the hand where you scored 94%, 14 of 61 pairs found slam but half of those went down (one in grand).

On the hand where you scored 77%, 25 pairs got to slam and 2 pairs did better by doubling opponents. 4 of the 25 pairs got to an unluckily wrong slam.

PS: Is it possible that fewer slams get bid in Speedball because there is less time to think about the auctions?

oh 76% was thinking 25% bid slam, stand corrected

the grand is on a hook which KC will hint at (there is a void), so anyone bidding grand is greedy as bidding 6 usually gives guaranteed good score.

[ggwhiz]

One of the worst sins I've seen often is bidding rkc and signing off in 5 when missing one or bidding 6 when missing zero.

[Bbradley62]

ggwhiz, on 2015-July-25, 14:06, said:

One of the worst sins I've seen often is bidding rkc and signing off in 5 when missing one or bidding 6 when missing zero.

The former is far worse than the latter. Bidding RKC should mean "we belong in slam unless we are missing 2+ keycards". It's entirely possible that the RKC responder has clearly limited his hand and the RKC bidder knows they have enough strength for 6 but not 7 and just wants to be sure they're not off 2 keycards before settling in 6.

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2015-July-25, 14:06, said:

One of the worst sins I've seen often is bidding rkc and signing off in 5 when missing one or bidding 6 when missing zero.

Yes, those are sins. But, the stupidest agreement is to bid RKC. get an answer of 0/3, and then sign off in 5 expecting partner to continue with 3 but pass with zero.

[ggwhiz]

I had this one yesterday in a speedball. LHO had

♠AKQxxx, ♥void, ♦Ax, ♣KQJTx

Got a spade limit raise, big black and a 2 key card response. 6♠ + 1 was a flat 50%

[Bbradley62]

---

5 pairs found 7... 6 pairs stopped short of 6.

[ggwhiz]

Bbradley62, on 2015-July-26, 13:45, said:

---

5 pairs found 7... 6 pairs stopped short of 6.

Much better than my flawed memory but it's mp's and I could claim 7nt before the opening lead

[akwoo]

Let me answer this question for the above slam.

Most (lifetime) novices cannot count tricks or imagine the play. Their only rule for bidding slam is 33 points (using whatever point counting system they have), control of all suits, and not missing 2 aces.

[johnu]

steve2005, on 2015-July-25, 06:41, said:

So, it made me wonder, why can't the field bid slams when a relatively inexperienced partnership can?

Over half the field has no clue when it comes to bidding. Over half the field has no clue when it comes to playing. There is some overlap.

[mikeh]

johnu, on 2015-July-26, 23:10, said:

Over half the field has no clue when it comes to bidding. Over half the field has no clue when it comes to playing. There is some overlap.

My own experience suggests that at most clubs (in NA) and Sectionals fewer than 20% of the field have a good understanding of basic bidding. Part of this may be because of the aging of the bridge population, and the fact that many of the competent players of 20-30 years ago are now dead or retired from bridge, and haven't been replaced.

Few players, coming the game anew in middle age will ever learn how to play the game properly.

[barmar]

I don't think you need to invoke explanations like aging or whatever. I think most people are just not really great at most things they do. If you only participated in activities that you were an expert at, it would greatly limit your choices.

[mikeh]

barmar, on 2015-July-28, 08:41, said:

I don't think you need to invoke explanations like aging or whatever. I think most people are just not really great at most things they do. If you only participated in activities that you were an expert at, it would greatly limit your choices.

Point taken: I now golf rather than play bridge, and I suck at golf

[eagles123]

people are just scared of going down imo, for example a 90% slam they are more panicked about the 10% possibility it goes down than excited by the 90% possibility it makes

[EricK]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-26, 08:16, said:

Yes, those are sins. But, the stupidest agreement is to bid RKC. get an answer of 0/3, and then sign off in 5 expecting partner to continue with 3 but pass with zero.

Why is this a stupid agreement? If you have no keycards yourself you almost certainly shouldn't be asking for keycards in the first place so you don't really need this as a way to sign off with 0 opposite 3. And it allows you another way to probe for a grand slam.

[Cyberyeti]

eagles123, on 2015-July-28, 09:39, said:

people are just scared of going down imo, for example a 90% slam they are more panicked about the 10% possibility it goes down than excited by the 90% possibility it makes

This is part of it, but also they worry about going beyond game then going off in 5.

I wonder if part of the issue on BBO is irregular partnerships just not having enough confidence that there won't be a misunderstanding.

[aguahombre]

EricK, on 2015-July-28, 11:59, said:

Why is this a stupid agreement? If you have no keycards yourself you almost certainly shouldn't be asking for keycards in the first place so you don't really need this as a way to sign off with 0 opposite 3. And it allows you another way to probe for a grand slam.

You are talking about something else. Read my post which you quoted. If you bid Wood, then sign off, you have received your answer. If you don't know whether partner has zero or has three, you have put yourself a level too high anyway -- Treadwell would have had fun with this notion. And yes, you can have Zero and be asking.

QTxx Kxxx K KQXX.

1D (1H) X (P)
4S (P) ? Reasonably guessing the King of hearts is behind the overcaller, I Simply want to know if we have four of the five keys. Partner shows 3, we are safe at the 5-level. An actual hand from today's club session. There would be no chance Partner has two or fewer keys.

Making five: NEXT.

P.S., bidding 5 of the agreed suit after RKC is not needed as a grand slam try on my planet.

[1eyedjack]

There are times when you are in the uncomfortable position of having to assess whether to venture beyond 4M on a hand where 6 is likely and where 4, although unlikely, may be the limit. On such hands 4 could be the limit opposite zero, 6 a racing certainty opposite 3, and 5 comfortable opposite more than zero. You may judge the risk of moving to be worthwhile. You may well have bid the hand poorly to arrive in that quandary.

Of course, you could argue that if you are going down in 5 you might as well be in 6. It is just one more off (although more likely to be doubled).

But if you have the Ace of trumps and between you the King is one of the missing key cards, you may yet be making 5 on a trump finesse opposite zero.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-July-28, 12:30, said:

I wonder if part of the issue on BBO is irregular partnerships just not having enough confidence that there won't be a misunderstanding.

I was thinking of mentioning this in my earlier post -- I think it's a big part of it with random partnerships. Bridge really depends on partnership trust, and we've all been bitten too many times by randoms to keep trusting them.