Level? Strain?

[jtfanclub]

Why didn't i pass 3♥?

 

Surely this is non-forcing.

I have never heard of any method which uses 3♥ NF.

At Nationals a few years back, I was playing that in this auction the 3 bid was NF by specific agreement. I was told that that was absolutely alertable.

[pclayton]

Why didn't i pass 3♥?

 

Surely this is non-forcing.

I have never heard of any method which uses 3♥ NF.

 

On the actual hand I bid 5♦. I don't think the hand is good enough to bid 5♣.

You probably haven't seen an 8-track either :P

 

3♥ was commonly played as non-forcing a long time ago, before Lebensohl became popular. You doubled with many GF type hands.

 

But like the 8-track, 3♥ as NF became extinct as better methods became more popular.

 

Maybe in 40 years we will look back at a natural 3♥ call with amusement and wonder why everyone didn't play transfers here :)

[cherdano]

What does Lebensohl have to do with this auction?

 

I guess X = takeout, 3-level = transfers (3S = diamond) would make sense here. Gains big with weakish major one-suiters, loses big with diamonds.

[pclayton]

What does Lebensohl have to do with this auction?

 

I guess X = takeout, 3-level = transfers (3S = diamond) would make sense here. Gains big with weakish major one-suiters, loses big with diamonds.

It doesn't specifically. But 3H was non-forcing.

[han]

Don't know if it loses big with diamonds Arend, it loses but not big. Definitely think we should play transfers here.

[Lobowolf]

You hold KQT Qx Qxxx AKxx at imps. The auction starting with you goes:

1N 3C 3H p

3N p 4D p

?

Your 1N was 15-17. What do you do now?

IMO 4♥ = 10, 4N = 9, 5♦ = 8, 5♣ = 5, 4♠ = 4, _P = 3

The hand is poor in context.

I disagree that the hand is poor in context. We have 6 1/2 losers out of context, which is about average (1NT openers tend to be either 6 or 7 loser hands), but given partner's all-red bidding, it's hard to seriously consider Qx Qxxx as 4 1/2 losers. We also have fast tricks in partner's short suits, and slow fitting honors in his long suits. If partner doesn't have slam interest, he's just going to bid 5♦ anyway, and no harm, no foul; if he does have slam interest, this hand shouldn't disappoint him, and what he may most want to know about is control of the suit they're bidding. I don't think we need the perfect (or even a great) hand to cuebid below the game level here. This hand is pretty good.

[han]

Yet another demonstration that loser counters can't bid.

[mikeh]

Tough call.

 

I have relatively few controls, and 75% of my strength is in partner's short suits, all of which argue for conservatism via 4N.

 

But I have a hand that is superb opposite, say, xx AKxxx AKxxx x, and I don't think he can bid over 4N... maybe I hold KQJx Qx Jxx AQ9x... that's what a 4N bid would look like.

 

Raising to 5♦ is a little more encouraging, but if he has a stiff club, and I don't cuebid 5♣, he may be concerned about a club out to LHO's Ace and a club back, promoting a trump trick on many layouts, even when the rest of the hand is slam suitable.

 

So I choose the slight overbid of 5♣... I would expect partner to let me off gently with xx AKxxx AJ10xx x as an example... note that on the auction, he probably doesn't want to be in slam on that layout even opposite KQx Qx Kxxx AKxx.

 

Finally, for all those choosing a more conservative call, please make it in tempo... if you tank and partner has a close call towards slam, you may be in committee trouble if he moves again. This, of course, is a real problem philosophically, since very few of us could choose our call here without breaking tempo.

[Lobowolf]

Yet another demonstration that loser counters can't bid.

Ron Klinger called; his offer for your to provide a quotation for his next back cover has been rescinded.

[Echognome]

[sOAPBOX]

The big problem with losing trick count, high card count, or whatever count is that it's a static evaluation of a dynamic problem. You come up with a "value" for your hand based on some measure and consider your hand in isolation of everything else that is going on. You then assign a guess of a similar measure from your partner based on what you have heard thus far and then think this is a good tool to examine the combined value of the two hands?

 

Why not just consider the problem more fluidly. You can consider things like:

 

Honor location

Fitting values

Extra trump length

Useful shortness

Offensive vs defensive holdings

etc.

 

Notice that when the good bidders give reasons for their choices, they are based on knowledge from the entire auction (including opponents) as well as how their hand has increased in value or decreased in value based on the auction.

 

Can you tell me how losing trick count increases in value or decreases in value based on the auction? If not, then how can we possibly consider it a useful guide for bidding decisions?

[/sOAPBOX]

[Lobowolf]

[sOAPBOX]

The big problem with losing trick count, high card count, or whatever count is that it's a static evaluation of a dynamic problem. You come up with a "value" for your hand based on some measure and consider your hand in isolation of everything else that is going on. You then assign a guess of a similar measure from your partner based on what you have heard thus far and then think this is a good tool to examine the combined value of the two hands?

 

Why not just consider the problem more fluidly. You can consider things like:

 

Honor location

Fitting values

Extra trump length

Useful shortness

Offensive vs defensive holdings

etc.

 

Notice that when the good bidders give reasons for their choices, they are based on knowledge from the entire auction (including opponents) as well as how their hand has increased in value or decreased in value based on the auction.

 

Can you tell me how losing trick count increases in value or decreases in value based on the auction? If not, then how can we possibly consider it a useful guide for bidding decisions?

[/sOAPBOX]

I agree completely, which is why in my post LTC was merely a basic starting point. I contextualized my evaluation with reference to partner's bidding (making it likely that my red suit holdings weren't full of the losers as they would be in isolation), the opponents' bidding (partner's potential concern about the club suit), and the potential "in and out" (as Jeff Rubens would say) benefit of having slow honors in partner's suits and fast honors outside it.

[ArtK78]

My two cents.

 

Losing trick count hand evaluation is a better method than high-card points in evaluating the trick taking potential of unbalanced hands for suit play.

 

There seem to be two very different versions of losing trick count hand evaluation. The one that seems to be more well known is a method of taking the number of losers in your hand and adding the number of losers presumed to be in partner's hand from his bidding, and subtracting the result from some number to arrive at the appropriate level. I apologize if I am not presenting this method correctly, because I have never understood it and I have never figured out why it would work.

 

The other method, which I am familiar with, is the method that was presented in some of the early Romex books written by George Rosenkranz. I refer to this as the Modified Losing Trick Count (MLTC). Opener evaluates his hand by standard loser trick method - in each suit of 3 cards or longer, there are up to 3 losers. You reduce the number by 1 for each Ace, King and Queen of the suit held. So, AKx(xxx), AQx(xxx) and KQx(xxx) would each be one loser suits, Axx(xxx), Kxx(xxx) and Qxx(xxx) would each be two loser suits, and so on. If there are 2 cards in a suit, there are no more than 2 losers, and you reduce the number by one for each of the A or K held. A one card suit is one loser unless it is the singleton Ace (no losers). And a void, obviously, is no losers.

 

A seven loser hand is a typical minimum opening. A six loser hand is a good opening. A five loser hand is a maximum opening. A four loser hand is a near 2C game forcing opening - good enough to force to game over any response. A three loser hand is a game forcing 2C opening.

 

The difference between this method and the more common method is that responder evaluates his hand by cover cards, not losers. Opener bids his hand and responder determines which of his Aces, Kings and Queens are opposite long enough suits in opener's hand to cover opener's losers. The same can be said about short suits when adequate trump are held, but you have to be careful to avoid duplication of values.

 

If the partnership values their holdings properly, using the MLTC method of hand evaluation can prove to be far more accurate than high card points and most other methods of hand evaluation.

 

High card points tend to be reasonably accurate when a balanced hand faces a balanced hand.

[han]

Still think I hit the nail right on the edge with my comment. Or something like that.

[ASkolnick]

No, ArtK. Those are the same methods. The difference is the combining of the two hands:

 

Method 2: Use LTC to determine LTC in hand.

Method 1: To figure out the level of contract, it is (24-MLTC). So with

 

11 Losers combined (Grand Slam)

12 Losers (Small Slam)

13 Losers (Minor suit Game)

 

 

The only difference is you can think about it from the response side as well.

 

9 losers Simple Raise

8 losers Invitational

7 losers Game Plus.

 

But you still need to know slow cards covering length are better than slow cards covering shortness.

 

Qxx is not good opposite x, but Axx is good opposite x even though they are the same loser count. At least the principle of the ZARS takes this type of information into account.

[han]

Listen to lobowolf's argument:

 

I have a 6-loser hand. However, 4 of my losers are in partner's suits so he will cover most of these.

 

That's one of the most backwards arguments I have read this year and because I'm so polite I blame loser count for it.

[Lobowolf]

Listen to lobowolf's argument:

 

I have a 6-loser hand. However, 4 of my losers are in partner's suits so he will cover most of these.

 

That's one of the most backwards arguments I have read this year and because I'm so polite I blame loser count for it.

That analysis (sic) addresses only a portion of my argument, and it bears a passing resemblance, at best, to what I was saying. At the risk of being understood, I'll clarify.

 

Losing trick count characterizes Qx as a 2-loser suit, the same as xx; it characterizes Qxxx as almost as bad as xxx, 2 1/2 losers.

 

However, when partner has length in suits where we have a queen, and partner has a good hand, it becomes more probable than the Q will in fact be a useful card, and thus losing trick count makes our hand seem worse than it is. Putting our red suits up against some of the relevant hands for partner (partner has a hand worth at least considering 6♦), as, for instance, the hands posted by Phil, MikeH, and others, make this point by specific example, as opposed to the general terms I was using, but it's the same point.

 

My point is nothing remotely like "partner will cover most of my losers."

 

Part of my point (the part about the red suits) is: "Because partner has strength, and length in the suits where I have Qx(xx), my hand is better than LTC would suggest."

[MFA]

[sOAPBOX]

The big problem with losing trick count, high card count, or whatever count is that it's a static evaluation of a dynamic problem.  You come up with a "value" for your hand based on some measure and consider your hand in isolation of everything else that is going on.  You then assign a guess of a similar measure from your partner based on what you have heard thus far and then think this is a good tool to examine the combined value of the two hands?

 

Why not just consider the problem more fluidly.  You can consider things like:

 

Honor location

Fitting values

Extra trump length

Useful shortness

Offensive vs defensive holdings

etc.

 

Notice that when the good bidders give reasons for their choices, they are based on knowledge from the entire auction (including opponents) as well as how their hand has increased in value or decreased in value based on the auction.

 

Can you tell me how losing trick count increases in value or decreases in value based on the auction?  If not, then how can we possibly consider it a useful guide for bidding decisions?

[/sOAPBOX]

I agree completely, which is why in my post LTC was merely a basic starting point. I contextualized my evaluation with reference to partner's bidding (making it likely that my red suit holdings weren't full of the losers as they would be in isolation), the opponents' bidding (partner's potential concern about the club suit), and the potential "in and out" (as Jeff Rubens would say) benefit of having slow honors in partner's suits and fast honors outside it.

Are you considering that ♠KQT and ♣AK is less than ideal opposite 0-3 black cards? We have a lot wasted there, and at the same time only mediocre fit for partner.

[mike777]

Good problem

 

Here is one email response:

 

 

"I decided to bid 5D (not cue bidding) before reading edit’s comments. My reasoning is that I am not concerned about black suit controls. Most of my strength is outside of partner’s suits…partner will know I am 2-4 in the reds, and he knows my strength. I agree that 4S and 5C are cues for diamonds and could work – I think those bids work BETTER if I actually did NOT control the other black suit and had more stuff in the RED suits…..so when I do bid 5D, I either control both or neither black suit, and trust partner to figure which way it is, based upon the 13 cards he is intently peering upon."

[Lobowolf]

Are you considering that ♠KQT and ♣AK is less than ideal opposite 0-3 black cards? We have a lot wasted there, and at the same time only mediocre fit for partner.

Definitely agree that it's less than ideal; I just think it's enough for a cue below the game level, particularly given the opponents' having bid clubs, and therefore that on some of the hands on which 6♦ is correct, partner won't move over 5♦ due to concerns about that suit.

 

Part of the question is where you fall on the cuebids-below-game continuum -- On one end, they can suggest a hand that REALLY looks good for slam; on the other end, you can take the position that you're going to 5♦ anyway, and as long as your hand doesn't look quite UNsuitable for slam, you should use the room to show partner a holding that might help him with his possible decision on whether to go farther.

[cherdano]

I still think the cuebidders are fooling themselves since it is so easy to construct hands where slam is good. There are just too many hands where partner should go to slam where it has no play. Ax AJxxx Axxxx x makes for a decent slam opposite xxxx Kx Qxxx AKx, how could that hand not bid slam opposite a cooperating strong NT? We have only one keycard, much less than partner can expect.

[benlessard]

I think our hand isnt worth a move, KQx is spades is ugly. If i bid 5C (denying the S A) he will know that ive got some soft wasted S values. But on this hand its so likely that ive got 5 wasted pts. Plus if i bid 5D he will know that ive got 4D and 2H.

 

With

 

AKxxx

AKxxx

 

in the red

 

partner will bid slam anyway.

[paulg]

I think our hand isnt worth a move, KQx is spades is ugly. If i bid 5C (denying the S A) he will know that ive got some soft wasted S values. But on this hand its so likely that ive got 5 wasted pts.  Plus if i bid 5D he will know that ive got 4D and 2H.

 

With

 

AKxxx

AKxxx

 

in the red

 

partner will bid slam anyway.

I thought that one of the challenges on this problem is that partner will not bid slam with this hand unless you do something other than bid 5♦. Not that it stopped me making the same bid.

 

Paul

[Lobowolf]

I think our hand isnt worth a move, KQx is spades is ugly. If i bid 5C (denying the S A) he will know that ive got some soft wasted S values. But on this hand its so likely that ive got 5 wasted pts.  Plus if i bid 5D he will know that ive got 4D and 2H.

 

With

 

AKxxx

AKxxx

 

in the red

 

partner will bid slam anyway.

I thought that one of the challenges on this problem is that partner will not bid slam with this hand unless you do something other than bid 5♦. Not that it stopped me making the same bid.

 

Paul

I think part of the question is certainly, "Will he bid it anyway over 5♦ if 2 of his black cards are clubs?"

[mikeh]

I think our hand isnt worth a move, KQx is spades is ugly. If i bid 5C (denying the S A) he will know that ive got some soft wasted S values. But on this hand its so likely that ive got 5 wasted pts.  Plus if i bid 5D he will know that ive got 4D and 2H.

 

With

 

AKxxx

AKxxx

 

in the red

 

partner will bid slam anyway.

Why will he bid slam?

 

Even with 2=5=5=1, how can he know that we are not AKQx xx Jxxx KQx? Is this a good slam? No.

 

Or we may be AKx Qx Qxxx KQxx... is this a good slam? It would be, if it weren't for the auction, which tells us that RHO is leading his stiff club and we are now down when trump are (are we surprised?) 3-1.

 

And if he is 1=5=5=2, he is NEVER bidding over 5♦, even with x AKJxx AKJxx xx, since he can see how they rate to beat him in clubs. After all, we could have and should have bid 5♣ if we had a slam-suitable holding opposite AKxxx AKxxx.

 

Frankly, if any partner of mine raised 5♦ to slam opposite these raises, I would seriously question his ability.

[han]

If we do not cuebid then that doesn't mean that we necessarily have the worst possible hand in the history of bridge. Partner is still allowed to bid slam if he thinks that slam will make opposite most hands that would bid 5D.

 

Yes, we might get to some poor slams if partner bids this way, but we will get to more poor slams if we cuebid 5C with this hand as well as much better hands. How is partner supposed to know that we have so little help in the red suits?

 

I think this is the right approach: with the very best hands we drive to slam, say with the top 20%. With the middle 35%-80% we cuebid and leave it up to partner. With worse (10%-35%) hands we bid 5D, allowing partner to still bid 6D if that seems with the odds.

 

Of course, with the very worst hands for diamonds we'll be bidding 4NT, not 5D.

 

It is easy to construct a combination of hands where this approach will get us overboard or will make us miss a slam, but that doesn't mean it isn't right. I think this hand falls into the 5D category.

 

Partner had AJx J109xx AKJxx - in case someone is interested.