mr1303 Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Apart from anything else, is there any reason why partner can't have a club void here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Comparisons within: Here's 20 random 11-12 point balanced hands that a generator produced. How many are worse and how many are better? How many are similar? 1. Qx KQTx A8xx JxMuch better.2. A8x Q9xx xx AJ9xA bit better.3. Ax Q8xx KTx QxxxWorse.4. AJx AT9x Tx QTxxSlightly worse.5. QJx T7xx Ax AxxxBetter.6. AKQ T7xx Ax AxxxN/A.7. JT8 Q9xx AKxx JxMuch better.8. T7xx AQxx Axx QxSimilar.9. A9 Qxxx AJxxx QxN/A.10. A9x J9xx JTx KQxMuch worse.11. Xx KJxx KQxx QJxMuch worse.12. A9xx AJ9x xx QTxSimilar.13. Xxx AJxx Txx AKxWorse.14. T9x AQxx QJx QTxWorse.15. Q8xx AJxx Ax TxxMuch better.16. QJx KJxx xxx AxxSlightly better.17. 9xx KQxx Jx AJxxSimilar.18. Jxxx 8xxx Ax AQxWorse.19. Jxx AKJx 8xxx QxWorse.20. Xxx QJxx Kxx KQxMuch worse.That's consistent with being slightly above average. However, this sample contains only one hand with no club wastage, I am not sure that's representative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted May 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 One thing I am noticing latelly is that trump honnors are incredibly more useful than outsides, obviously club ace is better somewhere else, but on trumps it is even better. ♥KQ compared to ♠♦KQ happens the same, and unless I am playing some abnormal hands latelly this difference is huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahydra Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 OK. I was having a great morning until I read ahydra's comment about KnR evaluation for this hand. That is about as relevant here as the color of the deck. Please could you clarify - what in particular about K&R evaluation makes it unsuitable for this particular scenario (assuming one is also going to refine the evaluation based on the auction)? As for trump honours being more useful than outside honours... well, don't you need both :) Certainly trump honours = avoids a sure loser whereas side honour = maybe avoids a sure loser. But (!(2 losers)) != (12 winners). It's the lack of winners that makes me want to treat the OP hand as a min. ahydra 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 However, this sample contains only one hand with no club wastage, I am not sure that's representative.I would expect Phil's sample to be unrepresentative, but in the opposite direction. He produced "random 11-12 point balanced hands", presumably not taking into account what responder has shown. With responder known to be short in clubs and to have high-card strength elsewhere, we would expect opener to have more club wastage, not less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Please could you clarify - what in particular about K&R evaluation makes it unsuitable for this particular scenario (assuming one is also going to refine the evaluation based on the auction)? As for trump honours being more useful than outside honours... well, don't you need both :) Certainly trump honours = avoids a sure loser whereas side honour = maybe avoids a sure loser. But (!(2 losers)) != (12 winners). It's the lack of winners that makes me want to treat the OP hand as a min. ahydra Sorry, I can be brusque at times. The reason is that a tool like KnR is less valuable on a hand like this is it would evaluate as follows: Original: 10.00 Axx QJxx xxx Axx = 10.1 (a lot better)Axx Qxxx xxx AJx = 10.0 (worse)AJx AQxx xxx xxx = 10.65 (way, way better)xxx xxxx Axx AQJ = 10.3 (way worse) In a sense we are splitting hairs on some of these hands, but dispersion of honors after partner shows shortness seems at least as important as what KnR indicates. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 . However, this sample contains only one hand with no club wastage, I am not sure that's representative. I too agree with Andy that i expect more hands with club wastage. It was surprising to me most posters did not even try to construct hands for 4♣ splinter, vs a known 11-12 hcp balanced hand. I personally expect a lot of meat in the hand that made the splinter and we know he doesnt have this meat in club suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 cherdano, why is 16 slightly better? Otherwise nice analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 QJx of spades is a strong holding in this auction where partner has lots of points outside of clubs. Whatever partners spade holding is it is good except for AKx. And the importance of the trump jack cannot be underrated, it is a really big card for slam. It is possible it's wasted if partner has AQxxxx I guess but overall I think QJx KJxx is better than AJx Qxxx so I agree with cherdano. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 interesting thread and comments as a nonexpert I would hve bid 4h in a flash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 I see 4 similar, 1 better, 1 13-count, 1 17-count, and 1 hand with 12 cards only. I also find it surprising that all 20 hands have at least the club ten and 19 have at least the Jack. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted June 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 I also find it surprising that all 20 hands have at least the club ten and 19 have at least the Jack.Why do you think the imaginary opps didn't overcall clubs? :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_w Posted June 2, 2012 Report Share Posted June 2, 2012 I too agree with Andy that i expect more hands with club wastage. It was surprising to me most posters did not even try to construct hands for 4♣ splinter, vs a known 11-12 hcp balanced hand. I personally expect a lot of meat in the hand that made the splinter and we know he doesnt have this meat in club suit.I find this to be a waste of time. Partner has said "slam if you have no wastage in Clubs" (it must mean that due to us being so limited - if we were wider range then maybe it would be possible slam opposite no wastage).We have a hand with some wastage (the Ace) and very minimum (4333 11 count - as someone pointed out KnR says 10 .... that's what it looks like to me too).So this hand should bid 4♦. It's not good enough to go past 4♥ and it doesn't have enough wastage to sign off. For all the people who are signing off I'm guessing you wouldn't open this hand. Yes, it's a shocker - I'd have passed too. But if this is a normal opening hand for this partnership then there is no way it can sign off now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted June 2, 2012 Report Share Posted June 2, 2012 For all the people who are signing off I'm guessing you wouldn't open this hand. Yes, it's a shocker - I'd have passed too. But if this is a normal opening hand for this partnership then there is no way it can sign off now. No, I guess most thought it was a question between going to slam and staying in game. The OP did not mentioned last train, so it seemed not avaiable. If it had been, it has been an easy choice, hadn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted June 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 In case someone cares partner had: ♠xx♥K10xx♦AKQ10xxx♣K slam would make on a club lead but sadly opening leader had ♠KQ10x ♥AJ. 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.