stiff ace as 2 QPs

[straube]

We got too high on a practice hand today in which pd had a stiff ace and not the working KQ I was hoping for.

 

A KQxxx Jxxx AKx

 

xxxx Axx Axx T9x

 

I stopped in 5H, one too high. I was hoping for...

 

x KQxxx KQJx AKx

 

and I was pushing too hard anyway.

 

But the point is that if my hand had been a little better...

 

xxxx Axx Axx Qxx

 

we would have also been too high (I probably would have taken us past 5H).

 

We use Parity Cue Bidding to find out missing honors and the singleton is scanned last. I'm thinking that

stiff aces probably are only worth 2 QPs anyway (they are 1 trick only having less combinative power) and if we count them as 2 (and we already count stiff king as 1)

that we won't get asker too excited about a perfect mesh. Also, we'll be able still to locate that pd in fact

has a stiff ace and be able to place his other cards.

 

So especially if one is already counting the stiff K as 1, why not count the stiff A as 2?

[straube]

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/56295-stiff-a-3-qps/

 

Sorry, already received good feedback on this once before. I guess a stiff ace still gets me into trouble...

[Zelandakh]

From what I remember you use a 2-way relay system. Could you not arrange it that the hand with a singleton ace always does the scanning, even when facing a balanced hand? That might enable you to bypass the issue almost completely.

[straube]

From what I remember you use a 2-way relay system. Could you not arrange it that the hand with a singleton ace always does the scanning, even when facing a balanced hand? That might enable you to bypass the issue almost completely.

 

Unfortunately not. Occasionally one has the option of deciding captaincy but more often the issue is forced. It's usually strong hand vs a 5-10 or its balanced hand vs unbalanced when it's strong hand vs 11+.

 

I see that the knr values a stiff ace at 3.4 and the knr "average" ace is approximately 4.4. Actually 4.4 is an average of Axx and Axxx and understates the value of an ace because these holdings have no combinative value (e.g. AJ9x or AQJ). Comparing 3.4 to the 3.0 of an average king, I still think valuing it at 2 makes more sense. It's no more math than valuing a stiff K at 1. The problem otherwise is that one can get interested in a great mesh and then learn very late that partner holds the "wrong" card.

[foobar]

I would add an item for "needs more analysis" (though one can argue whether it's even worthwhile).

 

1) The sample size is way to small to draw any meaningful conclusions

2) On the hand in question, there's really no need for the relay captain to be so gung ho given the uninspiring shape and likely possibility of a total of 16-18 QPs combined

3) Adam (awm) evaluates stiff Ks as 2 (and possibly stiff Qs as well), so this is hardly a cut and dry matter

4) Counting stiff Aces as 2 has ramifications on the "super accept" hands with base+3 QPs. Should the evaluation be any different for those hands?

5) Honours are perforce more likely to be in longer suits