5422 COG?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&w=saj843hak93dq9ca6&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=ppp1sp1np?]133|200[/hv]

 

Your bid :)

[mw64ahw]

Playing a Gazzilli type structure I bid

1♠-1NT

2♣-2♦ (relay)

2NT (4♥/52♥33 Str+)-3♣ (Shape?/COG or 3M/Pass when absolute minimum)

3H (5422)-COG

[DavidKok]

With Gazzilli you break out that gadget (2♣, and continuations differ per partnership). Without it I think 3♥ is the best call.

[mw64ahw]

With Gazzilli you break out that gadget (2♣, and continuations differ per partnership). Without it I think 3♥ is the best call.

Or perhaps 2NT if you reserve 3♥ for Int+ 5♥s

[sfi]

I quite like playing 2NT as an artificial game-force. That way you can sort out your good hands without clear direction. Now partner can bid a 5-card suit or enquire with 3C.

[mikeh]

Lacking artificial gadgets, this is a nasty problem which asks us to evaluate a hand that is definitely a close call between gf and invitational.

 

I don’t actually like this hand very much. Yes, it has 18 hcp and lots of controls, but its losing trick count is a bit high for a gf hand opposite a 1N response. The spade suit lacks either the 10 or the 9, so is unlikely to set up for tricks in notrump since partner will rarely (if ever, depending on partnership style) hold three spades... and if he does, his hand is probably ugly. If he holds Hx, he’s likely to be bidding 2S over my choice below...and then be aggressive in whether to bid game.

 

We are nv so missing a game won’t cost as much as it would if red.

 

I choose 2H. If partner bids 2S, as he should anytime he is 2=2 or 2=3 in the majors, I bid 2N. Since that shows about a good 17 count, this seems close to what this hand is worth, imo. Yes, I could miss a decent game. But I’d bet that most hands on which he passes 2H would not offer a 50% or better play for game. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, a simulation won’t help since it’s impossible to devise constraints that reliably identify when partner would pass 2H, which is the critical factor.

 

Btw, I also have a gadget that I might employ if available and if I were feeling more upbeat about this hand than I do. 3C over 1N shows either blacks or huge spades or precisely 4 hearts. The problem is that it is gf. The slight edge it has on. Standard bidding is that partner will seldom feel stuck not knowing whether to raise hearts on three,

 

Best of all, we could switch to a forcing club method. Hands like these are a good advertisement for strong club methods. But if playing standard or 2/1, we have a nasty problem.

[nullve]

Using Meckstroth Adjunct in 2/1*:

 

1♠-1N

2N(1)-3♣(2)

3♥(3)

 

(1) GF**, no 5c or longer side suit

(2) relay

(3) 4 H

 

* Described (by Jeff Meckstroth!) in Max Hardy's Advanced Bridge Bidding for the 21st century

** Opener might be stretching a bit here, but 2♥ (11-18(!), 4+ H in Hardy's 2/1) looks suicidal

 

and now Responder can (I think) either bid 3♠ with doubelton support, over which Opener will bid 3N with 5-4 only, or 3N, showing willingness to play there even opposite 6-4.

 

How I wouldmight bid the hand in my system:

 

 

 

1♠(1)-1N(2)

2♣(3)-2♦(4)

3♥(5)

 

(1) "10-21, 5+ S, unBAL"

(2) "5-12, NF"

(3) Gazzilli-like: "10-15, 4+ H" OR "16-18, any"

(4) "8+, relay" (GF opposite "16-18")

(5) "16-18", either 5422, 64(21), 6+S4+H0D or 8+S3(!)H

 

At this point Responder can bid 3N if he wants to play there not only opposite (16-18 hcp and) 5422 but also opposite (15-17 hcp and) 64(21). Or he can relay with 3♠, over which Opener will bid 3N with 5422 only.

 

With a slightly stronger hand:

 

1♠(1)-1N(2)

3♥(3)

 

(1) "10-21, 5+ S, unBAL"

(2) "5-12, NF"

(3) "19-21", either 5422, 64(21), 6+S4+H0D or 8+S3(!)H

 

and now Responder's choices are as above.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by nullve

[nullve]

I don’t actually like this hand very much. Yes, it has 18 hcp and lots of controls, but its losing trick count is a bit high for a gf hand opposite a 1N response.

The (standard) losing trick count doesn't distinguish between

 

AJ843

AK93

Q9

A6

 

and

 

Q9843

KQ93

T9

K6,

 

which is not even an opening hand.

 

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, a simulation won’t help since it’s impossible to devise constraints that reliably identify when partner would pass 2H, which is the critical factor.

I believe this is wrong. First, and most importantly, because it is possible to model exactly when partner would pass 2♥. Secondly, because simulations can be extremely useful even if not entirely realistic. (Think science or engineering.)

 

Btw, I also have a gadget that I might employ if available and if I were feeling more upbeat about this hand than I do. 3C over 1N shows either blacks or huge spades or precisely 4 hearts. The problem is that it is gf. The slight edge it has on. Standard bidding is that partner will seldom feel stuck not knowing whether to raise hearts on three,

Jeff's Magic Elixir, right? I think you have written everything I know about the convention. Seems like the obvious alternative to Meckstroth Adjunct if giving 2N up as a natural invite over 1M-1N is not an option.

 

Best of all, we could switch to a forcing club method. Hands like these are a good advertisement for strong club methods. But if playing standard or 2/1, we have a nasty problem.

They are also a good advertisement for Gazzilli, a convention typically used (as I'm sure you know) in 2/1-like systems where the 1N response to 1M is (at most) SF. So 2/1 players don't necessarily have a nasty problem here.

 

I guess the reason you don't play Gazzilli is that you play 1M-1N as F1 and (partly therefore) prefer Bart/Lisa.

[DavidKok]

Or perhaps 2NT if you reserve 3♥ for Int+ 5♥s

This is completely fair, although I have to confess if I would introduce artificiality on this auction I'd prefer Gazzilli or Lisa (or Bart). I know that raising to 2NT, as well as the 'impossible spade' after 1♥-1NT; 2X, have standard artificial meaning, but oddly I prefer a fully conventional rebid structure to one that is 95% natural with one or two artificial bids.

[mikeh]

 

 

 

I believe this is wrong. First, and most importantly, because it is possible to model exactly when partner would pass 2♥. Secondly, because simulations can be extremely useful even if not entirely realistic. (Think science or engineering.)

 

 

 

 

They are also a good advertisement for Gazzilli, a convention typically used (as I'm sure you know) in 2/1-like systems where the 1N response to 1M is (at most) SF. So 2/1 players don't necessarily have a nasty problem here.

 

I guess the reason you don't play Gazzilli is that you play 1M-1N as F1 and (partly therefore) prefer Bart/Lisa.

1. It may be possible for you to model when you’d pass 2H but I assure you that you won’t be able to model when I pass 2H, nor when others pass 2H. Coincidentally I was reading an old BW yesterday, in which the MSC problems included a hand with 2=3=2=6, Jx KJx Jx Axxxxx.

 

One panelist said he’d consider passing 2H at matchpoints! There were votes for 3S, 3H, 2S, and even 2N.

 

When a group of experts, all playing the same method (whatever the current Bridge World Standard), can’t agree on the right call with that hand, you have to be pretty arrogant to think that you could model when another player would pass 2H.

 

Speaking of the BW, I recall that many years ago they ran some hands through the MSC for a second time, separated by years. Some of the panellists were the same, and several of them gave different answers the second time around. Simulate that! Indeed, my reaction to this hand was that this time I’d bid 2H but, if asked again some time from now, I might choose 3H (in my case, 3C if I’m still playing that). How do you model that?

 

Btw, bridge is not equivalent to science or engineering (one of my degrees is in Applied Science, aka engineering, although it’s from so long ago that we used to use punch cards to program the IBM mainframe then in use, and I don’t think we had much clue about simulations, lol). In science, or engineering, you are going to be simulating a theory on which the researchers agree upon. Here, in bridge, there’s way too much subjectivity for anyone to claim that the constraints they choose are ‘correct’, absent overweening arrogance.

 

2. As for why I don’t play Gazzilli, it may surprise you to learn that a convention is not necessarily ideal merely because you like it.

 

Personally, I’m intrigued by the idea of a semi-forcing 1N response, but it would require a fairly significant adjustment to our methods. Gazzilli allows opener to differentiate strength ranges while Bart, when it arises, allows responder to differentiate strength ranges. My partners prefer Bart, hence I play Bart. I generally play whatever partner wants, with a few exceptions such as transfer responses to 1C, which I persuaded my partners to play.

[Winstonm]

Lacking artificial gadgets, this is a nasty problem which asks us to evaluate a hand that is definitely a close call between gf and invitational.

 

I don’t actually like this hand very much. Yes, it has 18 hcp and lots of controls, but its losing trick count is a bit high for a gf hand opposite a 1N response. The spade suit lacks either the 10 or the 9, so is unlikely to set up for tricks in notrump since partner will rarely (if ever, depending on partnership style) hold three spades... and if he does, his hand is probably ugly. If he holds Hx, he’s likely to be bidding 2S over my choice below...and then be aggressive in whether to bid game.

 

We are nv so missing a game won’t cost as much as it would if red.

 

I choose 2H. If partner bids 2S, as he should anytime he is 2=2 or 2=3 in the majors, I bid 2N. Since that shows about a good 17 count, this seems close to what this hand is worth, imo. Yes, I could miss a decent game. But I’d bet that most hands on which he passes 2H would not offer a 50% or better play for game. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, a simulation won’t help since it’s impossible to devise constraints that reliably identify when partner would pass 2H, which is the critical factor.

 

Btw, I also have a gadget that I might employ if available and if I were feeling more upbeat about this hand than I do. 3C over 1N shows either blacks or huge spades or precisely 4 hearts. The problem is that it is gf. The slight edge it has on. Standard bidding is that partner will seldom feel stuck not knowing whether to raise hearts on three,

 

Best of all, we could switch to a forcing club method. Hands like these are a good advertisement for stronger club methods. But if playing standard or 2/1, we have a nasty problem.

I happen to agree totally although at the table I admit it would be difficult to follow my judgement because who can fault the jump shift?

[mycroft]

I don’t actually like this hand very much. Yes, it has 18 hcp and lots of controls, but its losing trick count is a bit high for a gf hand opposite a 1N response. The spade suit lacks either the 10 or the 9, so is unlikely to set up for tricks in notrump since partner will rarely (if ever, depending on partnership style) hold three spades... and if he does, his hand is probably ugly. If he holds Hx, he’s likely to be bidding 2S over my choice below...and then be aggressive in whether to bid game.

The (standard) losing trick count doesn't distinguish between AJ843 AK93 Q9 A6 and Q9843 KQ93 T9 K6, which is not even an opening hand.

Surely you are not making the argument that bridge players will rely on LTC as a sole method of analyzing hands, especially when it comes to "responding to a 6-9ish hand with 0-2 spades"? That argument is just about as coherent as the ones that say "surely they can't regulate my judgement and not allow me to pass QJ QJ QJ843 QJ64 because I open AKT85 KJ72 9 853"? Except in the latter case I can believe that they just flipped out with "Regulatin' mah Holy Judgement" before they got to the end of the sentence and didn't read what was meant, rather than just blatantly palming a card (although I am willing to argue which is worse, and mostly, the Holy Judgement people have the card edge marks in their hands too).

 

There are people who use LTC as their sole method of hand analysis. These players are known as "intermediates". Good players will use LTC as a shortcut to analysing whether their good hand is great or poor *for the 18 count* (Note: there are also those who use Milton Work count as their sole method of hand analysis. Those players are known as Walruses "intermediates".

 

Mike is - not an intermediate. And everybody here knows that already.

[mw64ahw]

Surely you are not making the argument that bridge players will rely on LTC as a sole method of analyzing hands, especially when it comes to "responding to a 6-9ish hand with 0-2 spades"? That argument is just about as coherent as the ones that say "surely they can't regulate my judgement and not allow me to pass QJ QJ QJ843 QJ64 because I open AKT85 KJ72 9 853"? Except in the latter case I can believe that they just flipped out with "Regulatin' mah Holy Judgement" before they got to the end of the sentence and didn't read what was meant, rather than just blatantly palming a card (although I am willing to argue which is worse, and mostly, the Holy Judgement people have the card edge marks in their hands too).

 

There are people who use LTC as their sole method of hand analysis. These players are known as "intermediates". Good players will use LTC as a shortcut to analysing whether their good hand is great or poor *for the 18 count* (Note: there are also those who use Milton Work count as their sole method of hand analysis. Those players are known as Walruses "intermediates".

 

Mike is - not an intermediate. And everybody here knows that already.

The Modified Loosing Trick Count is 5.5/total points 19 so classifies as a Strong hand for me and worthy of a Jumpshift in Standard

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=s652h64dkj87cqj83&w=saj843hak93dq9ca6&n=sqt7hq75d6532ck74&e=sk9hjt82dat4ct952&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=ppp1sp1np3h]399|300[/hv]

 

Lacking Gazzili, Bart, Biggles, Lisa, JME, etc (my partner does NOT want to change or add to our system), I bid 3♥.

[Winstonm]

[hv=pc=n&s=s652h64dkj87cqj83&w=saj843hak93dq9ca6&n=sqt7hq75d6532ck74&e=sk9hjt82dat4ct952&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=ppp1sp1np3h]399|300[/hv]

 

Lacking Gazzili, Bart, Biggles, Lisa, JME, etc (my partner does NOT want to change or add to our system), I bid 3♥.

 

I hope you made it🤪

[jillybean]

I hope you made it🤪

We were the only pair to play in 4♠, don't ask.

[nullve]

We were the only pair to play in 4♠, don't ask.

1♠-1N

3♥-4♠*

P

 

* intended as Kickback, expecting a better hand

 

?

[mw64ahw]

1♠-1N

3♥-4♠*

P

 

* intended as Kickback, expecting a better hand

 

?

Weak w. ♠ would go 3/4♠ so cue-bidding would show ♥ support SI. With an MLT of 9 and the single keycard East is too weak for the slam try.

 

Perhaps using 2NT for the (semi)balanced hand (3♣ asks?) is better and reserve 3♥ for the unbalanced ones.

[Cascade]

I quite like playing 2NT as an artificial game-force. That way you can sort out your good hands without clear direction. Now partner can bid a 5-card suit or enquire with 3C.

 

Not sure this is a game force hand.

 

Lacking artificial gadgets, this is a nasty problem which asks us to evaluate a hand that is definitely a close call between gf and invitational.

 

I don’t actually like this hand very much. ...

 

 

I choose 2H. ...

 

Unsurprisingly, this seems a better evaluation.

 

Without the game forcing 2NT gadget and without some form of Gazilli, it is normal to play 2NT as invitational and 2♥ as not forcing but wide ranging. Typically, I would play 2♥ as around 11-17 hcp and hope to get another bid with the upper end of that range and 2NT as slightly more.

 

As Mike says this is not a good 18 hcp. We almost certainly do not belong in 4♠ unless your 1NT can conceal three card support. In addition, you probably do not have a method to locate a four-four heart fit after a 2NT raise - in fact I do not recall seeing any commonly used method to locate a four-four heart fit after an invitational 2NT here. These factors point to going low and hoping you survive.

 

I happen to play 2NT is forcing on this sequence along with a Gazilli variation. After the 2NT raise we play an artificial 3♣ bid to ask about heart length in order to locate our four-four and five-three heart fits. Over 3♣ we play 3♦ shows three hearts and 3♥ shows four hearts and other bids show 0-2 hearts. That means if we bid 3♥ over 2NT we are showing six hearts. Of course we lose some definition with the minors but we find almost all of our major fits.

 

Differently, but with similar effect we play methods to find our four-four heart fit after Gazilli. On the auction 1♠ 1NT; 2♣ 2♦ one of the options in 2♦ is any hand with exactly four hearts. Then opener rebids 2♥ with an invitational hand with four hearts and so we always find our four-four heart fit. There are other auctions when opener or responder has five or more hearts.

[jillybean]

1♠-1N

3♥-4♠*

P

 

* intended as Kickback, expecting a better hand

 

?

No

[nullve]

Good players will use LTC as a shortcut to analysing whether their good hand is great or poor *for the 18 count*

As many (e.g. Zelandakh) have pointed out on these forums, the standard LTC is equivalent to counting 3 points for each each

 

* ace

* king at least doubleton

* queen at least third

 

and 3, 6 and 9 points for each doubleton, singleton and void, respectively.

 

Why would any good player use that method as a tie-breaker?

[mycroft]

You're still palming the "only form of analysis" card, and I can see it between your fingers.

 

I have an 18 Work hand. Is it a 12 LTCP hand or an 18 LTCP hand (using your "count")? Which one's better? Is a 12LTCP 18 count really 18, or do we treat it as 17 until we find out if partner's 6-9 covers our losers or are in our short suits? How about a 15LTCP hand? Or an 18 LTCP hand?

 

I have a 21 count, but they could take 5 top tricks vs. I have a 21 count, but they can at worst take 3 top tricks. Which one's better? LTC is a great "shortcut" way to determine (or to talk about) a "good" X vs a "bad" X. One of many, sure, but a good one nonetheless.

 

Come on, this is just as "good or bad 18" as "does it have a singleton" or "do we have a 8- or a 9-card fit". On other hands, where slam is a possibility, obviously "losers" matter, and whether they're the A or the Q, they have to be covered if you're planning on the fourth card in that suit being your 12th trick.

 

There are those who overemphasize LTC - you can find my story of the *Precision* partner I played with who agreed to play 10-12 1NT NV and we missed game because he passed a flat 10 "because I don't open 10 loser hands" (I mean, I could agree with that, but don't agree to play a preemptive 1NT opener then!). But that's not what's being discussed here.

[mycroft]

For a more concrete example, what you're saying is that "Axxxx Axxxx Ax x is evaluated the same as QJx QJ QJxx QJxx, why would a good player use HCP as a tiebreaker?"

 

Because when you're comparing 6-LTC hands, a 12 count is probably worse than an 18 count? Especially opposite 6-9?

[nullve]

For a more concrete example, what you're saying is that "Axxxx Axxxx Ax x is evaluated the same as QJx QJ QJxx QJxx, why would a good player use HCP as a tiebreaker?"

 

Because when you're comparing 6-LTC hands, a 12 count is probably worse than an 18 count? Especially opposite 6-9?

LTC is a disguised way of counting points for high cards and short suits, so a better comparison would be with Goren points, a method desgined to measure the same thing.

[mycroft]

Okay, two tries and you're still telling me "nothing to see here" with pips actually showing between your fingers. You don't want an answer, you want to be right.

 

Okay, you're right. Now let me listen to MikeH and see if I can learn something from his analysis that is so obviously wrong.