Echognome Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 ♠AKJxxx♥xx♦xx♣xxx Playing a fairly standard 2/1 partner opens 1♦ and you respond 1♠. He rebids 2♠ and now it's back over to you. Pick your choice among the different poll options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 Poll is omitted. I know the hand and I'm already on record for 4♠. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted July 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 Poll is omitted. I know the hand and I'm already on record for 4♠. Took me >1 minute to add a poll. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 I like to play that 2N asks partner to bid the cheapest suit in which he would not accept a short suit game-try, so that bids by me of 3 suit, instead of 2N, are hsgt's. However, none of this science helps at all B) LTC certainly rules out a pass: while AKJxxx is not a no-loser suit initially, it seems reasonable to consider it such after the raise, so we have a LTC of 7. Partner's minimum opening should also approximate to a LTC of 7, for a combined LTC of 14 which, when subtracted from 24, leaves us with an expectation of 10 tricks. At mps, I'd swing low, because I am not convinced that game is more likely than not, but I think it is close enough that I will bid it at imps, even if not vulnerable.. if only because I think aggression in game bidding is simply a better overall strategy at imps than at mps. Since I don't have a gametry that fits this hand, and any gt I made up might help the opps more than our side, I will blast at imps and pass at mps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 I would bid 2N, asking for trump length and min/max. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 I like these 3S bids as semi preemptive, I'm telling pard that I have extra trump length and just a little more than what I have promised. He can raise if he want, but he will not usually do so. From the listed option I will try 2NT "ogust" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 I like 3♠ invitational, or some sort of asking game try as opposed to a descriptive game try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 I would bid 3♠ opposite most of my partners. I think this depends a bit on style; in particular: (1) Does 2♠ from opener always promise four cards or a side singleton, or is it often bid on three card spades and a balanced hand? (2) How aggressively does partner jump-raise spades with four spades and a singleton but fairly minimum values? In most of my partnerships we raise 1♠ to 2♠ quite frequently on three cards and a balanced hand, and we are pretty aggressive in making jump raises with hands with side singletons and four trumps, so I think the more passive approach of 3♠ (or even pass at MP scoring) makes a lot more sense. Opposite a partner whose 2♠ rebid is almost always four cards and who doesn't jump raise unless his hand is worth 18-19 in support, the more aggressive path of bidding 4♠ (maybe 3♠ at MP) is much more reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 This is an obv 4S to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 I like to play that 2N asks partner to bid the cheapest suit in which he would not accept a short suit game-try, so that bids by me of 3 suit, instead of 2N, are hsgt's. However, none of this science helps at all :P LTC certainly rules out a pass: while AKJxxx is not a no-loser suit initially, it seems reasonable to consider it such after the raise, so we have a LTC of 7. Partner's minimum opening should also approximate to a LTC of 7, for a combined LTC of 14 which, when subtracted from 24, leaves us with an expectation of 10 tricks. At mps, I'd swing low, because I am not convinced that game is more likely than not, but I think it is close enough that I will bid it at imps, even if not vulnerable.. if only because I think aggression in game bidding is simply a better overall strategy at imps than at mps. Since I don't have a gametry that fits this hand, and any gt I made up might help the opps more than our side, I will blast at imps and pass at mps. Isn't there a flaw in that losing trick count argument. Partner's 7 losers might include Qxxx which we have now double counted. In fact partner is odds on to have the queen if he has four trumps and probably a favourite with three cards since he might have chosen some other action with values in other suits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Isn't there a flaw in that losing trick count argument. Partner's 7 losers might include Qxxx which we have now double counted. How have we done that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 4s, game try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Isn't there a flaw in that losing trick count argument. Partner's 7 losers might include Qxxx which we have now double counted. How have we done that? We are counting AKJxxx as a no loser suit so that we have 7 losers. Then we are counting partner's presumed seven losers with or without the ♠Q to determine whether or not we have enough for game. If partner has ♠Q then that is fewer values and hence cover cards outside trumps that he is likely to have. If we count 7 losers outside trumps then it seems better to think in terms of partner's cover cards. We have nothing so we need partner to cover four of our seven losers outside trumps. This seems a lot to expect a possible minimum weak NT hand to cover. Even more when we consider that partner is a favourite to have the nearly useless ♠Q. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchiu Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Never seen this hand before, but 4♠ wtp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossoneri Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 I am a simple person: 4♠ it is for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 I kinda wanna bid 3NT. But not in real life. In real life I just make some sort of general game try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Qxxx is 2 1/2 losers. It's also, given we have the suit, one cover card. But the re-evaluation of responder's hand from 8 losers to 7, once opener raises, is based on opener presumably holding 4 trumps. Whether he has the queen or not is not relevant to that. On the basis of the LTC, then, one might jump to 4♠, considering that the LTC says we have a decent chance (not a certainty!) of making ten tricks. OTOH, as responder I would look at my cover cards: I have 3 (the ♠AK and the two doubletons) and if partner has 7 losers, I can't cover enough to make 4 a good bid. So I'll bid 3♣ (long suit trial in clubs). OTGH, opener's bidding suggests he has 3 cover cards, again not enough for game. Maybe passing (or 3♠ to play/preemptive) is the right move. IMO, LTC + Cover Cards is more accurate than LTC alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Qxxx is 2 1/2 losers. It's also, given we have the suit, one cover card. But the re-evaluation of responder's hand from 8 losers to 7, once opener raises, is based on opener presumably holding 4 trumps. Whether he has the queen or not is not relevant to that. On the basis of the LTC, then, one might jump to 4♠, considering that the LTC says we have a decent chance (not a certainty!) of making ten tricks. OTOH, as responder I would look at my cover cards: I have 3 (the ♠AK and the two doubletons) and if partner has 7 losers, I can't cover enough to make 4 a good bid. So I'll bid 3♣ (long suit trial in clubs). OTGH, opener's bidding suggests he has 3 cover cards, again not enough for game. Maybe passing (or 3♠ to play/preemptive) is the right move. IMO, LTC + Cover Cards is more accurate than LTC alone. In terms of cover cards the problems are: 1. ♠ AKxxxx might be three cover cards 2. A doubleton might or might not cover a loser. There is a decent chance that if partner is 4-4-3-2 that one of our doubletons coincides with partner's doubleton - a certainty if partner turns out to be 5-4-2-2 or that the doubleton is opposite something partner is also not counting as a loser like KQx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 No system is perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Isn't there a flaw in that losing trick count argument. Isn't there a flaw in all Losing Trick Count arguments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Does anybody think it is a good idea to try for 3NT from partner's side? Does anybody have a method to do so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Does anybody think it is a good idea to try for 3NT from partner's side? Does anybody have a method to do so? Yes and no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dake50 Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 For me, 3S asks for primes: A/K(primes) not Q/J(quacks) needed, so 3S. Expect 3 primes to go 4S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 3♠ blame transfer4♠ maybe, its a tough one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Isn't there a flaw in that losing trick count argument. Isn't there a flaw in all Losing Trick Count arguments? When playing with a partner who was a strong advocate of LTC I discovered the major advantage of this system of evaluation. After making a poor bid which resulted in a failing contract or a missed game I could say something like ... "I had to bid this way I had 8 losers" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.