HighLow21

If the advice is to always act in that spot, it is terrible advice, and I really don't give a hoot who gave it. It is terrible advice. If the advice were stated in a way that it could be CONFUSED as "always act," then it is, at best, dangerous advice. If the advice were "strive to act whenever reasonable," then it's much, much better, but still capable of being misapplied by anyone mid-intermediate or below, in my opinion. However, given the quality of some of Justin's recent postings in my opinion, nothing would surprise me.

No, I think it's terrible advice because it's easy to go wrong with if you're not Advanced+. For example, this person went wrong with it in this case: xx in hearts is not "shortness." Also, there is the moderate inference that partner has wasted heart honors, or RHO is quite strong with a heart misfit, or both. The advice is terrible because it is dangerous if used incorrectly. I'll state it thusly: I think the advice is terrible because it says "always." And it's almost always wrong to say always. :)

Yeah I mentioned the Jx of spades not pulling its 1 point of weight but felt I'd be overdoing it if I stated the problem with Qxx as well. However, I count Qxx as 2.5 losers, correctly, and that's incorporated in my 8.5 losers count. Plus since partner bid hearts, there's a reason for attributing 2 full points to the Queen. Still, the hand is not an opening bid and I still don't like the opening bid if the J♠ were the Q♠.

Zero. How losers does that North hand have? Just checking... By the way, in another forum post, I pointed out the definition of an "ad hominem" attack. This is yet another ad hominem attack. The number of places in whatever contest I have is truly irrelevant to the quality of the analysis I made above. If you have problems with my analysis, fine. Go ahead and state them.

I'm not understanding what you're saying here. Are you saying South should not have opened? If so, I agree completely. Are you saying South should raise an opening of 2NT to 6NT? I see your point, but I tend to disagree. The south hand has the 2nd worst possible shape, the worst possible intermediates, and 12 points, not 13. As I've said before, 4-3-3-3 opposite 4-4-3-2 is a terrible situation and 33 HCP usually won't cut it. The fact that these two hands actually have a play for 6NT, and it's not something like a 5% shot, actually kind of blows my mind, all things considered. I can easily construct for you an analogous example with 35 HCP where 6NT is STILL not cold.

OK, I disagree with literally everything you just said here. (1) The south hand is a textbook opener only for underinformed disciples of Bergen's Rule of 20. I even bet Bergen himself would pass it. (2) The actual layout is ANYTHING BUT unlucky, for a number of reasons I've already stated. Actually, all things considered, it's extremely fortunate. (3) Calling my blame of the opener 'stupid' is offensive and, well, stupid. It is called an "ad hominem" attack, which means that, as a debating strategy, you attack the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. Very immature, ineffective, arrogant, and in this case, blatantly wrong. (4) The scenario Phil is referring to is not this one for a number of reasons, and I'd be happy to elucidate them for you. I can think of at least 4 off the top of my head. (5) Good luck with the last part of your analysis there, chief. Squeezes, as a rule, are unlikely. And, in testing for the 3-3 splits you refer to, you will have only 1 entry back to the South hand. Feel free to explain what squeezes are available to us.

You just said it was a random partnership. Having become an expert at random partnerships at BBO, I can tell you that there is a VERY high chance partner will run. And even if he doesn't, you might have 3 spade losers. Or 4.

Wow. (1) 4♠ has no chance whatsoever if partner isn't near-maximum for his double. (2) There is a slight inference on the auction that partner has at least two hearts, maybe more, and any honors he has in hearts are wasted and will be compromised at trick 1. (3) Don't forget that partner balanced, and thus strained to act. I subtract at least a king from my hand in that situation. Thus my hand has 5 HCP, not 8, and I don't hate my heart holding any less than I did when RHO opened hearts. He could have been doubling on heart shortness and 9 points. That said: (1) I do like my 5-card suit. (2) I do like my minor suit controls. I would bid 2♠ and pass partner's raise if he raises me, unless I know partner to be an underbidder. I would not bid again unless forced to. If I get to 4♠ and get doubled I would be congratulating my opponents on a great double before dummy even came down. Only if LHO shows delayed heart support, or partner makes a very strong rebid (such as a heart cue or 2NT) would I act again. Because the fact of the matter is, he might have been balancing on a hand as poor as K9x♠ Jx♥ Qxx♦ AJxxx♣. In that case, we could easily have 2 heart losers, a diamond loser, and 2 spade losers. This is to say nothing of possible diamond ruffs. P.S. The idea of overcalling 1♠ vulnerable on that hand with that suit with that heart holding in direct seat is ludicrous.

That is terrible advice, and you don't have true heart shortness anyway. The most likely scenario is that RHO has heart SHORTNESS and overall strength, but not enough aces to raise in hearts. Pass like your life depended on it. Anything your side tries to bid is far too likely to get murdered.

Pass, because the most likely action after XX is pass by your partner, and the most likely action over 2♠ is 3♥ by your partner. Now try introducing 4 of a minor after South whacks 3♥! What fun. What fun for North/South. With an experienced partner, either have the option to make a non-forcing bid of 2♠ here or redouble, asking for him to jump to his longest other suit.

If you make faces when you only have 8 top tricks in 3NT, you're either (1) not getting to 3NT enough, (2) not confident enough in your play, or (3) both (1) and (2).

Thanks. It still doesn't make any sense to me. BTW, I'm going to make an extremely unpopular comment here and say: I love how JLOGIC posts a comment which says, in effect, "Take a double finesse and try to play it like some other guy," including a spelling error and a grammatical error, and it gets positive reputation points when other posts don't. Really? Really. I mean, Really??!

What does RHM mean? Read His Mind?

See my post above. Yes, keys are important, but so is shape, and 32-33 HCP with these hand shapes will usually go down in 6NT.

My partner got me there??? Are you suggesting that opening a 4-4-3-2 12 count with both minors and terrible intermediates is a good idea? Because it's not. The South hand is a 12-point pile of garbage. 1. If you DO find a suit fit, you still have 8.5 losers. Minimum opening bids tend to have only SEVEN. If balanced, MAYBE 8, but usually 7.5 at the outside. 2. If you DON'T find a suit fit, your intermediates will be horrendously bad for NT. (As you can see.) 3. Your Jack of spades is doubleton and thus not really worth 1 point. 4. Too many Jacks and Queens. And only 1 of them is reinforcing a higher honor. Isolated J's and Q's aren't worth their usual value. All that said, I agree that the hand possibly belongs in 6NT, just not played by South. The bidding should be Pass, 2NT, 6NT. Actually, I prefer Pass, 2NT, 4NT, All Pass, because South's hand really just is not at all worth 12 points, and North's 20 is no better than expected. And, the two hands have bad shape. A few things: 1. It is not your partner's fault that you opened. 2. It is not your partner's fault that your intermediates are horrendous. 3. It is not you partner's fault that you have a poor fit in both minors; move the club honors to the south hand and the chances are much better. 4. It is not your partner's fault there is duplication in spades, although it is a distinct flaw to have 2 or more honors in a suit that does not also include a small card. (Most people don't know this.) 5. It IS your partner's fault that he went to 6NT on a 4-3-3-3 shape. But that said, it should have decent chances opposite 14 HCP and fair opposite 13 HCP. That you have a poor 12 with 4-4-3-2 shape is very unfortunate. As far as the play, you have 9 on top. Terrible. But not surprising given all of the flaws I've already mentioned. In fact, to be honest, I'm surprised there is any play for 6NT whatsoever. The only reason there's a play for it is that you have all the aces. You simply MUST find a club honor with RHO. Find out how many club tricks you have first. (a) If clubs divide 3-3, you STILL need a red suit finesse to make. I'd cash 3 hearts and then take the diamond finesse, combining the J♥ dropping with the Q♦ onside. This is about a 21% chance: 27% of the time, clubs will be 3-3 with at least one club honor onside; the jack of hearts will fall 52% of the time, and when it doesn't, the Q♦ finesse will work half the time. So 27% x (1 - (1 - 52%) x (1 - 50%)) = 27% x 76%, or about 21%. (b) If clubs do not divide, you have only 10 tricks. You should try for 4 diamond tricks, or 4 hearts and 3 diamond tricks. You now MUST get the diamond finesse to work. Try that first. If it works, cash AK♦. If they divide, you have 12. If they don't, play for 4 heart tricks. This is about a 16% chance: Clubs will be 4-2 or worse with at least one honor onside about 3/4 of 64%, or 48% of the time. Of this, you need (i) Qxx♦ onside (18%) OR (ii) Q♦ not tripleton (32%) AND 4 heart tricks (52%). This is: 48% x [18% + (32% x 52%)] = 48% x (16% + 18%) = 48% x 34% = 16%. (This is all rounded, btw.) Thus, barring squeezes, I put this contract's chances at about 21% + 16% = 37%. With squeezes, maybe it's 40%. Please feel free to verify my math on this. My gut tells me 40% is too high. The morals of this story: 1. The south hand is an automatic 1st seat pass in my opinion. 2. The south hand is only worth an invitation to 6NT after partner opens 2NT, and that's only if I'm feeling extremely lucky. 3. The invitation to 6NT should probably be declined by north for the reasons I enumerated earlier. 4. A 4-3-3-3 opposite any 4-4-3-2 with usually not make 6NT with fewer than 34 HCP. That's right: 34. Not 33. These two hands have 32 and I'm amazed that it has as much of a chance as I calculated above. (BTW, with 2 4-3-3-3 hands, 35 HCP sometimes won't even do it!)

I agree with 3♠ entirely. Partner made a free bid. That means he has at least 5 (if playing negative doubles) and enough strength to act. I have AKQ, the best 3-card holding possible. Put simply, we want to play in spades. Partner needs to know we have a fit and that's exactly what 3♠ shows. (By the way, the 3-small holding in ♥ is now very valuable. It guarantees that partner has heart shortness and there's no reason to believe he has a wasted heart honor.) 4♠ is a bit of a problem. It is marginal, but reasonable at IMPs, shooting for the vulnerable game, and if partner had one more club and one fewer diamonds, or if partner also held A♥ or K♥ and the diamonds blocked, or a number of other things, then 4♠ has chances. However the game is not a good one for several reasons: 1. West has a 9-loser hand. Assuming the LTC is accurate for this hand, East would need a 5-loser hand for 4♠ to be on. East's bidding tends to show at least 6 losers, probably 7. (He actually has 7.5.) 2. West is minimum in HCP for his bidding; he has a 6th spade but nothing extra. 3. West's Q♥ is proven to be nearly worthless on the auction. 4. West's Q♥ suggests that East must be minimum for his bidding. (See Mike Lawrence, Hand Evaluation for further elaboration on this very important point.) Thus the game has to be an underdog to fail. Still it's not a terrible shot, and with a minimum of 9 spades held together, the LTC is usually conservative by 1. In other words, if partner has 6 losers, and 24 - (9 + 6) = 9 tricks, then maybe a 10th will appear out of any of a series of possible events. So, in my view, both East and West are stretching a bit, but neither bid is terrible. Also, it pays to bid 4♠ over 4♥ in the long run on hands where one is not sure who can make what -- and on this hand, West has no reason to believe 4♥ must fail, and no reason to believe 4♠ must fail. The worst bid of all of them was, in my opinion, the double of 4♠. It stands to gain 100 points most of the time and lose from 170 in the event of 4♠=, up to 860 in the event of a redoubled overtrick. At matchpoints it might be a good tactic, because 4♠ rates to go down more than the necessary 50% of the time, but the double is terrible at IMPs in my opinion.

The high diamond means "I hate diamonds." They are playing UDCA. This stinks because partner has a lot of diamonds. At least 4 and perhaps 6. But still, I lead K♦ now because partner is a heavy favorite to have A♥ and an 8-card suit. I take A♠ on the first round, lead a heart, trump the diamond return, lead another heart, and if it holds up (very doubtful), I get 3 black tricks and 2 diamond ruffs in addition to the 2 heart tricks. Down 5. But Down 3 is the most likely outcome. This stinks because when we can take them down 3, 5♥ almost certainly makes, and if a trump is not led in that scenario, 6♥ might make. We have 3 tricks in the black suits that cannot go away. Partner has a 7 or 8-card heart suit, so you will have 0-2 heart tricks. Given that it's a vulnerable 4♥ bid I tend to place him with AKxxxxxx so we have exactly 4 tricks: 2♣, 1♥, 1♠. The diamond lead bumps that up to 5 tricks. Partner's shape: void in clubs is known. Partner is also unlikely to have more than a singleton spade. Therefore he is almost certainly 1-7-5-0, 0-7-6-0, 1-8-4-0, or 0-8-5-0. Funny thing is, it is entirely possible that he has no entry to dummy and that therefore the black high cards are unusable. Trump leads render partner with no entry to the board whatsoever if he's got only red cards. Going down 2 in 5♥ is a distinct possibility. Thus, beating 5♠ doubled by 1 trick ought to be at least worth something. If partner happens to have 8 solid hearts and a spade, then there's no beating 5♥ and BunnyGo just got fixed!

My first instinct was to double 7♣ which, I dare say, probably is going down. B-) But, now that I think about it more, I think 7♦ is the winning bid here. Partner certainly has a dead minimum of Kxxxx♦ and is probably much better than that in diamonds; he has to have at least 10 points and a 5-card suit. Thus he has help in spades and/or diamonds hearts and usually both. Plus the opponents' bidding makes it far less likely that he has wasted club honors. I'd expect 7♦ to make about 75% of the time, and it should be at worst on a major suit finesse.

I join Wank on this; I didn't even know this section existed.

There's a problem with the explanation system here, as if the Robot wanted to show the majors he could have cued 2♦ on the first round. The balancing 2♦ should always show diamonds in this spot, lest a player be robbed entirely of his ability to bid the minor naturally whenever an opponent opens a convenient minor.

I've seen a few that do not include the 3 honor bonuses (100 honors, 150 honors, and 100 for Aces in NT). But many more do than do not. Duplicate does not include these bonuses, unless there are some rare exceptions I am unaware of.

Another option is to get a relatively larger monitor and a relatively lower resolution. For example, a 21" monitor on something like 1200 x 800 should be quite amazing.

I agree that there are more sophisticated methods of hand evaluation than LTC. As CSGibson said, it is a tool to be used alongside others. That said, for someone who is, say, mid-intermediate or below (or anyone who does not adjust considerably from HCP as the auction develops), LTC is a major step forward. Asking a modern expert to use it is like asking a 747 pilot to study hot air balloons. Asking an early intermediate to learn it is, IMHO under the conditions I described, one of the biggest steps forward in hand evaluation I can think of. (Up there with Mike Lawrence's books on Judgment, Overcalling, Balancing, and Hand Evaluation, just to name a few.) In terms of using LTC for opening bidding --> I think there are at least two circumstances, not at all rare, where it is very helpful: 1. In determining whether to open an unbalanced hand 2♣. (My rule is: 4+ Quick Tricks and 4- Losers. For a 4 QT/4 Loser hand, the long suit must be good and overall intermediates should be good.) 2. When you have an independent trump suit that will play fine opposite a void and/or a small singleton. For example, holding ♠AKQJT83 ♥98 ♦543 ♣A, I count 5 red-suit losers because I know exactly where I want to play: some level in spades. It is unlikely the auction will suggest that some other strain is better (unless it turns out to be NT). This hand has 8 tricks in spades or NT. The 14 HCP way underestimates this hand's playing strength.

The reason for that is that LOTT is, in fact, total bulls***. It is right under the best conditions only 40% of the time, and whenever it is right, it is right only by coincidence and luck, not by some sort of 'law'. If anything it should be called OCOTT. The 'occasional coincidence of total tricks.' The reality is that what matters in trump contracts are: (1) working hard card points, (2) short suits, and (3) trump sufficiency --> both in terms of length and in terms of strength. Anders Wirgren and Mike Lawrence analyzed this completely and effectively, in my mind, in "I Fought the LAW..." And often times in the auction, (1) through (3) can be assessed with some degree of accuracy. There are even times when it is perfectly transparent! LTC is definitely not a silver bullet, but I can tell you that from personal experience, it is light years ahead of what the average beginner and lower-intermediate is using for hand evaluation. It will be wrong sometimes, but it is a lot more accurate in most cases for trump contracts than SAYC/Goren point count.

Actually 2.5 QT's if you consider AQ to be 1.5 quickies, and I always do; particularly if the hand also contains the 10, which it does. In fact there's an argument for calling that 1.75 or even 2 quick tricks. The fact that all 10 HCP and all 2/2.5 QT's are in the 2 five-card suits makes it even better.