oh noes, aces and spaces!

[gwnn]

My dad always taught me that you shouldn't open 1NT with 4 aces only and I believed him until someone pointed out the obvious (what are you going to rebid?) on these forums about 5 years ago (for the record, my father's reply was "just rebid 1NT, aces are bad for NT"). I forgot about this whole story, burying it along with other childhood nightmares (none as traumatising as this one) until last week my partner bid a hand with A A A K (4234) as 11-13! He said it's absolutely standard because aces are just 1 trick each. I don't think he took lessons from my father, after all there are 1600 km between the two of them, so this legend must be more widespread than this. Has anyone else spotted it? I'm not talking about bonzai points although of course they're related, but specifically an aversion to control-rich, spot-poor balanced hands. GAH!

 

Yes, this was just another rant. btw I had 11 and passed but we still got a nice cozy score on +150, everyone else was in game but many people went down.

[dwar0123]

Aces are undervalued, they are undervalued more in suit contracts, but they are still worth 4 in nt. But no, never really heard of lowering the value of aces before.

[manudude03]

I find most of these guys will also refuse to open a weak NT with something like xx AQx KJTx QT9x because it has 2 small spades.... IOW just hope you play against more of these people instead of with them.

[billw55]

Yes, this was just another rant. btw I had 11 and passed but we still got a nice cozy score on +150, everyone else was in game but many people went down.

And thus is the habit reinforced.

[barmar]

This sounds like a good candidate for a similation.

 

The guideline by itself is probably too simplistic. AT9x AT9 AT9 AT9 looks like a great 1NT, but A432 A32 A32 A32 may be worth downgrading.

[SteveMoe]

You're probably aware that MLTC promotes loser count by one for every 2 Aces held more than queens. So Axxx Ax Axx Axxx appears to count to an 8 loser but is considered a 6 loser (8-(4Aces/2) = 6). If 4333 shape, reducing winners by 1 makes sense. Clearly if we open 15-16 INT with only 4 Aces, then partner's invitations will fill in a few holes.

 

Ax Axx Axx Axxxx > Axxx Axx Ax Axxx > Axx Axx Axx Axxx.

 

Perhaps the Aces and Spaces argument came when partner was broke and we had to play with no cover cards opposite. I'll take my chances. There's always garbage stayman or the redouble runout to the rescue!

[mikeh]

I think that the main problem experienced by the Aces and Spaces complainers is that they probably can't declare very well.

 

When declarer holds slow winners, the play is often dictated by the opps, who have the fast tricks....and if they are as bad on defence as our putative declarers are on offence, then the defence will, in essence, often set up declarer's winners.

 

When declarer has the Aces and not the Kings, and not a lot of Queens either, maximizing one's tricks will usually call for a significant level of skill, in that one may need to recognize distributional odds, opportunities to eliminate holdings, and either an endplay, a squeeze, or some combination of squeeze and endplay.

 

Having the ability to control every suit is a huge asset but only when declarer is capable of seeing and implementing a plan. When declarer lacks technique, then Aces and Spaces are terrible.

[MickyB]

Lots of bad players here will pass AAA, don't remember any 2 point downgrades though.

[the hog]

I have heard this (mis)philosophy before. I agree with Mikeh - proponents are usually weak players.

[barmar]

Lots of bad players here will pass AAA, don't remember any 2 point downgrades though.

I'll often pass 4333 12 counts in 1st/2nd seat, but I probably wouldn't if the 12 points were all aces.

[Quantumcat]

I am surprised hands with aces get downgraded. If dummy has xx xxx QJxxxxx x wouldn't you love to hold Axx Axx Axx Axxx? Duck the lead a few times, lose a diamond, if not unlucky (lead having five or more cards, AND holding the ♦K, OR diamonds 3-0 and opponent smart enough to duck), win the return and claim lots of tricks - 3NT on a combined 19 count. Conversely holding KJx KQx xxx AQxx, you can never make it, even though you can easily have two stoppers in every suit - they can even have led a four card suit (two long tricks in their suit, two diamond stoppers, plus the other ace, or two aces if their suit was clubs)

[Antrax]

gwnn, I was like that until han showed me a simulation. I was specifically taught this principle ("slow values are better for NT") and I think was even shown the four-ace hand as an example of a hand that's "great for slam, but what if your partner is weak?". It made a lot of sense to me at the time, and my playing experience didn't overrule this.

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, I was like that until han showed me a simulation. I was specifically taught this principle ("slow values are better for NT") and I think was even shown the four-ace hand as an example of a hand that's "great for slam, but what if your partner is weak?". It made a lot of sense to me at the time, and my playing experience didn't overrule this.

What you were missing is the end of the principle: "slow values are better for NT then for suits", not "slow values are better for NT then fast values". Back in the day when I learned bridge under Culbertson, he advocated downgrading aces and spaces a little and even gave the example of a balanced hand with 4 aces as only worth a 1NT opening (whereas it would be too strong using pure HT evaluation). Unfortunately such sayings are still around and taken as gospel by many. It is up there with such gems of wisdom as "always lead top of partner's suit", "always cover an honour with an honour" and "always lead trumps against a slam". Anyone downgrading 4 aces to 12-14 or AAAK to 11-13 has a pretty serious evaluation problem! I hope your partner knows better now Csaba(?)

[han]

I am surprised hands with aces get downgraded. If dummy has xx xxx QJxxxxx x wouldn't you love to hold Axx Axx Axx Axxx? Duck the lead a few times, lose a diamond, if not unlucky (lead having five or more cards, AND holding the ♦K, OR diamonds 3-0 and opponent smart enough to duck), win the return and claim lots of tricks - 3NT on a combined 19 count.

 

Maybe reconsider how you play this hand.

[gwnn]

I hope your partner knows better now Csaba(?)

Not really. billw55 is spot on I'm afraid.

[MickyB]

Maybe reconsider how you play this hand.

 

Also, how you construct hands.

 

xx xx Kxxxxxx xx

 

Axx Ax Axx Txxxx

[Antrax]

What you were missing is the end of the principle: "slow values are better for NT then for suits", not "slow values are better for NT then fast values".

You'd think so, but it was more like "with aces and kings you want to play in a suit contract, with queens and jacks in notrump" - which to me implied aces aren't so great for notrump (and again, there was that "4-3-3-3 blank aces" example hand, which we were supposed to open 1m!)

[WellSpyder]

I'll often pass 4333 12 counts in 1st/2nd seat, but I probably wouldn't if the 12 points were all aces.

I expect many people will be aware of the story about John Collings who once decided to pass a hand with 10 solid spades, either planning to walk the dog or expecting to have a better idea of what to do on the next round. After the hand was unexpectedly passed out, he asked his partner what he had: "just 3 aces and nothing else...."

[mikestar13]

The real reason why some decent players would open 1m with Ax Axx Axxx Axxx (if their system can handle it) is to avoid wrongsiding the NT. Anybody who takes "aces and spaces" seriously to the point of thinking four aces are a weak NT, not only isn't a good player, but very likely never will be. (I speak from years of directing games at a retirement community for the residents--the good players among them bid sensibly, and the LOL's/LOM's screamed "aces and spaces!".)

[ArtK78]

You're probably aware that MLTC promotes loser count by one for every 2 Aces held more than queens. So Axxx Ax Axx Axxx appears to count to an 8 loser but is considered a 6 loser (8-(4Aces/2) = 6). If 4333 shape, reducing winners by 1 makes sense. Clearly if we open 15-16 INT with only 4 Aces, then partner's invitations will fill in a few holes.

 

Ax Axx Axx Axxxx > Axxx Axx Ax Axxx > Axx Axx Axx Axxx.

 

Perhaps the Aces and Spaces argument came when partner was broke and we had to play with no cover cards opposite. I'll take my chances. There's always garbage stayman or the redouble runout to the rescue!

I am a proponent of the use of MLTC (as presented by Rosenkranz in his early books on Romex) but I have never heard of the argument that every two aces held more than queens reduces your loser count by 1. Yes, aces are better than queens, and counting them the same for loser count purposes will lead to a misevaluation of the trick taking potential of the hand. But MLTC is only one tool used in hand evaluation. It is not the be all and end all. And, given that partner is to evaluate his hand by counting cover cards, it is illogical to reduce the loser count in this manner.

 

This is aside from the fact that no one would use MLTC in evaluating a balanced hand for NT purposes. MLTC is used exclusively in hand evaluation for play in a suit contract.

[SteveMoe]

I am a proponent of the use of MLTC (as presented by Rosenkranz in his early books on Romex) but I have never heard of the argument that every two aces held more than queens reduces your loser count by 1. Yes, aces are better than queens, and counting them the same for loser count purposes will lead to a misevaluation of the trick taking potential of the hand. But MLTC is only one tool used in hand evaluation. It is not the be all and end all. And, given that partner is to evaluate his hand by counting cover cards, it is illogical to reduce the loser count in this manner.

 

This is aside from the fact that no one would use MLTC in evaluating a balanced hand for NT purposes. MLTC is used exclusively in hand evaluation for play in a suit contract.

Check out the adjustments published in Klinger's book. The context is that Axx Axx Axx Axxx is an apparent 8 loser hand, one more than the minimum "requirement" for a 1 level opening bid, and that is certainly not right.

 

Yes - MLTC is for suit play, not NT. I assumed folks wouldn't question that. ;)

 

Yes, trick taking potential is really about BOTH hands with a good trump suit (5-3 neutral; 6-2 negative; 6-3/5-4 positive. 7-card trump suits in a 9+ card fit reduce loser count by 1. etc....). We can agree suit contracts are frequently played after a 1N or 1m opening.

 

The simpler point is 4 Aces and spaces is quite valuable opposite as little as KQxxxxx and out.

 

I agree with prvious posters that downgrading these hands likely traes to weaker players who do not plan their declarer play.

 

M. Bergen referenced a A=4.5 / K=3 / Q=2.5 / J=0.75 / 10=0.25 scale (also discuees in Bridge World). That upvalues the hand to 18 and not down to 14. Add in 4 10's and we're at the equivalent of 19 HCP...

[Zelandakh]

MLTC usually refers to the adjustment that A = -0.5 losers and Q = +0.5 losers over the unadjusted LTC. I assume this is what you mean. When you talk about an adjustment to the MLTC it sounds like you want to make an additional adjustment beyond this. Notice that the MLTC is funtionally identical to a point count method where A = 3, K = 2, Q = 1 with shortage points of 6/4/2, or equally A = 4.5, K = 3, Q = 1.5 and shortages 9/6/3. It should be obvious from this that it overvalues shortages considerably and you can easily just make adjustments to your normal point counting evaluations to obtain exactly the same effect but with finer tuning. You can probably guess from this that I am not a huge fan of any of the LTC methods...

[SteveMoe]

MLTC usually refers to the adjustment that A = -0.5 losers and Q = +0.5 losers over the unadjusted LTC. I assume this is what you mean. When you talk about an adjustment to the MLTC it sounds like you want to make an additional adjustment beyond this. Notice that the MLTC is funtionally identical to a point count method where A = 3, K = 2, Q = 1 with shortage points of 6/4/2, or equally A = 4.5, K = 3, Q = 1.5 and shortages 9/6/3. It should be obvious from this that it overvalues shortages considerably and you can easily just make adjustments to your normal point counting evaluations to obtain exactly the same effect but with finer tuning. You can probably guess from this that I am not a huge fan of any of the LTC methods...

Zel, Useful insight. Thanks! Yes - the 1/2 trick adjustment is just that.

MLTC is my third back up. I indulge when too tired to use SST a la Wirgren and Lawrence. Really like Working Points valuation. Couldn't find a path in these approaches to explain why Aces and Spaces is erroneous (imho). Agree w/above posters that players without planning and creativity probably perpetuate this concern.