[Fluffy]

IMPS, dealer sotuh, nobody vulnerable

♠1097652
♥J
♦K963
♣82

And the bidding goes as expected:

S - W - N - E
ps -ps -1♥ -3♣
ps -ps -6♦ -ps
??

[Free]

I'll raise, but it's a little gamble. I suspect partner has first round controls in ALL suits, hopefully he doesn't have a ♠ loser somewhere...

[luke warm]

is partner bidding my hand too? i'd have to know my partner, but i think i'll pass

[whereagles]

What kind of bidding is this? I'm bidding 7H. Want to make sure pard goes down.

[awm]

Well partner could've bid 4♦, which really should be forcing in this auction, if he wanted to hear a black suit cuebid. Since he's using up all the space, he shouldn't have a black suit loser (in that case he'd want to be in seven opposite one black suit ace and not the other, and would probably bid 4♦). So I think he has something like:

-
AKxxxxx
AQJxxx
-

Certainly this is how I would bid that hand. Could have a singleton ace in a black suit (and 6-6 reds) I suppose also. So I bid 7♦.

[Fluffy]

My point here was if ♥J was a positive or negative value for bidding 7, from my point of view the minimum holdin on each red suit for this bidding should be AK or AQJ, having the ♥J assures ♥K is not missing, wich strtongly suggests another loser somewhere, anyway I wasn't quite sure and bid 7.

Free was right about the ♠ loser, this is partner hand

♠Ax
♥AKQ10xx
♦AQJxx
♣-

And it seemed 7♦ was doomed.. but wait!, ♠A+5♥ discards =6, you can ruff your ♠ loser in dummy after all :-P.

[han]

I think that your partner bid 1 level too high.

[beatrix45]

7♦
If partner can't make seven opposite this dummy, it will cost me $97 (Canadian). If this happens, I will personally see that I subsequently make good my loss from such a miserable excuse for a partner.

[cf_John0]

With which hand will you open 1H,then rebid 6D?
Fluffy's hand and awm's are impossible.
I think total HCPs are not more than 16 and no less than 12;
Diamond should longer then Heart;It's freak as 0580.

Is it?

[awm]

I don't think these hands are impossible. Holding an extreme two-suiter without a lot of high card strength, it is usually right to open your suit. If you bid 2♣, especially on the hand I gave (with only 14 hcp), the auction will often be at the four level or higher when it gets back to you. It'll be hard to get both your suits in at this point, and be sure to find your best fit.

Admittedly with Fluffy's hand I'd be a little more concerned about the opening passing out (holding 20 high it's possible that people pass, especially since you actually have a couple spades in hand too). But the 1♥ open is reasonable in both cases I think.

[Chamaco]

Pard is allowed to hope for a useful card from us.

As I was taught that Grand should be bid with 65% or better, I am not sure here we have 65%+ to make the grand, so I'll pass.

[Free]

Fluffy, on May 8 2005, 12:22 PM, said:

Free was right about the ♠ loser, this is partner hand

♠Ax
♥AKQ10xx
♦AQJxx
♣-

And it seemed 7♦ was doomed.. but wait!, ♠A+5♥ discards =6, you can ruff your ♠ loser in dummy after all :-P.

That's not a ♠ loser

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

Forget bidding grand slams, unless you know, that
they are 80+%.

You may loose 500 points sometimes if the grand is
on, but 1000 if the grand is not on.

If partner did really wanted more than a choice which
small slam we are playing, he should go slower.

I know a 2C opening with a strong 2 suiter is terible.
most of the time, but partner seems to hold 6-5
in hearts and diamonds, which could be perfrectly bid
after a 2C opening bid, maybe wrong sidening the
contract, but thats the smaller evil compared to
making partner guess.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[cherdano]

I cannot see any reasonable meaning of 6♦ except "That's what I can make opposite a yarbourough." I would bid 7♦, and fully agree with awm's post.

P_Marlowe, on May 9 2005, 10:52 AM, said:

Forget bidding grand slams, unless you know, that
they are 80+%.

If the other table is at least in a making 6♦, the odds to bid a slam at IMPS come down to 56%. Opposite the hands I expect partner to hold, slam averages perhaps 90%, and opponents will always be in 6 or 7 ♦.

Arend

[Walddk]

If he thinks he can make slam opposite

xxxxxx
x
xx
xxxx

I will bid 9♦ with the hand I have. If he is going down in only 7, he may want to consider if he chose the right game. Guessing is also a nice game, but it isn't bridge.

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

cherdano, on May 9 2005, 05:42 AM, said:

I cannot see any reasonable meaning of 6♦ except "That's what I can make opposite a yarbourough." I would bid 7♦, and fully agree with awm's post.

P_Marlowe, on May 9 2005, 10:52 AM, said:

Forget bidding grand slams, unless you know, that
they are 80+%.

If the other table is at least in a making 6♦, the odds to bid a slam at IMPS come down to 56%. Opposite the hands I expect partner to hold, slam averages perhaps 90%, and opponents will always be in 6 or 7 ♦.

Arend

And you are sure they are in 6D?

You are certain, that they did not have
to deal with a raise of the 3C overcall
to 5C or 6C ?

Or, heaven helps, they stopped in 1H, because
the guy who overcalled 3C passed?

And even if they are in 6D, it will be just a
push board.

There is a story about Harrison Grey, told
by himself:
His team bid 4 slams, lossing 1500 points
gaining only 500, and only one failure could
be called unlucky. The result: a highly prized
team of international players lost to a team
from the country side.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Chamaco]

cherdano, on May 9 2005, 10:42 AM, said:

If the other table is at least in a making 6♦, the odds to bid a slam at IMPS come down to 56%.

Arend

This seems weird to me.

In his book "Is bridge a gambling game" (in Italian), Camillo Pabis Ticci demonstrates that, on a statistics basis, the % needed for a Gradn is about 63%+ or so (if the match situation is normal).

This is regardless of whether or not the other table will bid to a small or Grand.
It comes to the cost-benefit analysis that:

- going down in 7 and losing a WHOLE small slam 37% of the times
is about equal to
- bidding 6 and making 7 (losing the difference between a Grand ans a small slam) about 63% of the times.

This cost-benefit analysis applies regardles of what was bid at the other table.

Of course anyone may say as well that table feel is worth much more that odds in bridge, and that would mean the immediate end of the discussion (it's like invoking God, noone knows whether he exists or not... )

[cherdano]

Mauro, I think the odds you cite are correct when playing total points bridge. The IMPs scales changes that, and I just rechecked that you need exactly 56% to come even when bidding non-vulnerable grand slams (bidding 7 can gain 500 for 11 IMPs, or lose 14 IMPs for -50 vs 980 or 920).
When vulnerable, you need 56.666667 for major suit/NT slams, while only 55.172414% for minor suit slams (win 750 for 13 IMPs, or lose 17 resp. 16 IMPs for -100 vs 1430 resp. 1370)!!

(Of course, this assumes the other table will be in slam (and the right strain) 100% of the time.)

Arend

[cherdano]

Chamaco, on May 9 2005, 12:23 PM, said:

Of course anyone may say as well that table feel is worth much more that odds in bridge, and that would mean the immediate end of the discussion (it's like invoking God, noone knows whether he exists or not... )

Well, there maybe be more anecdotal evidence for the existence of god, than for that of my table feel, lol...

[Chamaco]

cherdano, on May 9 2005, 12:10 PM, said:

Mauro, I think the odds you cite are correct when playing total points bridge. The IMPs scales changes that, and I just rechecked that you need exactly 56% to come even when bidding non-vulnerable grand slams (bidding 7 can gain 500 for 11 IMPs, or lose 14 IMPs for -50 vs 980 or 920).

Ty Arend !
I'll check that, in that case I have learned one more thing thanks to the BBF !! :-)