How many hearts (Acol style)

[mr1303]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=saxxxhaxxxdxxcjxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Partner opens 1H which could be a 4 card suit, and we play a weak (12-14) NT.

 

You don't play any sort of Bergen raises, so you have the choice of bidding 2H or 3H.

 

Which is it to be?

[plaur]

3♥ limit raise. Two fine Aces and a little distribution.

[P_Marlowe]

Playing Acol, I would bid 1S.

 

The bid buys me time, maybe after partner makes

another bid, I can make a more informed decision.

 

If partner opened 1S, I would go with 2S, the hand

is not worth a limit raise.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[paulg]

I seem to have 9 losers and, therefore, a simple 2♥ bid.

 

Paul

[Orla]

You have 9HCP and that doubleton.

 

I bid 2♥. If P invites, I go the 4.

 

I would not bid 1♠.

 

I think bidding 3♥ you should have 5 hearts. (I bid 3♥ if I am playing 5-card majors promising 9 hearts between us)

[TMorris]

Agree with Paul, 9 losers = 2 hearts. Maximums are allowed

[david_c]

Clear 3♥.

[gwnn]

Well just to keep up the "clear xH" tendency,

 

clear 3H.

 

(partner has 5 hearts if he does not have extras)

[han]

Does the loser count rule also apply to Axx Axxx Axx xxx? Just wondering how far you guys will carry this nonsense.

 

I would bid 2H with the original hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Does the loser count rule also apply to Axx Axxx Axx xxx? Just wondering how far you guys will carry this nonsense.

 

I would bid 2H with the original hand.

Sure, but with this hand you are better of counting

cover cards ...

 

You may of course think the hand worth a game

force, using cover cards, the LTC will value the

hand worth a limit raise, but one may or may not

bid game, depending on opening style ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[MickyB]

3♥ is clear, 2♥ shows a poor hand playing Acol because it will get passed by balanced 16-counts.

 

Bidding 1♠ is ridiculous, pard will never expect so many trumps from you.

[the hog]

2H is totally obvious. 9 loser hand.

[jikl]

2♥ for me, if partner can't move then we may not make 3♥. He/She has ample game suit tries at their disposal below 3♥ if they want to explore game.

 

Sean

[mr1303]

Glad to see it wasn't clearcut. I bid 3H and partner went to slam. She went 2 off and then had a go at me for raising to the 3 level with "a 9 loser hand".

 

I don't remember her hand unfortunately, but I remember not being a fan of the losing trick count.

[the hog]

"She went 2 off and then had a go at me for raising to the 3 level with "a 9 loser hand". "

 

Quite right too.

[NickRW]

Glad to see it wasn't clearcut. I bid 3H and partner went to slam. She went 2 off and then had a go at me for raising to the 3 level with "a 9 loser hand".

 

I don't remember her hand unfortunately, but I remember not being a fan of the losing trick count.

It's the sort of hand where you're going to be wrong sometimes whichever option you choose. At MP, maybe the more conservative option is best.

 

Nick

[han]

Mr1303, you know enough about bridge to know that someone who values Axxx, Kxxx and Qxxx equally shouldn't be taken seriously.

[effervesce]

3♥. Aces are undervalued, and you have 4 card support. The hand has an amazing 24 ZAR-2♥ may work out, but is too pessimistic for me.

[1eyedjack]

Glad to see it wasn't clearcut. I bid 3H and partner went to slam. She went 2 off and then had a go at me for raising to the 3 level with "a 9 loser hand".

 

I don't remember her hand unfortunately, but I remember not being a fan of the losing trick count.

Usually opener can make a slam try without forcing beyond game. If your partner drove to slam via Bwood purely on the strength of the 3H raise then I suspect opener should shoulder some of the blame. Difficult to say without the hand.

[NickRW]

3♥. Aces are undervalued,  and you have 4 card support. The hand has an amazing 24 ZAR-2♥ may work out, but is too pessimistic for me.

23 Zars - unless you're relying on opener having 5♥s and counting a bonus for an extra trump - but Acol players sometimes open minimum 4=4=4=1 shapes with 1♥ - unlikely of course, but possible. But, whatever, even at 23 Zars it is definitely pushing into the 3♥ response range.

 

The thing that makes me feel slightly conservative is that hands with relatively high loser counts like this one are usually better off having the aces in the side suits and the quacks in partner's suit(s) where we know they will be useful. I'd be a whole lot happier with

 

♠Axxx

♥Jxxx

♦xx

♣Axx

 

Alternatively I'd also be happier with a 3♥ call if we were vul at imps where pushing for the game pays real dividends.

 

I suppose this would be a good one to run a sim on, but I can't be bothered just now.

 

Nick

[ASkolnick]

Everyone keeps talking about LTC. But even in LTC, there is an adjustment which says if your hand is all Aces, deduct one loser, If queens, add 1 loser. So, this is really an 8 loser hand, not a 9 loser hand. As ffor slam being off 2, without partner's hand, the fact that you held a "minimum" limit raise doesn't mean you should be in slam. If he/she needed more info, you can always ask.

 

As for LTC(with adjustments for Q's and A's) and Zar Count, I find they tend to be close enough that most of the time they tend to the same answer. But either of these methods are much better calculator's then HCP alone.

[effervesce]

3♥. Aces are undervalued,  and you have 4 card support. The hand has an amazing 24 ZAR-2♥ may work out, but is too pessimistic for me.

23 Zars - unless you're relying on opener having 5♥s and counting a bonus for an extra trump - but Acol players sometimes open minimum 4=4=4=1 shapes with 1♥ - unlikely of course, but possible. But, whatever, even at 23 Zars it is definitely pushing into the 3♥ response range.

 

The thing that makes me feel slightly conservative is that hands with relatively high loser counts like this one are usually better off having the aces in the side suits and the quacks in partner's suit(s) where we know they will be useful. I'd be a whole lot happier with

 

♠Axxx

♥Jxxx

♦xx

♣Axx

 

Alternatively I'd also be happier with a 3♥ call if we were vul at imps where pushing for the game pays real dividends.

 

I suppose this would be a good one to run a sim on, but I can't be bothered just now.

 

Nick

You get +1 ZAR for each honor in partner's suits up to a max bonus of 2 per suit. Thus it is 24 ZAR.

[thebiker]

Playing Acol, I would bid 1S.

 

The bid buys me time, maybe after partner makes

another bid, I can make a more informed decision.

 

If partner opened 1S, I would go with 2S, the hand

is not worth a limit raise.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

I cannot see how responding 1S helps when playing an Acol style system

 

If partner rebids a minor you still have the same problem

 

Partner rebids 1NT, rasing hearts only shows 3 hearts , and jumping directly to game now historically shows a good hand, a delayed game raise.

Ditto if pard rebids 2NT

 

Acol works best by making limit bids, if you don't raise hearts immediately then you deny four hearts or end up promising a big hand that you havent got

 

 

regards

 

Brian Keable

alias thebiker

[NickRW]

You get +1 ZAR for each honor in partner's suits up to a max bonus of 2 per suit. Thus it is 24 ZAR.

You may be right - I vaguely recall something to that effect somewhere in his writings - but, imo, while Petkov's work is in principle very sound, he got a bit carried away with bonuses. In particular counting a bonus for an ace of partner's suit, which is already carrying over half an extra point by Milton Work standards, is overkill. In comparison, minor honours in partner's suit, which are carrying less points by Milton Work standards, are definitely worth - well - at least regarding them as an asset and upgrading in an otherwise close decision.

 

Perhaps I'd better do the sim - perhaps instead of a bunch of us quibbling about whether this hand is worth 2 or 3♥ we should look at some actual results. I'll do one - later.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

Well, I did a sim. What I got from looking at cases where opener is not strong enough to go on over a 2♥ call, but *might* be strong enough to bid 4 after a 3♥ call was this:

 

About 65% of the time opener doesn't have a 4♥ call even if you bid 3. In these cases you go down in 3♥ about 17.5% of the time and will be a MP loser against a field that is simply calling 2♥ on the hand in the OP. The rest of the time 9 or more tricks are available and you draw with the field.

 

About 35% of the time opener does have enough to call 4 over 3. You win 58.5% of these cases as game does in fact make - but obviously you lose in the remaining 41.5% of the cases when the breaks don't happen or the hands don't fit as well as hoped for.

 

So (.35*.585) - (.65*.175) - (.35*.415) = -.05425 = you lose match points by bidding 3♥.

 

Obviously these results are extremely sensitive to exactly what you think is good enough for an opener in the first place and so on - so your mileage might vary a bit.

 

Also these results are close enough to make one think this is really a 50/50 guess non vul at IMPs and it is probably a winner to bid 3♥ vul at IMPs - though I didn't actually do the IMP calculation.

 

Further, my assertion earlier in this thread about the hand being better if the ♥J and ♣A swapped suits is without any significant grounds. I think I stand by my assertion about quacks in side suits versus quacks in partner's suit in the general case - but in this specific case the ♥J is worth no more than the ♣J - probably because in most cases opener has 5+ hearts and the minor honour in hearts is not as much help as it would have been if most fits were only 8 cards.

 

Nick