Hand Evaluation

[Chamaco]

I still don't understand LTC obviously. Is Qx the same as xx in LTC? is AKJxxx the same as AKxxxx? I'm confused, but I wouldn't rate this hand as a full trick too weak for 2C. Mikeh rates it as "the ten of spades" too weak.

This is an important point if anyone is ever going to use LTC.

We should use our brain and reevaluate the hand.

 

To me, AKJxxx is 0.5 losers, not 1

Similarly,AJTxxx would be 1+ (or 1.25 if you like) losers, not 2, in view of the double finesse, but if pard is short, then it'll be downgraded to 2- losers (we might not be able to double finesse)

 

And, Qx, is 2- losers (or, say 1.75, but fractional cunt is not practical, so I usually jst count for + and - at the table), unless they bid the suit (then 2 losers, and some extra downgrade for having a wasted value);

if pard bids the suit, Qx becomes 1+ loser (or 1.25 if you like).

 

====

 

Ok, this post is not for you justin, of course you upgrade/downgrade better than any hand rating method, but for those who use LTC like robots and later complain that LTC overbid or underbid the hand. :-)

[kgr]

2♣ for me.

I don't like to open 1♠ and have to jump to 3♣ later. (or having to play 1♠ when partner has not else then ♣Q).

I rather like 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ to start with.

----------------------------------------------

In system I play with my regular partner:

2♣-2♦ relay-2♥-2♠ relay-3♠ : this is 20-21 pts and a 6-card ♠

[Gerben42]

Playing those nice ParadoX responses to 2♣ :)

 

This hand is an easy 2♣ opening bid, planning to bid a nonforcing 2♠ over 2♥ 2nd negative and pass a 2♠ response (no tricks if ♠ are trumps).

 

My requirements for opening 2♣ are: If I open 1x and partner passes do I feel bad? Notice that if you play that you respond 1NT to 1♠ on junk you might open 1♠ instead but I'm still not buying that.

[luke warm]

In any case as usual I am surprised my 1s=1nt=4s is the only one in the field, oh well.

you aren't... i thought i was

[Finch]

I'm glad nobody has selected 2NT, which to my mind is horrible.

 

I open 1S, but then

i) I have good methods after 1S-1NT (or at least, good enough methods to show this type of hand without going past 3NT)

ii) I play 2C as game forcing, and cannot get out below game.

 

While it's true that opening 1S may miss game, if you open hands like this 2C without having some means of showing it, you will reach some games where I get passed out in 1S but your slam bidding will be worse.

[Walddk]

Considering that Frances is from Acol-land, I am surprised to see that she didn't suggest a 2♠ opening. I know it's not an option by pigpenz, but isn't this a hand true Acol players would open 2♠? 8½-9 playing tricks.

 

2♠ - 2NT/3♣ (any negative)

3♠

 

Non forcing.

 

Roland

[Free]

2♣.

 

Btw, for me this is a 4 loser hand, not 5 losers! Qx is 2 losers, but AKJ is almost 0.5 loser, so it doesn't count for me.

[Finch]

Considering that Frances is from Acol-land, I am surprised to see that she didn't suggest a 2♠ opening. I know it's not an option by pigpenz, but isn't this a hand true Acol players would open 2♠? 8½-9 playing tricks.

I thought of it, yes.

But then I decided that saying it was a 2S opening in Acol was about as helpful as saying it's a 1NT opening playing Romex or a pass in a forcing pass system.

[mikestar]

I know that the problem was not posed that way, but paradox responses to 2♣ are so blatantly superior to other response schemes that it would be tragic not to mention them. Without a fundamental change in system, use of this method turns a common difficult decision into a no brainer--we open 2♣ with the possibility of getting out in 2♠ opposite a worthless hand: something even ACOl 2's can't do.

 

This is not the same as pointing out that this is an easy Precision 1♣ or Romex 1NT or FP pass.

[inquiry]

Considering that Frances is from Acol-land, I am surprised to see that she didn't suggest a 2♠ opening. I know it's not an option by pigpenz, but isn't this a hand true Acol players would open 2♠? 8½-9 playing tricks.

 

2♠ - 2NT/3♣ (any negative)

3♠

 

Non forcing.

 

Roland

Actually, since my choice to open this type of hand of 2♣ has been mentioned, allow me to explain. My 2♣ opening bid includes "Acol two bids" in either major as one possible holding. We use paradox 2♥/2♠ initial replies to this as instant double negatives. This is really, the method of Brit Chris Ryall, I just have incorporated it.

 

And as far as explaining it here, in the original post, there were a number of odd openings, including 1C forcing and 2NT twice. Without playing paradox responses to 2C (generic 2/1 GF, BBO advanced, Sayc), I would open 1S. This is one reason why I play Chris Ryall's method. :-)

[david_c]

I know that the problem was not posed that way, but paradox responses to 2♣ are so blatantly superior to other response schemes that it would be tragic not to mention them.

I would take issue with the word "blatantly". Paradox responses lose in a number of situations, perhaps most importantly because responder can't show a major at the two-level.

[Winstonm]

Evaluation of this hand is of interest I think....

 

The spade suit although good is not great....like MikeH pointed out, AKJ10xx improves the overall strength greatly by being able to withstand 4/1 breaks.

 

The shape is poor. 6332 patterns are not wonderful. I would rather have:

 

AKJ10xx

Q

Axx

AKxx

 

Without the spade 10 and with minimumish high cards, the location of cards and poor shape make it just short IMO. Rearrange it slightly to this and it's clear cut:

 

AKJxxx

x

AQx

AKxx

 

With the original hand, to have a reasonable prospect for game in spades, responder will need 2 cover cards and a reasonable fit: Minimum hands would be xx, Kxx, xxxx, Qxxx with which many would respond. Even xxx, Kx, xxxx, xxxx would keep the auction alive with a 1N forcing bid while many weak 4-card fits would make a weak jump raise.

 

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that with the most reasonable holding for game, partner is unlikely to pass 1S while with the hands game will struggle will be passed: xx, J10xx, QJx, xxx.

 

On a side note: Cover cards. Take these holdings:

AKJxxx

xxx

 

If this fit is known, either the opening hand should subtract a loser or the responding hand should add a cover as the suit will be played for no losers over half the time - even with no entry.

 

And a final note: LTC as an opening bid mechanism is just a way to express in discussion the approximate requirements for a bid, not an evaluation tool. When I look at this hand it looks close to a 2C opener, but without thinking about it my instincts tell me that shape, body, and card location look off - so I double check with losers. 1 in spades. 2 in hearts. 1 in diamonds. 1 in clubs. My partner will have to produce 2 cover cards if he holds xx in spades - and we have agreed that he should raise to game with 1 prime cover and that likely isn't enough on this hand. So my system and agreements lead me to 1S.

 

Winston

[han]

Playing Ben's inquiry2over1 this is a fairly straightforward 2C opener.

That is why this problem is not posed playing inquiry2over1.

 

I just dont understand posts like this. It would be the same as me saying "In precision, this is an obvious 1C."

Not quite I think. You see, whether you open this (not so rare) handtype 1S or 2C is, IMO, more of a style and overall system issue than a question of evaluation of this specific hand.

 

This style depends of course a lot on what follow-up agreements you have after 1S or 2C. Mike has special agreements after 1S-1NT that allow him to describe this hand well after 1S. In Ben's system, it is very convenient to stop below game after a 2C opening, allowing for this hand type in 2C. It is a small change from standard (well, is there a standard after 2♣?), and solves this frequent hand type well.

 

Arend

This is too bad, I would have made the same point. Whether you open 2C or 1S is a question about style and partnership agreement. So I can't answer this question without saying who I'd be playing with. With Ben we open these hands more often with 2C than most partnerships do. 2C is still a strong opening with many kinds of patterns, and 1S is still natural with 5+ spades, so this is not the same as saying that we'd open 1C playing a strong club.

 

With my f2f partner I might have opened 2C, that was our style.

[fred]

For most of my bridge life I opened 1S and I was sure that was right.

 

Now I open 2C and I am sure that is right.

 

Perhaps this change can be explained as a result of my tendency toward more agressive 1-level openings. If you open light at the 1-level and if you are always super-solid for 2C, your 1-bids will have a very wide range. That puts a lot of pressure on responder either when he needs nothing to make a game or next to nothing to make a slam.

 

Lowering the standards for 2C openings makes things better in this regard.

 

There is a downside: your 2C auctions will sometimes be more difficult.

 

According to my current way of thinking, the gain (of playing slightly lighter 2C openings) is worth more than the loss (at least when you play lightish opening bids).

 

With this particular hand there is additional reason to open 2C. Any of the alternatives will often work, but any of the alternatives will also lead to disaster a significant % of the time. In other words, there are no really good alternatives.

 

Furthermore, when I pick up a hand like this, I make the practical assumption that we are going to play in at least game. 2C delivers that message rather nicely.

 

I would not be the least bit surprised if some day I change my mind (again) about all of this.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[pigpenz]

as Fred says time moves on and things change! To me there are just to many things that cango wrong by opening 1♠ at imps and not 2♣! I most assuredly want to be in game on these cards ven if game doesnt make there are chances that maybe the opps have a playable spot if not a lead may let 4♠ make doesnt take much from partner to let me make four spades ;)

[Winstonm]

For most of my bridge life I opened 1S and I was sure that was right.

 

Now I open 2C and I am sure that is right.

 

Perhaps this change can be explained as a result of my tendency toward more agressive 1-level openings. If you open light at the 1-level and if you are always super-solid for 2C, your 1-bids will have a very wide range. That puts a lot of pressure on responder either when he needs nothing to make a game or next to nothing to make a slam.

 

Lowering the standards for 2C openings makes things better in this regard.

 

There is a downside: your 2C auctions will sometimes be more difficult.

 

According to my current way of thinking, the gain (of playing slightly lighter 2C openings) is worth more than the loss (at least when you play lightish opening bids).

 

With this particular hand there is additional reason to open 2C. Any of the alternatives will often work, but any of the alternatives will also lead to disaster a significant % of the time. In other words, there are no really good alternatives.

 

Furthermore, when I pick up a hand like this, I make the practical assumption that we are going to play in at least game. 2C delivers that message rather nicely.

 

I would not be the least bit surprised if some day I change my mind (again) about all of this.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Is this not the problem that led Vanderbilt, Shenken, Wei, and others to move to a forcing 1C?

 

If we begin to lower our standards of a 2C opening without gaining additional room to explore, it would seem better to simply go all the way and open 1C instead of 2C.

 

IMHO, it is not wise to try to combine methods which are unsuited to each other; Standard American, which is the mother of all methods around which a 2C forcing bid is used, was designed to be based more on power than fit - a reflection that goes all the way back to Goren, Roth, etc. Sound opening bids and the like.

 

With the move towards lighter openings, it seems logical to limit the ranges of these bids - not by moving down the requirements for 2C but by opening stronger hands 1C.

 

Perhaps some day (may have happened and I didn't notice) someone will create a 3-way system where 8-15 point hands are opened 1 naturally, 16+ hands are opened 1C, and some other bid is utilized to show only a few very specific hand types.

 

Then, some day I may flap my arms and fly to the moon, too. :P

 

Winston

[pigpenz]

Then, some day I may flap my arms and fly to the moon, too. :P

 

Winston

then start flapping baby! just joking of course!

thats the problem with everything you have to adjust somewhere, people want to open light but say they play 2/1 Game Force very few adjust their 2/1 upwards for their light openers. Very few have understands as to if 2NT rebid is showing extras after 2/1. My point of view is coming from watcing people in ACBL games here on BBO. You see very few posts from people on the forum from people that play in ACBL games. The level of expertise bidding is almost non existent there.

 

So I like to post these here, cause the level of discussionon the forums is far better than what people are willing to play in those games :P

[mike777]

I can only guess but I assume playing 1nt and Mexican 2D off shape often takes a bunch of these wide ranging hands out of your one level bids and makes this style more playable? I do notice the Italians playing the Mexican. The other late night it was fun when p passed my Mexican and the opp kept asking me to explain my bid or if partner had forgotten.

 

In addition lightish opening may lead to more actions where the opp are overcalling and uncontested constructive auctions become more rare.

 

If you playing or defending more contested auctions then you will often have more information in the play or defense of the hand. Being able to use it to one's advantage is another matter.

[keylime]

Fred,

 

What's the general mood with regards to RESPONDING to the 2C opening?

 

Right now I'm using control responses but it's a minority.

[fred]

In America at least, probably the most common method is still 2D waiting with responder's rebid of 3 of cheapest suit as artificial 2nd negative. As far as I can tell, a sizable minority use 2H=negative and another sizable minority thinks this convention is horrible. I really like it and use it in my regular partnerships.

 

I also use 2S=8+ to 10 balanced. I don't know anyone else who plays this (actually as far as I know my current partner and I "invented" it, but I suspect not for the first time). This seems to work pretty well as it allows responder to get his values off his chest immediately when he is not quite strong enough to force to slam.

 

However I have been using this for a only a couple of years and its not like it comes up a lot or that I have done a scientific study of its effectiveness.

 

I use 2NT as a positive response in either major.

 

My perception is that control responses are not as popular now as they were a few years ago and that they were never as popular as 2H=negative is now.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[luke warm]

unless i misunderstood what fred wrote, he still plays 2C as game forcing... if that's the case (and i know a lot of folks who say it isn't), that makes the hand in question all a matter of opener's judgement... and that's a good thing... if i played as well as he or his partners play, maybe i'd open that hand 2C also.. it's a good hand but not good enough for me to insist on game (notice i said "for me")

 

as for control responses, i've never done any kind of objective study but i have noticed that on the hands i've had that were opened 2C, as opener i was very interested in the controls responder had... on the other hand, there has to be a reason that the majority of experts don't play it... i just don't understand that reason, that's all

[Kalvan14]

answering controls over 2C strikes me as the best way to loose another bidding level. Controls over 1C were used in the Neapolitan Club, and in the Blue Team Club; I played neapolitan for a time, and I always had a feeling that the first round (1C and control answer) was a lost opportunity.

In the Albarran System (canape') over 2C partner showed specific aces. They were the good old days, and 2 C was truly game forcing (and playing a canape' system there was no risk of a 1-level bid being passed). At least, specific aces might be very useful for slam bidding, on specific deals.

Nowadays I play a 2C "almost" forcing to game (includes the hands which in Acol would be opened 2M), with 2D waiting and paradox responses. It works pretty well.

[Guest Jlall]

unless i misunderstood what fred wrote, he still plays 2C as game forcing...

I cannot speak for fred but I'd guess he can play 2N or 3S or 2H (2C-2H-2N-p, 2C-2H-2S-3S, 2C-2H-p).

[luke warm]

then i did misunderstand his post... "practical assumption" doesn't mean game force

[fred]

Some deals are perfect for control responses, of course, but here are 3 reasons why you might want to think twice about using them:

 

2C 2H

3H

 

2C 2S

3H

 

2C 2S

3S

 

What do responder's bids mean now? Are new suits natural or are they cuebids in support of opener's major? Does responder need more than just the controls he has already shown to make a slam try?

 

The root cause of this problem is that the control response has preempted the auction. No doubt you could make some sophisticated followup agreements to lessen this problem, but it will always be there on some deals.

 

The methods I advocate also make use of artificial 2H and 2S responses, but they almost never suffer from this problem:

 

When responder has bid 2H (negative) he can't cuebid - new suit bids are natural.

 

When responder has bid 2S (8+ to 10 balanced), he will almost always have a hand suitable for a cuebid and he will rarely have a hand in which he wants to introduce his own suit - new suit bids are cuebids. 3NT is a "negative", but responder is already know to have at least 2-card support for opener's suit as well as at least 8 points.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com