Defining "extra values"

[BillHiggin]

In a Bridge Winners post, I saw an interesting issue with regard to "extra values".

[hv=pc=n&s=sa5432hda5432ca32&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2n(mod%20jacoby%202N)p]133|200|spot cards are not in any way accurate.[/hv]

The particular version of Jacoby 2N uses 3♣ for all minimum hands with a shortness.

 

In my experience, it may be hard for partner to seriously consider slam when he has an Ace poor hand (and he certainly does today). However, I cannot make up my own rules for defining "extra values" on the fly (at least not if I want partner to trust me).

 

Should our definition of "extra values" include such a control rich hand?

 

What does make a good working definition of "extra values"?

[kenberg]

You raise an interesting question for which I do not have a good answer. But here's a start.

 

On the hand that you post, it is not hard to imagine some fairly minimal holdings for partner where slam can be made. We have nine trump so Kxxx in partner's hand might suffice to give us no trump losers. KQx of diamonds might make the suit ready to run for five tricks, There should be plenty of heart fuffs available. And so on. Of course it may be that the hands fit badly, but chances seem good enough so that we want to explore. And yes, as you say, if i make a minimal bid here over the 2NT partner is apt to look at his aceless hand and sign off, or, if he has the ace of hearts, maybe he won't sign off but I don't much like his ace.

 

So it seems to me this hand has at least potentially extra values. Whether they actually have value cannot yet be said.. But if 3♣ encourages partner to sign off with 4♠ I don't think I want to encourage him in that direction.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 

The particular version of Jacoby 2N uses 3♣ for all minimum hands with a shortness.

 

And yet another variation of Jac2NT .

The "extras" question is a valid one no matter what "variation" is used is used .

 

Side issue: If the above is used, then you need a structure for:

-- minimums w/o shortness

-- extras w/ and w/o shortness

 

etc, etc.

 

I wonder how this will be better than say, Swedish2NT ( where 3C rebid = any minimum w/ or w/o shortness .

[kenrexford]

Partnerships who play unusual methods should probably have definitions already established.

 

That said, I cannot imagine how a hand can be a "minimum," in the context of a slam auction (all GF auctions are by nature slam auctions), when you have first-round control of all four suits but have only promised so far an opening hand.

 

As perhaps an aside, however, I also hate any method in a 2/1 context (if that was the context) where Opener could possibly have first-round control in all four suits but partner is bidding 2NT as the GF raise. If Opener has that hand, then Responder has almost no prime values and thus is usually better suited to describing than asking, by way of a 2/1 GF sequence (again, if 2/1 is played). If this hand were actually held by me with my regular partners who agree with this concept, then Responder's hand is fairly well known already. He must have primes externally to bid Jacoby 2NT, and fairly balanced. So, he must have KQxx in spades (or longer), with the Ace-King of hearts, no Queens, and a Jack or two (or extra spade length) to justify this auction. Since he must by definition have that hand, I can count no spade losers, no heart losers, and no club losers (because his known Ace-King in hearts covers my two club losers). I can also fairly easily count 10 tricks (five spades in hand, two hearts, one club, one diamond, and at least one diamond ruff). I also expect to have the slam turn on whether diamonds come home for one loser only. However, for that to happen, he needs a doubleton in diamonds with either diamonds splitting 3-3 or 4-2 with spades 2-2 (or partner having a fifth spade), or a remote J-10-9 diamond holding. That seems remote, so I would probably actually sign off with this hand in a real auction unless I had a method to check on his hand pattern or to relay this message. That said, I expect that the partnership does not have this agreement.

 

 

 

[Zelandakh]

In the version I like, Opener's first step rebid is also a minimum with shortage but I would show this hand as step 2, extras with shortage. A working definition of extra values for Walrus types is 16 points including distribution and upgrades.

 

To Don, my structure (designed for openings limited to 17hcp) is simplicity itself and did not take long to develop: 1st step min+short; 2nd step extras+short; 3rd step min-short; 4th step extras-short; 5th-7th steps max+short. To my knowledge, the expert schemes that use a similar structure give extra space to the max hands, which makes sense for slam purposes but also means you are using up space on the more common hands.

[mike777]

In a Bridge Winners post, I saw an interesting issue with regard to "extra values".

[hv=pc=n&s=sa5432hda5432ca32&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2n(mod%20jacoby%202N)p]133|200|spot cards are not in any way accurate.[/hv]

The particular version of Jacoby 2N uses 3♣ for all minimum hands with a shortness.

 

In my experience, it may be hard for partner to seriously consider slam when he has an Ace poor hand (and he certainly does today). However, I cannot make up my own rules for defining "extra values" on the fly (at least not if I want partner to trust me).

 

Should our definition of "extra values" include such a control rich hand?

 

What does make a good working definition of "extra values"?

 

This is an adjusted 5-5.5 loser hand...clearly extra values.

 

Your opening bid promises a 7 loser hand. So let us define a 7 loser or more hand not extra values.

Let us define a 5.5 loser hand as clearly extra values.

Now you can debate/discuss a 6-6.5 loser hand.

[mikeh]

The example hand is a clear 'extra values' using any plausible metric or set of metrics.

 

I don't recommend any single metric, and the ones to use and the relative weights to be given to those used will vary according to context. When looking at notrump, for example, with balanced hands, one will tend to stress a combination of hcp held, in relation to the minimum consistent with the auction to date, and controls, to prevent fast losers, and trick source, which would include 5 card suits, and texture, including 10s and 9s, especially in combination. Thus A109xx is a lot better than Axxxx if partner has shown a decent balanced hand.

 

In the suit context, I tend to not pay a lot of attention to how many hcp I hold: more to what type of hcp, where they are, and shape, shape, shape.

 

Once partner shows 4+ spades, my Axxxx is hugely upgraded.

 

Then I look at my controls. A normal minimum opening will hold 3 to 4 controls much of the time. This has 6!!!!

 

And in the suit where I lack a high card control I have a void.

 

Then I look at my second 5 card suit. This hand is far more slam suitable than the same honours with 5=0=4=4 shape, since the 5th diamond will almost always not only be a trick but will afford a pitch from dummy, and obviously I am hoping that will be a club pitch so I can ruff a club loser if needed.

 

I don't know how much help this has been, but for suit bidding, love Aces. Like Kings. Don't go big on Queens unless accompanied by some adult honours, and Jacks are similar to Queens but even less likable.

 

Extra length is great, especially since extra length in one or two suits implies that wonderful companion: shortness control of a side suit.

 

Be ready to upgrade radically. For example, I love this hand over 2N but had partner bid 2♥, showing the same minimum values (I assume), as in game force, this hand would start to look like a pile of crap. I'd rebid 2♠ and go softly thereafter. My extra length in diamonds hasn't grown up, and my heart shortness, so valuable if we were to play in a pointed suit, has become a negative value rather than an asset. I don't use 'points' as a metric (as in hcp with adjustements for shape, etc) but if I did, I'd see this hand as about 5 or 6 points less after a 2♥ response than after a strong spade raise.

 

As an extra: I would NOT get enthused about this hand if partner were known to hold 3 card support....that implied 4th card is huge for this hand.

 

Hope all of this helps someone :D

[fromageGB]

If you have a bid that means "minimum with shortage" then this is probably a maximumum hand for that, but maybe not too good. Upgrade it for the aces, not as far as "strong with shortage" if you have such a reply. What you define as extra values depends on the meaning of the other alternative bids. If you have a 3-range min mid and max available, I'd class this as mid.

 

One reason you should not upgrade much is that you have few tricks. First round controls are not sufficient to make slam. If you have a method with partner where you use point count and can describe the exact length of the short suit, such that one party can measure your total count against a "30 point pack", for example, then you should not upgrade at all.

Edited December 4, 2013 by fromageGB

[mikeh]

If you have a bid that means "minimum with shortage" then this is probably a maximumum hand for that, but maybe not too good. Upgrade it for the aces, not as far as "strong with shortage" if you have such a reply. What you define as extra values depends on the meaning of the other alternative bids. If you have a 3-range min mid and max available, I'd class this as mid.

 

One reason you should not upgrade much is that you have few tricks. First round controls are not sufficient to make slam. If you have a method with partner where you use point count and can describe the exact length of the short suit, such that one party can measure your total count against a "30 point pack", for example, then you should not upgrade at all.

I think this response is extremely bad advice.

 

We have 4 first round controls and a potential side source of tricks and partner, who may hold no Aces and holds at most one, is almost certainly going to have zero interest in slam when we make a weakness bid. And the notion of using 'point count' as the primary metric leaves me almost speechless.

 

Btw, showing 'extras' does not, in any rational method, constitute a slam force. It doesn't even commit to the 5 level.

[BillHiggin]

And yet another variation of Jac2NT .

The "extras" question is a valid one no matter what "variation" is used is used .

 

Side issue: If the above is used, then you need a structure for:

-- minimums w/o shortness

-- extras w/ and w/o shortness

 

etc, etc.

 

I wonder how this will be better than say, Swedish2NT ( where 3C rebid = any minimum w/ or w/o shortness .

 

Actually, I can only speculate on the other responses possible since this was lifted from another thread. But it looks like it might well be Swedish Jacoby. I would speculate that 3♦ shows any strength with no shortness (3♥ relay for strength) and 3♥-3N show specific shortness (in steps for the other suits).

In the actual given auction, this hand bid 3♣ and then showed heart shortness with a 3N call over the 3♦ ask, and a fine slam was missed when responder signed off. If I recall Swedish Jacoby correctly, a second round bid of 3♥ instead of 3N would show the heart void. If their agreements included that option, then I would call 3N a serious error.

 

This came from the Grant Baze Senior KO, so we should not expect inexperience to be an issue.

[fromageGB]

Btw, showing 'extras' does not, in any rational method, constitute a slam force. It doesn't even commit to the 5 level.

I am not saying it does. All I am saying is that the hand should be upgraded only to the same extent that partner will downgrade a hand without those aces. Let me as responder have Qxxx, KQxx, Jx, KQx. Do I bid 2NT or do I say that this is worth only a game invitation? If I choose 2NT, then I will get excited by an opener with extras, and the bidding is not likely to stop short of a pretty risky 5. Do I downgrade it to a mere game invitation?

 

Bidding depends on both partners having styles that combine and complement. The worth of a deal is the sum of the two hands, and one should not be inflated without the other being correspondingly deflated.

 

Looking at it another way, if you take the high card values of two hands and redistribute them with aces equal, then the number of tricks are the same as when all the aces are in the same hand.

[rhm]

I am not saying it does. All I am saying is that the hand should be upgraded only to the same extent that partner will downgrade a hand without those aces. Let me as responder have Qxxx, KQxx, Jx, KQx. Do I bid 2NT or do I say that this is worth only a game invitation? If I choose 2NT, then I will get excited by an opener with extras, and the bidding is not likely to stop short of a pretty risky 5. Do I downgrade it to a mere game invitation?

 

Bidding depends on both partners having styles that combine and complement. The worth of a deal is the sum of the two hands, and one should not be inflated without the other being correspondingly deflated.

 

Looking at it another way, if you take the high card values of two hands and redistribute them with aces equal, then the number of tricks are the same as when all the aces are in the same hand.

I beg to differ.

You are of course right if I hold many aces, my partner can not have them and vice versa.

However we might together miss a lot of aces or have an abundance of them, in which case your evaluation method simply breaks down.

I have to value my hand. I can not underbid, because my partner does not know how to value a bridge hand. Best results will of course occur if both in a partnership can evaluate a Bridge hand.

And of course if I held Qxxx, KQxx, Jx, KQx I would probably invite over 1♠.

If you can not bring yourself to do that overbid by bidding game directly.

However, bidding J2NT is unacceptable in my opinion. Your hand is slam terrible.

 

One reason you should not upgrade much is that you have few tricks. First round controls are not sufficient to make slam. If you have a method with partner where you use point count and can describe the exact length of the short suit, such that one party can measure your total count against a "30 point pack", for example, then you should not upgrade at all.

It seems to me that you overlook that tricks in suit slams more often than not come from the establishment of side suits before opponents can develop their tricks.

When you have a side suit first round controls are extremely effective.

 

If the hand in question was balanced, say

 

Axxxx

Axx

Axx

xx

 

I could see your point.

As it is you are plain wrong.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[SteveMoe]

Extra values usually means a King above minimum opening, or 6 or fewer losers, or a hand whose top controls are disproportionate for point count.

This hand is a 4.5-5 loser (6 losers - (#Aces-#Queens)/2).

6 Top controls are parity with 18-20 HCP - We hold 12 HCP.

40 HCP/12 Controls = 3.33 HCP/Control.

37 HCP (Max single hand)/12 Controls = 3.08 HCP/Control

Since 10 controls are enough for slam with a fit, this hand clearly has extras...

[quiddity]

This one isn't clear to me. I understand that we have a really nice 12-count but our range is 12-21. If we don't limit our hand now, then when? If we show a minimum (12-14?) with shortness and partner signs off immediately, how likely is it that we will miss slam? And if he shows any interest we can cooperate enthusiastically and we have quite a bit of room to do so.

 

I have the impression that, when responding to a precision 1♣ opener, responder is supposed to be disciplined and show 0-7 (or whatever) even if he has a REALLY nice 6-7. Why is this situation different? This is not a rhetorical question; I really don't know which approach is best here.

[mikeh]

This one isn't clear to me. I understand that we have a really nice 12-count but our range is 12-21. If we don't limit our hand now, then when? If we show a minimum (12-14?) with shortness and partner signs off immediately, how likely is it that we will miss slam? And if he shows any interest we can cooperate enthusiastically and we have quite a bit of room to do so.

 

I have the impression that, when responding to a precision 1♣ opener, responder is supposed to be disciplined and show 0-7 (or whatever) even if he has a REALLY nice 6-7. Why is this situation different? This is not a rhetorical question; I really don't know which approach is best here.

One of the concepts that you will learn to abandon as you improve (or you won't improve) is adding hcp and using that as your main measure of strength.

 

This hand was a nothing special opener...it was nice to hold all those controls, but we have a lot of losers and very weak suits. So we open. Were partner to respond 2♥, he might have as good a hand as ours, or even better, and yet we can't make any game. But he didn't. He bid J2N, and while it was a modified version, I gather it was a gf or better raise with 4+ support.

 

Now our hand has changed dramatically. This is nothing like a '12' count.

 

I don't use points at all at this stage because they simply muddy the water. I want to show I have a decent hand...a non-minimum. In most J2N methods I am going to show either my 5th diamond or my short hearts, usually the latter since my diamonds are so weak. If he likes his hand opposite short hearts (and good methods can show the void) then I REALLY like my hand because he'll only like his hand opposite short hearts when he holds a lot of working values in the other suits.

 

If I were to use points, I suspect I would say that the Aces are worth about 4.3 each in a suit contract, and the extra length in my two long suits give me, I dunno, maybe 3 extras? So my hand is worth about a 16 count. If he has modest extras and nothing much in hearts, we have a slam.

 

Having said that, I can't stress enough how bad it is to try to value this sort of hand on this forcing raise auction by assigning 'points' to it. This is an okay but not great opening that has suddenly been placed on steroids. Learning to recognize the power of fit, shape and controls is what suit bidding is all about.

 

In other words, learning to change one's view of one's hand according to how the auction has developed is central to success. When you just count points, then the hand doesn't change much. When you visualize tricks, it does.

[Trinidad]

This is something that both partners need to learn to appreciate: You have to re-evaluate your hand continuously.

 

In this case your hand has improved enormously: You have aces and you have a void. You need to upgrade your hand.

 

You are already going to tell that you have shortness, so don't count the shortness -as such- in your upgrading. You will have to upgrade your hand for the aces, and you have to upgrade for the fact that your shortness is a void (it could have been a singleton Q).

 

If you tell your partner that you have a minimum with shortness, he will picture something like a 5(431) distribution with an ace, two kings, a queen and a jack. Your hand is much better than that, so you will have to tell him that your hand is more than a minimum.

 

In the later part of the auction, partner will have to appreciate this too. When he finds out that you have a void and 3 aces. he needs to realize that this is enough to make your hand better than minimum. After the void and three aces, he is not entitled to more to make your 16 medium values: those were your medium values.

 

Another way to look at this is that your aim has shifted completely. When you opened, you were saying that you could play a part score and you are trying to figure out if partner's hand is good enough for a game. HCPs are a good tool to gauge whether we have the values for game. With the Jacoby 2NT response your focus has shifted from "do we have a game?" to "do we have a slam?". For a slam, you don't need HCPs. You need 12 tricks... and the controls to prevent that they will take 2 first. You need to tell partner that you have a potential source of tricks and that you are not worried about them taking 2 tricks any time soon.

 

If you really want to stick to a system based on HCPs to evaluate hands for slam in a suit, I would suggest the following corrections: Add a point for each ace, subtract a point for each jack. Add half a point for each king, subtract half a point for each queen, resulting in a 5 - 3.5 - 1.5 - 0 HCP scale. (Note that this is close to the 3-2-1 scale, but that it adds up to the 40 you are used to, rather than to 6.) That means that you should evaluate this hand as: shortness + 15 HCPs + a void instead of a singleton (~2HCPs) = shortness + medium values.

 

Rik

[fromageGB]

While this is certainly a decent hand with a void, I still don't believe it should be upgraded into a "strong" category, if your continuations are "normal or strong". If after 3♣ I can then show a void in hearts, and partner evidences no slam interest, then I am not unilaterally going beyond game. If he knows he has all the useful non-ace honours, then he can expect me to have the aces, or some of them.

 

The version of J2N I use has 3♦ as a normal hand with void, followed by 3NT to show the heart void. Perhaps the OP does something similar with a 3♣ start. If partner bids 4♠ then why go on? He could have values in hearts, and 10 tricks could be the limit. While I have the aces, I don't have the tricks, and it is tricks that make the slam, not aces. Having tricks, you need aces to avoid two immediate losers, but tricks come first.

[mikeh]

While this is certainly a decent hand with a void, I still don't believe it should be upgraded into a "strong" category, if your continuations are "normal or strong". If after 3♣ I can then show a void in hearts, and partner evidences no slam interest, then I am not unilaterally going beyond game. If he knows he has all the useful non-ace honours, then he can expect me to have the aces, or some of them.

 

The version of J2N I use has 3♦ as a normal hand with void, followed by 3NT to show the heart void. Perhaps the OP does something similar with a 3♣ start. If partner bids 4♠ then why go on? He could have values in hearts, and 10 tricks could be the limit. While I have the aces, I don't have the tricks, and it is tricks that make the slam, not aces. Having tricks, you need aces to avoid two immediate losers, but tricks come first.

If your only options are 'strong' or 'normal', learn a better method. The OP is about whether this hand has 'extra values', not whether it is 'strong'. And no good player would ever unilaterally go beyond game on this hand. You have used two classic straw man arguments to criticize ideas nobody expressed.

[Finch]

I think the people who are saying "this is obviously extra values" are over-stating things.

Obviously opposite 4-card spade support it is no longer a minimum opening bid. But you are not being asked 'is this a minimum opening bid' in an absolute sense. You are being asked to evaluate the hand in the context that partner already knows you have a 9-card spade fit, and partner is about to be told you have a shortage.

 

We don't know the methods in detail, but with a typical set of 'sophisticated' Jacoby rebids, opener first of all splits his hand into three ranges:

 

1. Horrible minimum (typically 11-12, no shortage, usually 1-2 controls at most)
   
2. Minimum
   
3. Extra values
   

 

Clearly the definition of 'extra values' is by partnership discussion; as is the definition of a 'horrible minimum' which depends a lot on your style of opening bids.

Our definition of 'extra values' is roughly 15+ HCP, but there's a lot of upgrading for control-rich and trick-rich hands and downgrading for soft hands.

 

'Extra values' covers a lot wider range than 'minimum' because some hands will be worth a force to the 5-level, or higher.

 

Having decided to show a minimum with a shortness, opener can then usually differentiate between a singleton and a void. If he can't define the shortness, then it becomes a bit more guessy.

 

There is a 'common trap' which a lot of players fall into, either when responding to 1 major with 4-card support or here as opener. That is to upgrade the hand because it has extra shape and in particular because it has a shortage. Yes, of course, a 5413 is generally a nicer hand than a 5332, and 5530 is better still, but you are already telling partner about the shortage, so you mustn't upgrade just because of that. "Minimum" still has to cover a reasonable range.

 

That extends into this hand: if you have a void, you will virtually always also have either a 6th trump (often useful) or a side 5-card suit. In fact, a 5440 should possibly be downgraded slightly rather than upgrading a 5530 just because you have an extra 5-card suit.

 

There's another reason to be careful with a void if you can't tell partner how short your shortage is; quite often in the slam zone a singleton is better than a void. Not, of course, if you all you need is first round control in the suit, but if it is partner's long suit it is easier to set up (and it is an entry to dummy). Opposite AQxxxx a singleton plays for 4 tricks over 50% of the time with 2 ruffs; AQxxxx opposite void is a lot less likely to be set up for 4 tricks and it needs an additional entry to dummy. Some people never bid Jacoby with a side suit, in which case that wouldn't be a concern, but I believe in showing the fit at once, letting opener describe his hand, and then decide on the contract.

 

Finally, it is very dangerous to "invent" too many HCP just because you like your hand. If you have shown a good 14+ and a void, and responder keycards, then he may think he can see 12 tricks because he knows you have something outside the 3 aces. Try giving partner KQxx Kxxx KJx Kx. Opposite an 'extra values' with a heart void he can be certain you have at least one minor suit queen and it wouldn't be silly to punt 7S (the worst possible hand opposite is AJxxxx - Axxxx AQ and even then it is on a finesse)

 

It's different if you can count tricks. I would certainly show Axxxx x AKJxx xx as extras with a heart singleton because you need so little in the way of HCP to make slam

 

Or look at it this way. If you call this hand 'extra values', does that mean you are prepared to drive the 5-level when you hold Axxxx - AQ10xx Axx ?

[Finch]

 

If I were to use points, I suspect I would say that the Aces are worth about 4.3 each in a suit contract, and the extra length in my two long suits give me, I dunno, maybe 3 extras? So my hand is worth about a 16 count. If he has modest extras and nothing much in hearts, we have a slam.

 

 

You are double counting.

Partner already knows that you have a fifth spade, so you shouldn't be adding anything for that.

If you tell partner you have a heart void, he knows that you are likely to have extra length elsewhere.

 

So that makes your hand worth about 13-14 HCP (ish). In the context of opening bids five spades and a heart void that's still a minimum.

 

Against that, if I opened 1S and partner bids 2D, natural and game forcing, I'd go mad. The void will be a surprise, never mind the fifth diamond. Now it has enormous extra values, because partner has no idea of the 5-card trump support.

[mikeh]

You are double counting.

well, I did stress that I don't do arithmetic on these hands, so my numbers were hardly exact or relevant to anything I would do. I do think that whatever methods you use, this is a non-minimum opening after the J2N. 'Extra values' in these auctions doesn't mean we're slamming, at least not in any serious partnership I've ever been in. It just means that we have some degree of interest and are willing to explore, but we can still and often do play game after such a start.

[mike777]

with a roughly 5.5 loser hand and pard having a strong raise for 2nt I expect to be in slam often unless my h void is useless. IT may be difficult to stop short of rkc. and the 5 level unless pard is turned off with my h void.

 

easier to stop short if 2nt is less than strong spade raise or pard has a dead minimum..

[ggwhiz]

Like Mike I'm not interested in point count on hands like these.

 

The rule of thumb I was taught was that if you can think of a suitable minimum for partner that can make slam in under 15 seconds you have to at least try for it.

 

Since ♠KQxx and ♦KQx is plenty in a sub-minimum I would be more worried about missing the grand if I made a wimpy response to 2nt and may well make a try over a limit raise.

[Trinidad]

You are double counting.

I agree with that in part. (I mentioned already that the shortness should not be counted as "extra values" and then, obviously, neither should the extra length.)

 

But let's look at it from another perspective: Part of these distributional assets were already in your opening bid. Given the 5053 distribution that you have, your values could have been much worse. You could have had: ♠QJxxx♥-♦Kxxxx♣KJx. Now partner tells you: "We have a nine card spade fit and at least 25 points.". He follows up with a question: "What do you think of slam?". With this hand, you should tell partner that you have shortness without extra values.

 

The hand in the OP is a lot better, particularly for slam purposes, than what a hand with shortness could have been. "A lot better than what it could have been" means the same as "extra values" in my book.

 

Rik