I don’t know the aliases, so I will say that 4 players finished the declare-only challenge. And md won with the only positive score (9.66), which was just enough for a 10 point win.
I’ve noticed that you’ve switched to 8 boards for some of the group challenges. I’m fine either way. Feels like the group has gotten into a rhythm of playing through these challenges quickly, so maybe that is in that vein. It’s easier to whip through an 8 board compared to a 10 board.
That means procrastinator won the declare-only challenge. And oirg just won the 8-board regular challenge with +19.75, a margin over 10.
Except for our 2-ways, where I know you prefer 8, I intend to make them all 16. The multiple 8-board group challenges reflect multiple mistakes. If others chime in preferring 8, I’m winning to go that way, even though I have no idea how to contact oirg for his preference.
Group challenges are reissued.
In the 8-board bidding group challenge that just ended, some interesting slam possibilities. 4/5 of us found and made the slam on hand 5. Only o went for slam on hand 6, and he made it. I really considered it, and made enough tricks to cash it, but didn’t want to push my luck. That may be partially because of hand 3, which is the one I want to talk about more.
Now I know my aggression was too much here. I’m just a little frustrated by the computer that I almost always take at its word. I open 1NT. Now I know I have defined my hand pretty narrowly and partner should be in control from here. But it’s the computer, and I can’t always trust it to bid us aggressively or even accurately.
He responds 2NT, a transfer to clubs. Fine, I’m resigned to a part score in clubs. Then he comes back with 3NT, meaning 6+C, 13-15 HCP! I’m looking at 16 HCP and AK9 of clubs. So we have an easy 3NT or a likely 5C. We have at least 29 HCP and 2 extra points for his long club suit. So I think there is a pretty decent chance we have slam. When I try to get cute with the computer going for slam, it doesn’t work well, so I just bid blackwood ©.
He responds 5C = 0 or 3 key cards. I have 2 (AKc). I do the math, he can’t have 0 and have 13 HCP, so he must have 3!!! All three missing aces! Amazing. But does he have the Qc? I respond 5d, asking for the Q. He responds 5s, saying he has the Qc and the Ks!!! I have the other Kings. So now I know we have AKQc and all the other Aces and Kings, and at least 9 trump, and a partner with some good distribution (6+c). This is all really shaping up nicely. Again, not going to try to get cute with the computer, so I just jump to 7c.
He flips up a lovely club suit … and none of the aces … 11 HCP. Zero key cards. What was all that 3NT talk then???
Why not just jump to 3NT if that’s where he thinks we should be? Why transfer to clubs first? To give me the option for 5c? But that’s almost never the right answer for us here. Even if I have 5 clubs and 17 HCP, aren’t we still better off in 3NT? Maybe he is worried about his singleton Ks, but the line he takes doesn’t try to address that concern in any way.
I knew I should have just passed 3NT, but the line the computer took just really seemed promising for slam.
The bot’s judgment is often not very good, and bots (IMO) often do not consider rebid problems withn they make their first bid. Thus 2NT since he had 6 clubs, then 3NT as a least of evils after you completed the transfer. It should have realized, before bidding 2NT, that he would have to do something over 3C, but I don’t believe bots think that way.
OTOH, perhaps at least to some extent the rest of us were thinking about future situations when we passed 3NT. Slam is possible but unlikely IMO. A very likely response to 4NT Blackwood is 5D, one ace. Then you’re really screwed, with a bot, I believe, since I don’t think there’s a way to bail out at 5NT. (Maybe there should be, but I don’t think there is. 5NT may well be a king ask, and 5H and 5S may well be asking for the trump Q, which at least risks that he will bid 6C.)
All fair points. Certainly the risks of going for slam in clubs and the lack of space is one of the things that can and did lead to problems here.
I blame the 2NT-3NT line. And in that instance, maybe the bot is less to blame, and it’s the system that is more to blame. Why make 1NT - 2NT - 3C - 3NT = 6+c, 13-15 HCP? Feels like what the bot really means is 6+c, 11-15 total points (“we have enough for game, and not enough for slam”). If the system notes said that, I would have passed.
With a real partner, I would have interpreted that line to mean “let’s play 3NT” and passed. If nothing else, when partner bids game, it almost always means exactly that.
It’s not clear what that sequence should mean with real partner, but what it absolutely does not mean is “let’s play 3NT”. The sequence for “let’s play 3NT” is 1NT - 3NT. Perhaps it should mean what the notes said it means, with the bot just not having the right hand for it. (In particular, the actual bot hand is a good one for 1NT - 3NT).
A somewhat comparable situation: I think this is the bots’ system meaning, but it is a common real world agreement in any case. (Opps silent) 1NT - 2D (transfer) - 2H - 4H. That should be a natural, nonforcing slam try. Willing to play 4H, but not saying “let’s play 4H”. To say “let’s play 4H” the sequence is 1NT - 4D (transfer) - 4H - pass.
Interesting. What you’re saying makes sense. I think it’s a step or two ahead of my current skill/understanding/memorization.
These conventions are interesting to me. I’m curious what the BBO system says for each, but also what is common practice. For example, what exactly would the system notes (or common practice notes) say about each of the following? What types of hands would each encompass. In the spirit of not just asking a question without trying first, I suppose I’ll make my own stab at what my own common sense system would mean.
1NT - 2D - 2H - P
1NT - 2D - 2H - 2NT
1NT - 2D - 2H - 3H
1NT - 2D - 2H - 3NT
1NT - 2D - 2H - 4H
1NT - 2D - 2H - anything else (e.g., 3C)
1NT - 3D - 3H - 3NT
1NT - 3D - 3H - 4H
1NT - 3D - 3H - anything else (e.g., 3C)
1NT - 4D - 4H
So many possible combinations, therefore an ability to build in a ton of nuance, subject to realistic ability to remember all of that nuance, and therefore a need for it to be somewhat intuitive. Here is my best attempt at how I would write it / interpret it. Also not discussing partners potential responses (other than to accept the transfer).
1NT - 2D - 2H - P: 5+ hearts, 8- total points
1NT - 2D - 2H - 2NT: 5 hearts, 9-10 total points (either game invitational)
1NT - 2D - 2H - 3H: 6+ hearts, 9-10 total points (game invitational)
1NT - 2D - 2H - 3NT: 5 hearts, 11-15 total points (choice of game)
1NT - 2D - 2H - 4H: 6+ hearts, 11-15 total points
1NT - 2D - 2H - anything else (e.g., 3C): 5+ hearts, 16+ total points, cue bid
1NT - 3D - 3H - 3NT: not sure what you would use this space for
1NT - 3D - 3H - 4H: not sure what you would use this space for
1NT - 3D - 3H - anything else (e.g., 3C): not sure what you would use this space for
1NT - 4D - 4H: 6+ hearts, <5 HCP (preempt)
It would be extremely rare for 1NT - 3D to be a transfer to hearts, though what it should be is not so clear (note that the meaning of 3D has to be considered in conjunction with an overall system, where the bots’ system of 1NT - 2S = minor suit Stayman; 1NT - 2NT = transfer to clubs; 1NT - 3C = transfer to diamonds is far from universal).
For the most of the others, generally what you said, but with the point ranges as guidelines, not promises. Typically the meaning of the bids’ strengths would be “to play”, “invitational”, “forcing” and “slam invitational”. Typically with 9-10 points (including distribution) and 5 hearts you are likely to want to invite game, but it is better to think of a bid as “invitational” rather than “9-10 points”.
But some of yours I would disagree with:
1NT - 2D - 2H - 4H: 6+ hearts, 11-15 total points. I would say “slam invitational”, and very few hands with only 11 points including distribution would qualify.
1NT - 4D - 4H: 6+ hearts, <5 HCP (preempt). I would say “to play”. There probably aren’t many hands with only 6 hearts and under 5 HCP which would qualify (most would just bid 2H, then pass), but certainly some with 7 hearts and under 5 HCP would bid that. More important, many hands with 6 hearts and more than 5 HCP would bid that way, if they don’t want partner to consider bidding more.
1NT - 2D - 2H - anything else (e.g., 3C): 5+ hearts, 16+ total points, cue bid. Certainly the bots, and I think most players, would treat it as game forcing with a second suit. Forcing, so possibly a very good hand, but maybe just hoping to find the best game.
I’m a little confused. Seems like we just have a slightly different path to definitive game and slam invitational.
I guess the reason I chose my paths is as follows:
If you have 5- HCP and partner has 15-17 HCP, there is a fear that opponents have their own solid suit/game to play. That is why I lean toward the preemptive 4D in this case. 2D - 2H - P is better for your side’s game, but may let opponents in with their own part score/game. Am I over estimating this? Let them try for it and partner will set them with his 1NT opener?
Why 1NT-2D-2H-4H as slam invitational? Why not 1NT-2D-2H-cue bid? Isn’t that a better path? Leaving more room?
Can you help me understand how the 1NT bidder would respond to 1NT-2D-2H-4H as slam invitational? How does he know where to go from there? Does he just jump to blackwood, in which case, why not have responder do that?
I have seen the “game suit try” and I admit that I only somewhat understand its purpose and value. I think it is a way to explore whether you have game or not, but why doesn’t the 9-10 TP paths do that sufficiently in my example? There really couldn’t be a better game suit, given opener has bid 1NT and I’ve transferred to hearts. If I had a strong spade suit or another suit, I think I would have already decided to explore multiple paths (via Stayman, maybe)? If it is extremely unlikely to find a second, hidden suit that is a better fit, aren’t you just giving away information to defense?
Another thing I considered. The transfer/stayman conventions are to get the better hand as declarer. When you wake up with 16+ total points as responder, you may be better off being the hidden hand. Maybe 3H or 3S should be reserved for “5+X, 16+ total points, slam try”).
Also, you say, “but it is better to think of a bid as “invitational” rather than “9-10 points”.” I absolutely consider that an invitational bid, which I think is clear. So I think you’re taking issue with my 9-10 points specificity. Can you help me understand when you might make an invitational bid with anything other than 9 or 10 points (including distribution)? And then, how the NT opener would think about responding if not thinking specifically about it from a points perspective?
This is one of the easier ones to answer. First, I did not necessarily say that it is bad to bid 1NT - 4D with 6 hearts and 5 or less points, just observing that you often don’t want to do that. One consideration is your spades. If you have a stiff spade, the danger that the opponents can make a game (10 tricks) is much higher than when you have a stiff club (they need 11). Often partner’s 1NT opener is enough to stop 5 of a minor, even if you have nothing, and their chances are very low if you have 3-5 HCP.
My biggest objection is not that you might bid 1NT - 4D with a bad hand and 6 hearts. The objection is saying that’s what 1NT - 4D means. If you only bid it on such hands:
- Either opponent can pretty safely bid 4S any time he has long spades. You’ve told him his side has about roughly have the high card points, or more.
- If trumps are breaking badly for your side (partner may have only 2), they can very safely double you. If they know HCP are split roughly evenly, they know you won’t be able to take 10 tricks on a bad trump break.
Those arguments don’t hold if 1N - 4D just means “I want our side to play 4H”. Maybe you have a very good hand, almost good enough to try for slam. Maybe good enough to punish them if they enter the bidding at a high level. Maybe good enough to take 10 tricks even against a bad trump break.
Partner doesn’t know what you have? So what? You just want partner to pass. Maybe you expect him to go down in 4H. Maybe you expect him to make it. He’ll find out when he sees the dummy. (True, occasionally you would like him to know, especially when the opponents do bid anyway, but in the long run it is better to be able to bid 4D on lots of hand types and force the opponents to guess.)
That all makes sense.
In the spirit of bidding conventions and everything supposedly on the table, if they asked you to explain your 4D bid, what would you say? What could you say with a straight face? [this just brings up a bigger point having never played in an actual club or tournament, how these things play out. Partner would have to explain what you mean? And if he’s wrong, you basically have to go along with it?]
The mechanics are a little complicated. One very fundamental rule: you NEVER* explain your own bids, even if they ask. Partner does. (In some very common cases, like transfers, he announces immediately that it is a transfer. For most other artificial bids, he says “Alert”, and they can ask for an explanation if they want one. Even for the common ones like transfers, they can ask for more information.) Assuming they did ask for more information about the 4D call, he would say “he wants me to play 4H”. (If the agreement were that it was definitely 5 HCP or less, he would say that, too.)
*NEVER explain your own bids. Not quite accurate. NEVER during the auction. If your side wins the contract, and partner gave a wrong explanation of your agreement, you must tell the opponents the correct agreement before they lead (and conceivably there could be other penalties for the misinformation partner gave). That only applies to your agreements. If partner correctly described the agreement, but your hand doesn’t match the agreement (either because you knowingly violated the agreement, or because you had forgotten the agreement), you don’t say anything, and there wouldn’t be any penalty. (Those situations can get complicated to adjudicate, since when your hand doesn’t match the “agreement”, there could be questions about whether you really had the “agreement” partner described.)
But if the opponents get the contract after partner missexplained your agreement, you say nothing, because saying something gives your partner information he’s not entitled to. (Here too, you might end up getting penalized for partner’s misinformation, but it’s not something you should try to “fix” before the play, if your side is on defense.)
In practice, agreements are disclosed pretty well, with few problems, few penalties.
1NT-2D-2H-new suit is needed to show a potential second suit. Not a second suit when responder has 6 hearts. Yes, it has some utility then and could occasionally be used with 6-5 or possibly with 6-4, but in practice you’ll do well enough if you just make hearts trumps when you have 6 opposite a 1NT opening. Especially with 5-5 but also with 5-4, you don’t know if hearts will be an adequate trump suit. At matchpoints you probably do well enough (especially with the 5-4s) to transfer to hearts and then bid 3NT, knowing partner will convert if there is an 5-3 heart fit and hope 3NT makes if not. That’s a pretty good strategy since 3NT making 3 ties 5 of a minor, and 3NT making 4 beats it. At imps, you should prefer the safer game.
The emphasis is that it’s invitational. That means that fairly often, probably at least 1/3 of the time, opener will just pass. Only rarely will opener has such a max, and the controls, that he’ll insist on 6. Much of the time that he doesn’t pass he will cue bid. No guarantees the sequences will always get you to the right contract, but better on average than the alternatives.
I didn’t really get into it before (and it won’t happen often), but note that 1NT - 4D - 4H does not have to be followed by P. If responder’s only concern is key cards, that’s how he starts then bids 4NT. Or if he wants to play a slam unless you are off 2 fast tricks in a suit, if he bids a suit over 4H, that’s a cue bid. Neither happens very often, but they are additional reasons you don’t want to say 4D is always 5 hcp or less.
:embarrassed: and perhaps giving away valuable info, since it’s from one of the group challenges currently in progress. A bot successfully pulled off a grosvenor gambit against me. (grosvenor gambit - a play that can never gain and could cost, but doesn’t cost because the opponent can’t conceive of that mistake having been made).
I feel sure I’ve skipped some results, with so many posts about bidding recently I’m not going to worry about figuring out what has been reported and what skipped. If you played, you can see the results.
All have been reissued, so all the normal matchups are in progress.
procrastinator romped in the Declare-only with +29.75, with the only other plus score less than 1.0.
Tied NN (18-18), beat AA by 7 and procrastinator by 15. All reissued.
Beat AA by 9. Lost by 10 to NN with two horrendous bidding misclicks. Passed partner’s 1 spade opening with Qxx of trumps, 10 HCP and a singleton. Fortunately pushed the board after LHO reopened. Later a tough decision whether a hand was a 1NT opener, or open 1C, rebid 2NT (17 HCP, good 5-card clubs suit). Decided to open 1NT, as did NN. Except I only decided to open 1NT, and actually passed. Couldn’t do anything sensibly after that when partner opened 1C, ended up in a slam off 2 aces (and missing the club K).
oirg wins the regular 5-way with +24.75, a margin over 10. All reissued.
ETA: Lost to procrastinator by 23. Reissued
Beat AA by 19. Beat NN by 1 when his CHO overbid (IMO) to reach a slam, that actually was a good contract but could not be made. Or (OTOH) perhaps I won the match by not understanding my CHO’s bid (and not checking the system notes) and passing a cue bid in a makeable game. Why (with opps silent) 1S - 2H - 3H - 3S - ?, 4H is a cue bid is beyond me. Is CHO with 4-card heart support just supposed to bid game in this 5-card spade suit? Or does he have another bid to say that 4H might be our best spot?
NN wins both group challenges, neither by 10. +10.67 in the Declare only. +30.00 in the regular, but that was by less than 2 over procrastinator.
I beat procrastinator by 38. All reissued.