Simple judgement call (corrected)

[mgoetze]

You're simply playing a NT range lower than 15-17. The answers in this thread are consistent with that.

No, my answer of pass is based on a really straight 15-17 1NT. I usually play 14-16 1NT and my agreement there is to invite with about the top 20% of 9 counts, so translating that would mean inviting with the top 20% of 8 counts opposite 15-17. I didn't think this hand is in the top 20% of 8 counts but apparently bluecalm does so maybe my judgement is just off, I dunno.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I ended up passing with this hand in a team match last night.

I didn't think the hand was quite strong enough to go looking for game

 

I ended up feeling sick to my stomach as partner chalked up +180 in 1NT.

The other table played in 2N making 3

[mikeh]

17+8=25. Yes. But several points are worth noting:

 

( Turning +90 to -50 loses 140 = 4 IMP. Turning +150 to +400 gains 250 = 6 IMP. So (roughly) we have 3:2 odds in our favor?[/color]

You have tried to make this point twice, and twice you ignore an important negative.

 

Not only do you lose when 2N (or 3♥)fails (whether 1N makes or also fails) but you also lose when he accepts the invite and game fails.

 

As for this being a good 8 count...it isn't.

 

We have 5 of our hcp in a short suit. This is a negative, not a positive and not even a neutral factor.

 

We have only one A and no Kings, while enjoying a Queen and two Jacks....this is probably neutral, but definitely not a positive

 

One reason given, by the bidders, for using stayman, is the hope of finding a heart fit. Frankly, most hands with a heart fit would leave me hoping to stay low. We hold Jxxx. If you think that is a good holding for exploring a 4-4 fit at the game level, you probably felt 2008 was a good year for the banking industry.

 

I have no objection to bidding with a good 8 count...I do so routinely. I would do so with this hand if we held a 5 card suit, or if our hand were, say: xxx AJxx Kxxx xx, but it's not.

[gwnn]

By the way, I remember a funny plan employed by ulven on a balanced 8-count with 4 hearts (I believe it had better interiors and might have been 3433). He advocated bidding stayman, intending to

-pass 2H

-bid 2NT over 2D/2S

the point was that the only game you thought was at all likely to make was 3NT, and 2H was a nice partial.

 

Not much to do with this hand, though, I just remembered this plan now.

[Statto]

2NT or whatever your balanced invite mechanism is. I won't bother with Stayman, the ♥ suit is poor and the hand far too quacky to want to play in a suit contract anyway. But it does have good spots - don't dis those 8s and 9s B-)

[mikl_plkcc]

8 count

1 A and 3 Qs and Js - downgrade

unsupported J - downgrade

 

So this is like a 8- to me so I clearly pass. (I invite with 8-9 HCPs and bid game with 10 HCPs.)

[billw55]

You have tried to make this point twice, and twice you ignore an important negative.

 

Not only do you lose when 2N (or 3♥)fails (whether 1N makes or also fails) but you also lose when he accepts the invite and game fails.

aha .. so I did. So that result, roughly, turns +120 to -50, losing 5. So now I can lose 4, lose 5, or gain 6 - suddenly it's 3:2 against me rather than in favor! A point I had not considered.

 

.. and about the hand value. I had thought this was an average-ish 8 count. I see some varying thoughts on that here. For what it's worth, the K&R evaluator gave this a gruesome 6.7.

[awm]

In general I try to avoid inviting. The invite gives information to the opposition and gets us to silly contracts like 2NT and 3♥. Thus I try to narrow my invite range as much as possible, either bidding game or passing.... so basically my invite is a "good 8 to a bad 9" and I would pass with most 8s and force game with most 9s. This doesn't quality as a good 8 for me; in fact I think it is a slightly below-average 8. Pass.

[nige1]

IMPs, White on White You hold ♠ AJ8 ♥ J965 ♦ Q974 ♣ 82

Partner opens 1NT showing standard 15-17 NT opening. What's your call?

I agree with bluecalm that this is a good 8 HCP.

Hence, assuming, like Bluecalm, that partner's average hand is about 16 HCP. (i.e. we don't upgrade many 14 HCP hands):

3♣ (Puppet Stayman) = 10, 3N = 9, 2N (if available as a natural limit raise) = 8. 2♣ = 7, Pass = 6,

[the hog]

Sorry about confusing the original post

 

IMPs, White on White

 

You hold

 

AJ8

J965

Q974

82

 

Partner opens 1NT showing standard 15-17 NT opening

What's your call?

 

Pass, easy. This is clearly not a "very good 8 count".

[nige1]

You hold AJ8 J965 Q974 82

This is very good 8. It makes 3NT opposite 16-17hcp balanced without 5M 53% of the time dd which translates to probably about 58-60% in practice (according to my experience with dd simuls in such situations and comparing it to some real life results but I can't prove it definitely). You also get additional chance of spiking 4-4 heart fit or maybe even 5-4 or 5-3 major. I would say that if you open 1NT with 5M-3-3-2 routinely passing is clear mistakes and opposite "normal" 1NT it's not that bad but still I wouldn't pass. Intuition is influenced by experience and if say: Ax KQx xxx AJxxx is 1N opening for you, then you naturally start passing 8's as those weakish (in context of trick taking in NT contracts) hands start to constitute significant part of your opening range.

OTOH, there are plenty of balanced eight counts where I would make an invitation. This just isnt one of them. Two jacks, no tens, mediocre suit texture. It just doesn't feel right.. Playing around a bit gets you easily to hands where I would accept though: Jxx AJ9x Q9xx xx OR xxx AJ9x QJ9x xx

I would invite on this. It is the flipside of the other threads where people are upgrading 14 and 17 HCP hands but never downgrading even quite poor 15 and 18 HCP hands. This is justified on the basis of being 'aggressive'. But it's not aggressive at all if responder compensates by bidding less. You're simply playing a NT range lower than 15-17. The answers in this thread are consistent with that. Also, the morbid fear of ever playing in 2NT is overdone IMO, especially in this forum.

Not only do you lose when 2N (or 3♥)fails (whether 1N makes or also fails) but you also lose when he accepts the invite and game fails. As for this being a good 8 count...it isn't. We have 5 of our hcp in a short suit. This is a negative, not a positive and not even a neutral factor. We have only one A and no Kings, while enjoying a Queen and two Jacks....this is probably neutral, but definitely not a positive .

1 A and 3 Qs and Js - downgrade. unsupported J - downgrade. So this is like a 8- to me so I clearly pass. (I invite with 8-9 HCPs and bid game with 10 HCPs.)

Pass, easy. This is clearly not a "very good 8 count".

IMO, for notrump purposes, this is better than average eight-count. Two four-card suits, fair distribution of honours, good intermediates. But it is a bit quacky so the Hog may be right. Anyway, for an interesting discussion on hand-evaluation for notrump, please peruse This and other articles by Thomas Andrews

[ArtK78]

It is still an 8 count. I don't see why you would want to act on it.

[nige1]

It is still an 8 count. I don't see why you would want to act on it.

• You have 8 HCP.
• Partner has about 16 HCP (Bluecalm, Nigel_K and I are assuming that 15-17 HCP is his true range).
• Hence your partnership total is about about 24 HCP.
• At IMPs, you should bid 50% games.
• Simulations by Thomas Andrews and others show that 3N is about a 50% shot with a combined 24 HCP.
• Bluecalm confirms that expectation in simulations with this actual hand.

[ArtK78]

• You have 8 HCP.
• Partner has about 16 HCP (Bluecalm, Nigel_K and I are assuming that 15-17 HCP is his true range).
• Hence your partnership total is about about 24 HCP.
• At IMPs, you should bid 50% games.
• Simulations by Thomas Andrews and others show that 3N is about a 50% shot with a combined 24 HCP.
• Bluecalm confirmed that expectation in simulations with this actual hand.

There have been a number of prior posts showing that, even if this were true, which I doubt, it would still be risking turning a plus into a minus without enough of a gain to make it worthwhile. When partner's range is 15-17, the combined chance that he holds either 16 or 17 is about the same (perhaps slightly higher) than the chance that he holds 15 (15 is the most likely of the three, but the combination of 16 and 17 is greater than 15). Furthermore, he may have upgraded a "good" 14.

 

So, you have a little more than a 50% chance of having 24 or 25 HCP, which would give you a 50% chance of game. Not the kind of odds that I am looking for.

 

If you act over 1NT and do not bid game, you have increased the chance of achieving a minus score without any chance of a gain.

 

If you act over 1NT and do bid game, game will make about 50% of the time. So you will have improved your score 50% of the time and harmed your score 50% of the time. The IMP odds make it worth your while to bid the 50% game, but that does not take into account the IMPs lost by moving over 1NT when you don't bid game.

 

You have better odds when vulnerable, but even then it may not be worth it.

[nige1]

There have been a number of prior posts showing that, even if this were true, which I doubt, it would still be risking turning a plus into a minus without enough of a gain to make it worthwhile. When partner's range is 15-17, the combined chance that he holds either 16 or 17 is about the same (perhaps slightly higher) than the chance that he holds 15 (15 is the most likely of the three, but the combination of 16 and 17 is greater than 15). Furthermore, he may have upgraded a "good" 14.

So, you have a little more than a 50% chance of having 24 or 25 HCP, which would give you a 50% chance of game. Not the kind of odds that I am looking for.

If you act over 1NT and do not bid game, you have increased the chance of achieving a minus score without any chance of a gain.

If you act over 1NT and do bid game, game will make about 50% of the time. So you will have improved your score 50% of the time and harmed your score 50% of the time. The IMP odds make it worth your while to bid the 50% game, but that does not take into account the IMPs lost by moving over 1NT when you don't bid game.

You have better odds when vulnerable, but even then it may not be worth it.

ArtK78 believes that we and those whom we quote are are liars. On that assumption, his argument is reasonable. I, of course, remain unpersuaded. Some additional factors: 15-17 HCP is already quite a wide range but If you assume that partner upgrades 14-HCP hands then, as Nigel-K says, you can assume that he downgrades 18-HCP hands. Also, some 23 HCP games are successful. (Although. you are more likely to make a low-HCP game, the more even the split of HCP between the two hands).

[ArtK78]

ArtK78 believes that we and those whom we quote are are liars. On that assumption, his argument is reasonable. I, of course, remain unpersuaded. Some additional factors: 15-17 HCP is already quite a wide range but If you assume that partner upgrades 14-HCP hands then, as Nigel-K says, you can assume that he downgrades 18-HCP hands. Also, some 23 HCP games are successful. (Although. you are more likely to make a low-HCP game, the more even the split of HCP between the two hands).

"Liars" is a strong term. I choose not to take it as gospel that the standard for bidding game has now been reduced to 24 HCP with a balanced hand facing a balanced hand.

[kenrexford]

While driving, I thought about this problem more generally. The relatively ordinary occurrence is an unbalanced major two-suiter (4441, 4414, 4405, 4450, 4351, 3451, 4315, 3451, etc) with not quite enough to invite 3NT but enough to invite a major game if a major fit is found. This hand is close to that description.

 

Another common theme, obviously, to these hand types is that the minor suit might also be a good strain (maybe better than notrump).

 

I also thought about how I like 1NT-2C-2D-2S as an unbalanced spaade GT and NF (five spades).

 

I now wonder if a better meaning for that last sequence might be the former instance. That would allow Opener to be cautious and might enable a stop in a minor. For instance, Opener with 16 HCP would bid only 2NT (and probably that with 17 too). But Opener might also bid 3C as pass-or-correct. 2NT by Responder instead would promise a true invite. Responder could also perhaps bid 2S and then insist on the minor.

 

If this sequence promised four spades (a possible variant), Opener might even try a 3-piece pass.

 

Alternatively, 2NT could be the unbalanced light hand (Opener passes or bids 3C as choice mostly), with 2S either a true invite or an unbalanced invite with five spades. In the latter, Opener would have some unwinding, as would Responder, but my thoughts are that this could be worked out if 2S is forcing. Loss of ability to stop in 2S, but more covered.

[mikeh]

ArtK78 believes that we and those whom we quote are are liars. On that assumption, his argument is reasonable. I, of course, remain unpersuaded. Some additional factors: 15-17 HCP is already quite a wide range but If you assume that partner upgrades 14-HCP hands then, as Nigel-K says, you can assume that he downgrades 18-HCP hands. Also, some 23 HCP games are successful. (Although. you are more likely to make a low-HCP game, the more even the split of HCP between the two hands).

quit being a twit....who called you, or anyone else on this thread, a liar?

 

Art and I and others think you are mistaken in your opinion on this hand. The fact that a balanced 24 count, between the two hands, will often make 3N isn't the same as saying that we should invite with what most seem to see as a bad 8 opposite a 15-17 1N, even assuming partner never upgrades into or out of range (and surely every good player knows how to do that?).

 

You are wrong: I have read and considered your arguments and the sources you cite, and have decided that, as far as I am concerned, your conclusion is incorrect. But I see no reason to infer that you don't mistakenly think otherwise.

[nige1]

quit being a twit....who called you, or anyone else on this thread, a liar?

Art and I and others think you are mistaken in your opinion on this hand. The fact that a balanced 24 count, between the two hands, will often make 3N isn't the same as saying that we should invite with what most seem to see as a bad 8 opposite a 15-17 1N, even assuming partner never upgrades into or out of range (and surely every good player knows how to do that?).

You are wrong: I have read and considered your arguments and the sources you cite, and have decided that, as far as I am concerned, your conclusion is incorrect. But I see no reason to infer that you don't mistakenly think otherwise.

If you downgrade poor 15-HCP hands and upgrade about the same number of good 14 HCP hands, then I agree this should not affect the reults much.

I accept that Artk7 doesn't accuse me of deliberate lies; but he does write that he doubts that I (and the people I quote) are telling the truth. As an ordinary player I feel that I'm entitled to my views but I don't expect others to agree with all of my arguments or conclusions. The truth of quoted statements of fact by Bluecalm and Thomas Andrews deserve more respect. Of marginal relevance to this thread is an amazing deal discovered by John Beasely and Thomas Andrews, where 3N makes with any of the four players declarer, on any lead, and against any defence.

 

Now mikeh calls me a twit.

IMO resort to invective weakens argument :)

[Statto]

While driving, I thought about this problem more generally. The relatively ordinary occurrence is an unbalanced major two-suiter (4441, 4414, 4405, 4450, 4351, 3451, 4315, 3451, etc) with not quite enough to invite 3NT but enough to invite a major game if a major fit is found. This hand is close to that description.

I did some simulating with this sort of thing a few years ago.

I did some analysis recently, albeit for 10-11 HCP hands with a 4 card major, 4432, opposite a weak NT, and concluded that 3NT was often makeable, whereas 4M with a 4-4 fit generally wasn't. Which is why I'm not bothering to find a major fit here.

[blackshoe]

IMO resort to invective weakens argument :)

Then why did you accuse him of calling you a liar?

[BumJr]

The Kaplan-Rubens (KnR) evaluator and Kleinman point count (http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=AJ8+J965+Q974+82) agree that this is a good hand:

 

KnR considers it a good 6 -- (6.70).

 

Kleinman considers it a good 7 (7+).

 

It is simply not a good 8.

[Statto]

KnR considers it a good 6 -- (6.70).

 

Kleinman considers it a good 7 (7+).

 

It is simply not a good 8.

Those evaluation methods are geared towards play in a suit contract, so I don't think applicable here. That is, if you're only considering playing in NT.

[BumJr]

Those evaluation methods are geared towards play in a suit contract, so I don't think applicable here. That is, if you're only considering playing in NT.

 

I am not sure where you are getting your information. Kleinman used Bennion's Little Jack Points which was specifically generated using two balanced hands intent on bidding 3NT. Kleinman modified it slightly to reflect his judgement (similar to the kind of judgement that Kaplan used in the CCCC count, with respect to honors working together in long suits plus some value for 10s and 10/9 combinations). Kleinman refers to his count in his book, "The No Trump Zone."

 

The Vugraph commentators use the KnR count all of the time when trying to make the point that a hand is or is not worth an upgrade/downgrade to a 1NT opener. If KnR is good enough to decide whether or not a hand is "worth" 15-17 HCP (equivalent), then it should be good enough to decide if the hand is really worth "8 HCP" in reply to 1NT.

[Cthulhu D]

 

The Vugraph commentators use the KnR count all of the time when trying to make the point that a hand is or is not worth an upgrade/downgrade to a 1NT opener. If KnR is good enough to decide whether or not a hand is "worth" 15-17 HCP (equivalent), then it should be good enough to decide if the hand is really worth "8 HCP" in reply to 1NT.

 

Jeff Goldsmith (who wrote the tool natch), has remarked in his puzzle serious that the adjustments KnR makes to a hand are not net netural. Using KnR to evaluate hands and then comparing to HCP is not a good plan.