losing trick count or HCP - after fit and 2/1

[phoenixmj]

[hv=pc=n&n=sa98hkj8dkq4ca643&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1sp2cp2sp]133|200[/hv]

 

As you can see from the bidding, we are in a 2/1 auction. I perceived us to have a fit - but because my hand is totally flat my LTC is very high for my point count. I have 2 questions.

 

1. Should I have bid 2 NT as my next bid - showing stoppers in other suits and a flat hand, but not showing support for what I know to be my partner's 6 card suit.

 

2. As I perceive a good fit, I calculate my LTC to be 7. My partner and i typically use LTC to determine if we have slam interest once we have a fit. If I say 3 spades, my partner will likely think I have better than a 7 LTC. On this basis, I talked myself out of making the 3 spade bid and instead went to 4 spades which is weaker. Consequently - we missed a slam. With 17 points, I feel like I was foolish to let ltC conteract my instinct to investigate slam.

 

Also, we are just as good in NT as in spades, and NT pays more in matchpoints.

 

So -

how should I have approached this hand. i definitely missed the boat.

[steve2005]

I would think if you use adjustments to loser count you are better than 7 losers.

 

NT only pays more if the exact tricks are available. With a likely 9-card fit spades will often provide an extra trick.

[barmar]

Is the diagram right? The auction says EW are bidding, but it shows South's hand.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa98hkj8dkq4ca643&d=w&v=b&b=7&a=p1sp2cp2sp?]133|200|phoenizmj asks

'#1. Should I have bid 2 NT as my next bid - showing stoppers in other suits and a flat hand, but not showing support for what I know to be my partner's 6 card suit.'

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Altered to give South have the bidding decision -- as suggested by Barmar. 2N seems a sensible bid even if you eventually decide to play in ♠s

 

'#2. As I perceive a good fit, I calculate my LTC to be 7. My partner and i typically use LTC to determine if we have slam interest once we have a fit. If I say 3 spades, my partner will likely think I have better than a 7 LTC. On this basis, I talked myself out of making the 3 spade bid and instead went to 4 spades which is weaker. Consequently - we missed a slam. With 17 points, I feel like I was foolish to let ltC conteract my instinct to investigate slam.'

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Many 2/1 partnerships routinely open 1M and rebid 2M with only 5 cards. For South, 3♠ seems better than 4♠. Many would rate the hand as 6 losers. In expert circles, it's fashionable to deride the losing-trick count. IMO, however, LTC is a simple useful rule-of-thumb for ordinary players that often improves our decision-making.[/hv]

[RuflRabbit]

Whether or not partner shows 6 spades (partnership agreement), you'll have trouble catching up if you don't show support now. This hand is too good not to give you and pard the chance to explore for slam. The hardest question here, imo, is what 3NT shows over 3S. For some it's a slam try, for others it's an offer to play. There are merits to either POV, it's just key that the partnership has a clear rule. (Fwiw, my preference is that 3NT is non-serious/mild slam try when we have a major suit fit and 2NT was not bid naturally.)

[pescetom]

I agree with 3S here whatever the agreement about 2S was.

 

After 3S I prefer 3NT to be non-serious, showing a minimum or near with concern about trumps. That should not stop you control bidding 4C here.

[Tramticket]

Two-over-one is not my system, but as I understand it 2♠ is largely unlimited since we are in a game-forcing auction? Given this, why would you take up the bidding space and leap to 4♠? I would expect a jump to 4♠ to be a rare action based on a tightly defined hand type.

 

As to the method of valuing the hand, I think that you should use as many methods as practically possible - limiting yourself to one valuation tool is like playing golf with only one club in the bag. Here you will be looking at the raw High-card Points, any adjustments for shape (a negative adjustment if anything), honours working in combination, intermediate cards, position of honours, fit for partner etc. as well as the Losing Trick Count. A major factor in considering a potential slam is the presence or absence of controls - here the presence of two first-round controls and two second-round control is encouraging. Looking at these factors in combination, I would assess that a slam is possible, but needs extras from partner. Bidding 3♠ here keeps the dialogue open and a cue-bid or serious / non-serious 3NT from partner will help you judge further.

[barmar]

Many pairs play "fast arrival", so jumping to 4♠ shows a minimum game force, while 3♠ shows a better hand and suggests exploring for slam.

[KingCovert]

3♠ is clear, isn't it?

 

What you're looking for is a cuebid of diamonds/hearts, and then you want to cue-bid your ace of clubs. It sounds like your partner is going to have the hand that will raise slam given your description.

[neilkaz]

Clear 3♠ bid for me

[FelicityR]

I'm not a 2/1 expert, but I believe in common sense bidding. If partner's 2♠ bid could be made on a 5 card suit, possibly 6 cards, it behoves you now to show him that you have 3 card support at the earliest opportunity and bid 3♠.

 

I agree that 3♠ does waste space, and 2NT here would be a bid that shows the balanced nature of the hand, but partner is never going to believe that you have adequate ♠ support - 8 cards between you is considered a fit as we all know - and he/she may be tempted to pull any later ♠ bid to no-trumps.

 

The danger here is that the responder feels they should be controlling the auction as they have the better hand, but if partner is minimum game may be the only contract available. Partner should realise that you do have extras for your 2♣ followed by 3♠ bids as you haven't used the principle of fast arrival and bid 4♠ on the second round (as other commentators have said).

 

Obviously, there should be some bidding mechanism incorporated in 2/1 - and someone well versed in intricate 2/1 auctions will hopefully clarify this - where the 'pudding' (balanced) nature of responder's hand could be represented by the auction 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♠ - 3NT, where 3NT specifically shows 3 card ♠ support, 3334 shape, and approximately 16 HCPs.

[pescetom]

Obviously, there should be some bidding mechanism incorporated in 2/1 - and someone well versed in intricate 2/1 auctions will hopefully clarify this - where the 'pudding' (balanced) nature of responder's hand could be represented by the auction 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♠ - 3NT, where 3NT specifically shows 3 card ♠ support, 3334 shape, and approximately 16 HCPs.

I'm another common sense person and quite happy to avoid intricateness in our 2/1 bidding whenever possible, which to me means showing support with 3♠ when I have it. If opener follows with a control-bid then I still retain choice of slam seeking methods and remain free to correct a final ♠ contract to NT if that looks right. Yes 3NT could differentiate HCP with respect to 3♠, but that cannibalises 3NT non-serious by opener which seems to me a more important signal whatever my own strength.

[cherdano]

A number of posters have eloquently made a case for losing trick count over the years. Against that, many of the worst bids or hand evaluations we see on this forum are justified by losing trick count...

This hand is not a minimum game force, no matter what LTC tells you.

[mikestar13]

The New Losing Trick Count evaluates this hand a full trick better than an minimum opening. 6.5 losers vs. 7.5.

 

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

If you have a bal. Hand, you dont use LTC, you use cover Cards, LTC works for unbal. Hand,

but over estimates the looser for bal. hands.

You have 3-4 cover Cards, 2 Aces / KQ makes 3, the 2nd king is a likely cover Card.

3-4 Cover is the average expectation for a strong NT, … you happen to have a strong NT.

 

Partner ist still unlimited, i.e. he has 7 or less Loosers,

Your cover Cards take care of 3-4 of his Loosers, i.e. game is certain, slam may be

possible, due to the fact that p is Unlimited, go with 3S.

 

With Kind regards,

Marlowe

 

PS: I disagree with Cherdano regarding the merrits of LTC, but agree with his statement,

that LTC is quite often (mis)used to justify bad bids.

For that matter, HCP is also quite good, espesially with bal. Hands, even if it gets quite

often derrided.

We have 17HCP, Partner has 12+ Unlimited, this means we are approx. 30+.

So HCP tells us we should look for slam, but we should not force slam.