Hand upgrade

[firmit]

I am currently devoting a lot of time in re-evaluating my hands after partners bid. This field is subject to many views. However, I would like to get a feedback on my own re-evaluation and upgrade "form".

 

A sample hand. I hold

♠ Kx

♥ A9xxx

♦ AJ10

♣ 9xx

 

Playing 4 card majors. 2NT GF asking for shortness. First/second cuebid, 0314.

 

1♥ - 2NT

Guess not many object to this. Got one comment on 3♠ Trelde, but that is not apart of our system.

3♦* now my first really evaluation begins. A lot of posts just state "a good 9 count" etc, without more elaboration. On this hand, I would like to know how people would proceed after the given auction:

 

1♥-2NT-3♦.

 

I obviously got a perfect hand opposite partners singleton/void diamond. At this point my normal 12 hp count is re-evaluated to a apprx. 4 loosers: My ♥A+length gives me extra points = +2hp. My ♦J10 seems worthless, but my A is crucial. And together with ♠K I would say my hand is worth 15-16hp. Given partner has showed a distributional hand, my slam progress towards slam should be evaluated, no?

 

Please, comment on hand evaluation. How do you evaluate your hand after partner's bids?

[Apollo81]

It was a minimum GF to start.

 

Now it is slightly better than that. I would bid 3♥.

[Codo]

Yes, the hand is nice, if pd has a singelton in D, I have just one wasted HCP.

On the other hand, I still need more then a minimlal opening from pd for slam, f.e. Qxx, Kxxxx,x,AKQx. But I would surely bid on. I don´t know, wgat your methods after 3 Diamond are, but if 3 HEart is asking for chicane and Keycards and 3 Spade looks for controls, I would use that bid.

[Winstonm]

You do not hold the perfect hand - far from it - and you are missing a vital point in evaluation.

 

First, the perfect hand: the ideal is to find no wastage opposite shortness, thus the perfect hand for the 3D bid would be Kx, Axxxx, xxx, AJ10 - now all of you HCP are working in conjunction with partner's HCP. The thinking here is to find what is termed a "30-point deck". In other words, the points outside of the short suit consist of a total of thirty. If you have 27 combined, the most you can be off is 1 loser in the short suit and a missing king in the other 3 suits.

 

The vital point of evaluation: Aces lose some value when they are singleton or opposite shortness, as a primary strength of Aces is their supportive value. An Axx raises the value of partner's Qxx in the same suit, changing the possibility for 1 loser from almost no chance to a healthy 50%. That is supportive value.

 

Given the bidding, I would sign off in 4H. A hand like AQx, KQxxx, x, Qxxx would max out at 4H and there is no reason to believe partner has more.

 

Now take the same auction, same hand, and partner instead bids 3C, showing club shortness. Now AQx, KQxxx, Qxxx, x gives a 50% play for slam.

[inquiry]

[hv=s=skxha9xxxdaj10c9xx]133|100|1♥-2NT-3♦

 

"I obviously got a perfect hand opposite partners singleton/void diamond"

 

[/hv]

 

Actually you would have the perfect hand opposite a singleton/void in clubs. Opposite a void in diamonds your hand is worth a lot less, and even opposite a singleton diamond, you lose the wonderful value of the diamond JT (although you can ruff those).

 

Your hand is a minimum for GF, I rate the the diamond shortness as almost neutral with this hand, as I said, I would be estatic if partner had short clubs....

 

I will bid 3♥ here. I don't know if I want to move forward to slam, but I am not willing to bid 4♥ over 3♦ as I have to much useful values. Heck, even opposite some dirt minimums we have a play for slam, give parter Axxx Kxxxx x AJT slam is 75% chance (discounting 3-0 hearts).

 

As far as how to evaluate this hand, let me share one quantitative method if you desire to use some kind of calculated metric. This is the ZAR point method, using amongst other things, zar fit points and in some cases (like this one) Zar misfit points (which are a bad thing if you don't fit and are a good thing when you ahve a great fit). Here I will use ZAR misfit points (if you are really curious, you can see Zar bidding book). Here there is 2 to 3 zar misfit points in diamonds (you have 3D, he has 0 or 1, for a difference of 2 to 3). If partner has 4 spades, there is another difference of 2, if he has 4 C, there is a difference of 1 and a likely difference of 1 in spades as well. So the misfit points rates to be between 4 and 6. I will guess an average of 5. Since you have a superfit, you can add ZAR misfit points to your other ZAR pionts (but don't count otherwise fit points)... So your hand (according to ZAR) evaluates out as either...

 

Base ZAR count - 12 hcp, 5 Control points, 11 distributional points = 28 ZAR points. This is "two" more points than required to force to game opposite an opening bid.

 

After partner opens 1♥, you can add "Zar fit points" which on this hand includes 1 additional point for the doubleton spade and one for the heart ACE to raise the total to 30 ZAR points. Not bad. But when you read ZAR's book, he explains if you have a super fit (9 cards or more) you can use misfit points instead of normal fit points. Here instead of adding two points, ZAR would suggest you add from 4 to 6 points. So lets call it 28 + 4 = 32 ZAR points. I would, however, remove the point for the diamond JACK for obvious reasons -- although if you can ruff two spades in your hand, the diamond jack might be useful in squeeze endings).

 

So after raising hearts and hearing a 3♦ response, I would rate this hand as being worth 31 ZAR points, with 26 ZAR points needed to force to game, this rates to be roughly more than king and less than an ace more than minimum (kings are worth 4 zar points, Aces are worth 6). The hand becomes one, on value, worthy of playing at the five level opposite a minimum.

 

Zar suggest that 52 ZP needed for 4M and 62 ZP are needed for small slam with a fit. Partner has at least 26 to open, you have (with misfit points) 31, so your partner will need about about an ACE more than a minimum to have a play (note his not having the heart Queen in that ACE more than a minimum would be a good thing, as the queen rates to drop).

 

I would bid 3♥ and then see what he does. This is a good hand for Serious 3NT. If partner cue-bids 3♠, you can bid 4♦ to 1) deny serious slam ambition -- but within the context of your 3♥ versus a potential 4♥ bid, 2) as well as deny a club control. If your partner is minimum, even with a club control, he will sign off after this auction which issued a mild slam try. If he has extra values without a club control, he will also sign of (give him AQJ KQJxxxx void QJT for instance).

 

I generally do NOT do ZAR things at the table, but I do consider such things as pluses and minus when deciding what to do. I would have liked to have one more diamond and one less club when partner bid 3♦, as that would have increased the misfit points, and probably by two.. .one in diamonds, and one in a black suit. The 5332 is not as useful (duh) as a 5422. And if I had 3S and 4D with 1C, I would have been almost ready to roll out blackwood... such is the power of misfit points.

[kenrexford]

While your diamond holding is not increased in value by the stiff, it is also not a terrible feature like KJx. Signing off would suggested deep wastage.

 

On a different note, I think you and others are evaluating the hand too soon. I'm not sure why you would evaluate it at all at this point. We are not at any crossroads yet, unless there are negative inferences from untaken alternatives (like perhaps 4♣ not bid). Bid out the hand and see what develops.

 

A nice auction might be to cue 3♠, hopefully hearing 3NT from partner (if serious), and then cuebidding 4♦. Partner will now expect a top spade card, no top club card, and the diamond Ace. If partner has something like AQJx-KQxxx-x-Axx, and knows that you have a fourth heart, he will decide what to do relatively well.

 

In other words, whereas club shortness from partner might cause you to evaluate, diamond shortness suggests that you tell and let partner evaluate, especially when you can tell the tale better than evaluate with this ambiguous information.

[firmit]

As far as how to evaluate this hand, let me share one quantitative method if you desire to use some kind of calculated metric. This is the ZAR point method, using amongst other things, zar fit points and in some cases (like this one) Zar misfit points (which are a bad thing if you don't fit and are a good thing when you ahve a great fit).

I have actually been reading the theories of Zar Points - and I am finding it intriguing. I am looking for a well defined system, though, taking the approach the author suggests: 1C and 1D opening as strong. However, my search is being prevented by other pressing matters, so ... But, I will continue my search.

[firmit]

[hv=d=w&v=n&w=sjxxxhqjxxxdcakjx&e=skxha9xxxdaj10c9xx]266|100|Scoring: IMP

Small ♣ from N[/hv]

 

Right or wrong, I went on bidding 3♠.

 

1♥-2NT

3♦-3♠

4♣-4♦

4NT-5♥

6♥-p

 

4♣ cue-bid minimum, whilst 3NT would be serious slam interest. I guess it was my 4♦ that convinced my partner...?

 

Slam found and made, as the only table. ;) Mostly because the K of ♥ was single in north together with the 3-3 break in clubs, which meant I did not have to rely on the Ace of ♠ in N. The lead was in my favour. A small spade might have made me go buy a coffin.

 

Partner has a minimum and maybe I do too. I may have upgraded a bit to much - but as several of the post has mentioned, a bare minimum may be enough. I am interested in finding out how to re-evaluate my hand correctly during the auction. It is not much fun to have overbid and made, merely to hear a sarcastic note of how ridiculous it is finding slam on the given deal. I have a feeling it backfires more than it gives profits too....

 

Should I have signed off in 4♥ after partner's 4♣ bid which denied serious slam interest (=3NT)?

[Apollo81]

Should I have signed off in 4♥ after partner's 4♣ bid which denied serious slam interest (=3NT)?

Yes. Your hand is clearly worth at most 1 try for slam after partner's 3♦ bid.

[cherdano]

I dunno about 4♦, but if that was a cue, then partner has no business bidding 4N (nor bidding 6♥ over 5♥).

[ArcLight]

Try reading Mike Lawrnces "Complete Book of Hand Evaluation"

He discusses issues like this in great depth. The book is excellent.

[kenrexford]

This is a deal where some understandings will help, and it seems that you had quite a decent start but lost track at the critical point.

 

When partner bid 4♣, he showed non-serious interest. This alone should persuade a 4♥ call.

 

Beyond that, it seems to be a good idea to have some agreement as to a Last Train to Clarksville bid, which would also help here, negatively. I assume that you know that a LTTC bid is a cue of the last suit below our agreed fit at the game level, showing general uncertainty but pushing (poor definition, but a vague conept to define). If LTTC was in use here, 4♦ would not be a "cue" in the sense of showing the diamond Ace, but rather a push asking for "more stuff." Partner's void and semi-solid clubs, in light of his non-serious route, would certainly be enough. So, 4♦ would encourage him to bid like the remainder of the auction.

 

This may seem inconsistent with my prior suggestion that you cue 4♦ after a serious 3NT from partner. There is a major difference between these two auctions, however, at least by the agreement I like. The "rule" that I use is that the one-under cue is LTTC if made by the person who bid serious 3NT or if made by the person whose partner bypassed 3NT. If partner bid 3NT, however, the one-under cue is legitimate if it could be legitimate.

 

This works in this case. Had partner bid a serious 3NT, you would cue 4♦ to show a diamond control (that is useful opposite a known stiff, meaning first-round). However, when partner bypassed 3NT to make a non-serious 4♣ cue, you are presumed the "serious" partner if you make another slam move. Accordingly, in the latter case, your 4♦ call would be LTTC.

 

Of course, if you do not use LTTC, or if this technique of differentiating LTTC from legoit cues is not your style, then this is merely a suggestion to consider for the next deals that come up.

[Winstonm]

One major problem with 2N as a forcing raise requesting shortness is that most players only have 2 methods for responder, cue or bid game. It seems to me 3 bids are needed to show 1) a very good fit, 2) a decent fit, and 3) a poor fit.

 

I think a reasonable solution is to bid 3 of the agreed major as a very good fit, cue bid with a decent fit, and bid game with a poor fit.

[mike777]

I am currently devoting a lot of time in re-evaluating my hands after partners bid. This field is subject to many views. However, I would like to get a feedback on my own re-evaluation and upgrade "form".

 

A sample hand. I hold

♠ Kx

♥ A9xxx

♦ AJ10

♣ 9xx

 

Playing 4 card majors. 2NT GF asking for shortness. First/second cuebid, 0314.

 

1♥ - 2NT

Guess not many object to this. Got one comment on 3♠ Trelde, but that is not apart of our system.

3♦* now my first really evaluation begins. A lot of posts just state "a good 9 count" etc, without more elaboration. On this hand, I would like to know how people would proceed after the given auction:

 

1♥-2NT-3♦.

 

I obviously got a perfect hand opposite partners singleton/void diamond. At this point my normal 12 hp count is re-evaluated to a apprx. 4 loosers: My ♥A+length gives me extra points = +2hp. My ♦J10 seems worthless, but my A is crucial. And together with ♠K I would say my hand is worth 15-16hp. Given partner has showed a distributional hand, my slam progress towards slam should be evaluated, no?

 

Please, comment on hand evaluation. How do you evaluate your hand after partner's bids?

Pass in first or second seat. That was the question yes?

 

Lets see if partner can opening the bidding in third or 4th chair?

[Echognome]

This is a deal where some understandings will help, and it seems that you had quite a decent start but lost track at the critical point.

 

When partner bid 4♣, he showed non-serious interest. This alone should persuade a 4♥ call.

If we agree with your first statement, how can we agree with your second?

 

That is to say, how can you tell them they should have better agreements and then assume they do?!

 

In several of my partnerships, partner's 4♣ would show the serious slam interest and 3NT would have been frivolous. How do you know that's not what they were playing and West was off his rocker?

 

In an unrelated comment, Richard Pavlicek stated in one of his polls that Jacoby 2NT is one of the worst conventions made because it has the closed hand showing shortness, thus mapping out the defense to the defenders. Anyone have thoughts on this or a better idea? Maybe opener can show min hand, extras with undisclosed shortness, or extras without shortness, along with the usual extras with good side suits. OR, maybe opener can show a max hand GF which probes responder to describe more, or a min hand with no shortness or a min hand with undisclosed shortness, etc.

[goobers]

In an unrelated comment, Richard Pavlicek stated in one of his polls that Jacoby 2NT is one of the worst conventions made because it has the closed hand showing shortness, thus mapping out the defense to the defenders.  Anyone have thoughts on this or a better idea?  Maybe opener can show min hand, extras with undisclosed shortness, or extras without shortness, along with the usual extras with good side suits.  OR, maybe opener can show a max hand GF which probes responder to describe more, or a min hand with no shortness or a min hand with undisclosed shortness, etc.

 

I think the goal is to get responder to describe his hand, and not for opener to describe it while still attempting to conceal it from the defense. Splinter is a prime example.

[mike777]

Funny enough if you pass, this hand becomes the responder hand. :) Still a tough deal to bid.

[kenrexford]

This is a deal where some understandings will help, and it seems that you had quite a decent start but lost track at the critical point.

 

When partner bid 4♣, he showed non-serious interest.  This alone should persuade a 4♥ call.

If we agree with your first statement, how can we agree with your second?

 

That is to say, how can you tell them they should have better agreements and then assume they do?!

 

In several of my partnerships, partner's 4♣ would show the serious slam interest and 3NT would have been frivolous. How do you know that's not what they were playing and West was off his rocker?

 

In an unrelated comment, Richard Pavlicek stated in one of his polls that Jacoby 2NT is one of the worst conventions made because it has the closed hand showing shortness, thus mapping out the defense to the defenders. Anyone have thoughts on this or a better idea? Maybe opener can show min hand, extras with undisclosed shortness, or extras without shortness, along with the usual extras with good side suits. OR, maybe opener can show a max hand GF which probes responder to describe more, or a min hand with no shortness or a min hand with undisclosed shortness, etc.

The original poster noted that the partnership uses serious 3NT and that therefore 4♣ was weakish. From this, I gleaned that the partnership uses serious 3NT and that therefore 4♣ was weakish. I know, it might have been a leap, but it seemed to me a fair assumption. :)