[Trinidad]

I have been asked to give a lecture on slam bidding for a club with reasonably strong players. (The club's model is that the best players of several clubs in the region play there to have tough competition and at their home club for the local social contacts.)

What should I include in the lecture? All ideas are welcome.

Rik

[dake50]

If you can find it, Larry Hammick did a survey of the most common slams by shapes.
He partitioned "big stuff"=33hcp, typically well-bid;
5xtrumps +5xside +control,control was most common so try to find those;
side suit ruffed good, a hard one to diagnose in the auction;
ruffs in dummy for tricks, the splinter cases;
crossruff, another hard one to recognise.
For sure that mindset to describe slam tries has merit.

[Hanoi5]

The importance of controls

[Cyberyeti]

The importance of establishing who's shown what in advance, ie both hands unlimited or just one. Where cues are mandatory and where they're not, serious/frivolous 3N, last train and their role in this plus the concept of who's in control.

Then you can get into gadgets if you want.

To me the major importance (we have a plethora of options as to how to go about investigating slams) is determining what it is I really need to know, and how early in the auction I should start my path of corraling partner into telling me what I need to know, or start telling him what he needs to know if I think I can cover all my important features. Most of the time it's neither assuming nor ceding control until later when I can work out who should be running the auction.

[hrothgar]

When to cue bid as opposed to using Blackwood

[Phil]

hrothgar, on 2012-December-26, 09:51, said:

When to cue bid as opposed to using Blackwood

Exactly. Even a lot of good players default to RKC when cue bidding (or just letting partner take over) is a better option.

[cherdano]

Hanoi5, on 2012-December-26, 08:36, said:

The importance of controls

The importance of having enough tricks.

I would take a very simple auction, say 1M-3M (invitational), and try to convince everyone that natural slam tries are superior to random cuebidding. (Then maybe teach them 3N as "usually balanced slam try, starting cuebids" as a gadget.)

Then do another auction where natural slam tries/bidding out shape are good. Say 1N 2H 2S 3D 3S. Or some 2/1 auction where we find the fit at the 2M-level.

[Trinidad]

cherdano, on 2012-December-26, 11:44, said:

The importance of having enough tricks.

I fully agree with this. I was planning to use about 1/2 to 2/3 of the lecture on how to gauge the trick potential.

Edit: On one of the slides I had already planned a STOP sign over Blackwood (of whatever form) with the text: "Do not use unless you think you have 12 tricks."

Quote

Then do another auction where natural slam tries/bidding out shape are good. Say 1N 2H 2S 3D 3S. Or some 2/1 auction where we find the fit at the 2M-level.

One of the auctions I had in mind was:

1♠-2m
2♥-3♠

where opener holds something like:

♠KQ743
♥A853
♦KQ3
♣5

depending on the minor partner bid, this is a great hand, or just a good opening. All this under the assumption that partner actually shows something when he bids 2m.

Rik

[jogs]

dake50, on 2012-December-26, 07:28, said:

If you can find it, Larry Hammick did a survey of the most common slams by shapes.
He partitioned "big stuff"=33hcp, typically well-bid;

On less than 1.5% of the boards does one side or the other have 32+ HCP.
On nearly 10% of the boards in high level championships one pair at the
two tables bids a slam. On boards where one team is in slam and the
other isn't, the team in slam is wrong more than 50% of the time.
Did Hammick's survey agree with my survey?

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-26, 13:00, said:

One of the auctions I had in mind was:

1♠-2m
2♥-3♠

where opener holds something like:

♠KQ743
♥A853
♦KQ3
♣5

depending on the minor partner bid, this is a great hand, or just a good opening. All this under the assumption that partner actually shows something when he bids 2m.

And whether partner actually shows something when he jumps to 3S, or had to do it because the auction wasn't game forcing, yet.

[SteveMoe]

Concepts like Short Suit Total and Working Points as they translate to total tricks can be very interesting. Wirgren & Lawrence is a source and so is Andrew Gumperz. Check out Evaluating Hands for Slams.

[Trinidad]

Thanks for the suggestions. I will certainly use some of them in the lecture.

Rik

[JLOGIC]

How to signal well

[jogs]

SteveMoe, on 2012-December-26, 20:36, said:

Concepts like Short Suit Total and Working Points as they translate to total tricks can be very interesting. Wirgren & Lawrence is a source and so is Andrew Gumperz. Check out Evaluating Hands for Slams.

I don't agree that all SST=4 are equal.

5=4=2=2 facing 4=3=3=3

♦ xx ......... ♦ KQJ
♣ xx ......... ♣ Axx

If they find a club lead, they can win one club and one diamond.

5=4=3=1 facing 4=3=3=3

♦ xxx ........ ♦ KQJ
♣ x .......... ♣ Axx

We only expect to lose one diamond.

SST=4(3+1) is better than SST=4(2+2)

We must be aware of the exact hand pattern.

[dake50]

[quote name='jogs' timestamp='1356563335' post='692479']
On less than 1.5% of the boards does one side or the other have 32+ HCP.
On nearly 10% of the boards in high level championships one pair at the
two tables bids a slam. On boards where one team is in slam and the
other isn't, the team in slam is wrong more than 50% of the time.
Did Hammick's survey agree with my survey?

*** Glad you agree that rarity of 32+ hcp slams. So you easily see
other types MUST BE MORE COMMON as he surveyed.
On those 10% in slam wrongly, what was the state of the match?
Was it needed to pick up IMP or the cause is lost already?
Surely YOUR survey has those answers and their frequency.!!!

[jogs]

dake50, on 2012-December-27, 17:19, said:

*** Glad you agree that rarity of 32+ hcp slams. So you easily see
other types MUST BE MORE COMMON as he surveyed.
On those 10% in slam wrongly, what was the state of the match?
Was it needed to pick up IMP or the cause is lost already?
Surely YOUR survey has those answers and their frequency.!!!

Actually I rarely play this game. Only a student of the
game. Have not analyzed the frequency of desperation slams.
Have noticed when I do play, opponents at the other table
bid slams much more often than I. Nearly every time our
team wins a 10-13 imp swing.

[Trinidad]

JLOGIC, on 2012-December-27, 13:38, said:

How to signal well

I will mention to my audience that a Bermuda Bowl finalist thinks this is an essential ingredient of good slam bidding.

But how do you make it work with screens? (coughing maybe?!?)



Rik

[paulg]

Watch the Italians bid.

My impression is that they bid a lot of relatively poor slams, but they bid more good ones than most. In particular, they never close down the auction when there is a chance of a slam and will cue bid with any hint of extra values, be that in high-card points or distribution. They cannot be accused of underbidding 'poor' hands, which is a failing of many in the slam zone.

Practice

Just get into a BBO bidding room more often. A slam or two per session is just not enough. I use two specific practice methods: (1) I put the BW Bidding Challenge boards into BBO, fixing the opponent's hands so that the robots will probably do the right thing - then bid them a day or two later. These hands have a high proportion of slams and you can compare auctions with experts (2) use the following dealer script in the bidding room (this script uses slam/queen points [A=3, K=2, Q=1] to generate random hands with slam potential - you generally need 20 SP for slam to be good, so increase the final number for more slams).


altcount 11 3 2 1 0
total = c13(north) + c13(south)
total>17

[Fluffy]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-27, 19:24, said:

I will mention to my audience that a Bermuda Bowl finalist thinks this is an essential ingredient of good slam bidding.

But how do you make it work with screens? (coughing maybe?!?)



Rik

Darn I was going to say the same

I like short showing more than long showing, some auctions where it works very well are:

1NT-2♠
3♣-3♠

And now opener can stop in 3NT with spade valus or move forward wihout them. A specific case very useful: teach them that AJx opposite singleton is extremelly suit oriented as oposed to what most people think.

[jophorst]

- Minor Suit Ask after 1NT and 2NT openings.
- Whether you may bid small slems on a finesse or an 9-card fit missing the queen.
- Whether you may bid grand slam in an 8-card fit missing the jack.
- How to do research for grand slem after the answer to a keycard ask.
- (Non)serious 3NT.
- Splinters, at what strength to bid?
- Exercises to bid slam without using Blackwood.