From the world's best bridge club

[jillybean]

Well, perhaps not the world's best bridge club but definitely the bridge club with the best view in the world.

I'm in San Diego and have just played at the La Jolla Cove Bridge Club. Playing cards while watching crashing waves, sunning seals and pelicans flying by.

La Jolla Bridge Club

 

Here's a hand for you

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt52hkt72da7ckt5&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1n(12-14)p2d(GF%20asking%20for%204cM)p2h(hearts)p2s(4%2B%20spades)p?]133|200[/hv]

 

1nt (12-14)

2♦ Artificial, GF

2♥ hearts

2♠ 4+ spades

your bid

[LBengtsson]

I guess 3♦ say that I have no interest in the ♠ suit here. So I am bidding 3♠ telling him we have a fit, and if partner bids 4♣, I bid 4♦. Bidding 4♦ immediately suggests a super-accept, but despite some good cards, the hand is still minimum. So 3♠ is my bid, given that 2♦ was GF. Bidding 4♠ immediately just wastes bidding space.

 

Like the bridge club, jillybean :)

[mikeh]

What we want to do is to tell partner that we have spades. We are in a gf auction, so 3S is fine.

 

Since 2S didn’t promise more than 4, a raise by us should show 4. Thus 3S is perfect.

 

Indeed, our hand is wonderful for this, since if he has slam interest there’s lots of sequences. Over 4C we happily bid 4D. If he continues with 4H, we happily bid 5C, and so on.

 

Of course, most players eventually use keycard, but we’re ok with that as well.

 

Frankly, anything but 3S is, imo, overthinking the hand.

 

For example, if you thought that some diamond bid would inferentially show spades, don’t be too sure partner thinks the same way.

 

Qxx KQxx AQxx xx. Might partner think 3D shows something like this?

 

One lesson I’ve learned the hard way is that when we start making up bids, figuring that partner is bound to understand, there’s a high likelihood that he will think something else.

 

And 4D may endplay him in the auction and so on.

[Cyberyeti]

3♠ seems obvious, I'd want to be sure I knew what 3N meant over it

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt52hkt72da7ckt5&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1n(12-14)p2d(GF%20asking%20for%204cM)p2h(hearts)p2s(4%2B%20spades)p3sp4cp4dp4ntp5cp6sp]133|200[/hv]

 

Easy auction.

 

As you'll have guessed, that's not what happened at my table. The auction ended after 1nt 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 4♠

I can't seem to convince partner that a jump to game here should only be made with a hand that they are highly embarrassed having opened. 1nt 2♦* 2♥ 2♠ 3♠ 4♣ 4♠ shows a hand unable to cooperate in slam.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt52hkt72da7ckt5&n=sak874ha8dk953ca9&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1np2d(gf)p2hp2sp4sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Perhaps I was too timid passing 4♠

[mycroft]

"But it's only 12!" This is B-level Walrus thinking. The 10s. The fit. Even the Q in the trump suit (because it's useful, and worth more than say Axxx Qx in the pointeds).

 

Some of it is also B-level "can't trust partner". They'd never say that - and they'd never mean that. They wouldn't even think it. But the experience is still there and not beaten out of them yet. They'll be concerned that "3♠ shows slam interest, and demands cuebidding" and get to slam with random 13 with the 'right' controls. Which, in another auction, maybe yeah, but you can't steal captaincy from partner in this one - at least not yet. And they do it, and get away with it most of the time, and the times when they miss a great slam are still overshadowed by (historically and currently) the times they get to 5M-1 because their partner's judgement *isn't* good enough.

 

As for 3♦, I'm with MikeH, only more so. I was thinking Qx KQxx AQxxx xx. Oh, you wouldn't open 1NT with that? What do you open then? And what do you rebid after 1♦-1♠?

 

And I'll challenge you a bit on the location, too. Unfortunately, they don't play here any more since coming back from "the issue", but twice a week here (with one drink included in your US5 entry) almost was worth the humidity. Almost.

[DavidKok]

The 4♠ was an awful bid, and passing it was not great.

[AL78]

I can understand 4♠ on the basis of HCP counting, it's a min and normally fast arrival shows a min. Opposite a hand making big noises, it is better than minimum because of the aces and kings, and it is likely all those honor cards will work near perfectly with partner's strength. Opposite 4♠ I think North is worth one more nudge with a 5♣ cue. If partner can be bothered to cue their dimaond ace 6♠ is worth a punt.

[AL78]

As for 3♦, I'm with MikeH, only more so. I was thinking Qx KQxx AQxxx xx. Oh, you wouldn't open 1NT with that? What do you open then? And what do you rebid after 1♦-1♠?

 

2♦. It is no different to what I would open and bid holding x KQxx AQxxx Qxx on which I am not opening 1NT either. Yes I might occasionally flounder in a 5-1 fit with a minimum hand opposite, but on the other hand partner might rebid their spades, or have enough to bid 2♥, or have 3+ diamonds and 2♦ is the best contract. There are always going to be hands which are not possible to bid perfectly and it comes down to finding the least worst, rather than the perfect bid.

 

I don't subscribe to the idea that opener rebidding a suit always shows six, because of hands like this where the four carder is higher ranked than the five carder, not strong enough to reverse, and partner responds in a suit ranked above the four carder. I have never played 2/1 GF or forcing 1NT so that might make a difference.

[smerriman]

I can't seem to convince partner that a jump to game here should only be made with a hand that they are highly embarrassed having opened.

Is there any such 1NT opener? I can understand that you might stretch to open a suit, but when you're already limited to such a tight range and partner is entirely unlimited it seems a waste to jump to 4 on *any* hand.

[mycroft]

If you're going to do that, it should probably be an incredibly quacky hand, with any controls in the trump suit only. But partner never has good hands, so I don't get much chance to practise.

 

Note that we play Keri, not 2-way Stayman, and so our "can set the GF and suit at the 3 level" hands are different. And frequently we have to play the "4m agrees the minor, any other suit cues for the major" game, because of the "show, not ask" nature. And it feels very much like both of the above are decisions that are caused by the "what's a good fitting 1NT opener?" question, rather than a symptom of it.

[mw64ahw]

3♠ is the better bid in a GF situation, leaving you in place to indicate the slam invitation via a series of control bids.

North's modified loosing trick count is 4.5 and I assume 7.5 for the 12-14 weak NT giving 19-4.5-7.5=7 level

On this basis I try for the slam regardless of whether the previous bid was 3 or 4♠.

Similarly ~33 combined total points is enough to investigate slam.

[mikeh]

Is there any such 1NT opener? I can understand that you might stretch to open a suit, but when you're already limited to such a tight range and partner is entirely unlimited it seems a waste to jump to 4 on *any* hand.

jxxx KQxx KJx Qx

 

If one chose to treat this as a 12-14 1N (I would…I don’t like passing with both majors and we can’t describe this hand after 1M), you absolutely have to let partner in on the joke.

[DavidKok]

I assume 7.5 for the 12-14 weak NT

That doesn't sound accurate.

[Cyberyeti]

That doesn't sound accurate.

 

Doesn't seem far wrong, consider a bang average weak no trump AKKQJ for the points.

 

How many losers ? looks like 8 if 4333 7 if 5332/4432.

[DavidKok]

Is that an average weak notrump? I'd love to see a simulation on this. I am under the impression that a strong notrump usually has 7 MLT (which may sometimes be 6 regular losers), where the extra king and the balanced nature of the hand average out for suit play. I'd expect a weak (12-14) notrump to be almost a trick weaker on average - so 8 modified losers on average.

 

The picture cards you list would make 8 MLT if 4333, and if 5332/4432 7.5 MLT with the queen in a 3(+)-card suit, and 8 MLT with the queen in the doubleton. That averages to a bit below 8, but of course there are correlations between shape, picture cards and HCP. In particular I think the average number of queens and jacks is over 1 each for a 12-14 balanced opening, which increases the number of modified losers.

[mw64ahw]

Is that an average weak notrump? I'd love to see a simulation on this. I am under the impression that a strong notrump usually has 7 MLT (which may sometimes be 6 regular losers), where the extra king and the balanced nature of the hand average out for suit play. I'd expect a weak (12-14) notrump to be almost a trick weaker on average - so 8 modified losers on average.

 

The picture cards you list would make 8 MLT if 4333, and if 5332/4432 7.5 MLT with the queen in a 3(+)-card suit, and 8 MLT with the queen in the doubleton. That averages to a bit below 8, but of course there are correlations between shape, picture cards and HCP. In particular I think the average number of queens and jacks is over 1 each for a 12-14 balanced opening, which increases the number of modified losers.

We've had this discussion before. Flat hands and ones with too many 'quacks' move above 6.5 15-17 and 7.5 12-14, but I use these as the assumed minimum for fit purposes especially as there is often a fit upgrade. With NT contracts I revert to hcp, but may use the MLT as a tiebreaker on say a 16 count.

The traditional approach has opening hands having a basic loosing trick count of 7 with 8 expected on poor shape/honours so 7.5 is intuitively correct for a 12cup opener.

mikeh's example above has close to 9 because of the 'quacks' & Qx and bidding may get too high if partner's values don't complement. Downgrading the hand gets you to 10/11 total points so the this isn't a surprise.

[AL78]

I am not familiar with MLTC, but with the verson I was taught (-A,K,Q = 1 loser each), a weak NT hand can have from 6 to 8 losers.

[bluenikki]

I can't seem to convince partner that a jump to game here should only be made with a hand that they are highly embarrassed having opened.

 

I believe "highly" is an overbid.

[mikeh]

Personally my view is that using any form of losing trick count to make slam decisions is a very poor approach. Any form of LTC can be a minor assist in the subtle task of hand evaluation, but raising it to an important metric confuses the map with the territory. Sort of akin to the way the Walruses of the bridge world thought point count was all that mattered

 

Metrics don’t win tricks. Cards win tricks…if they are the right cards in the context of partner’s cards.

 

On slam auctions, or near-slam auctions, absent preemption, a sound bidding method should virtually always establish or rule out fits and identify controls, and for interior fillers, a player should know that, say, the Queen of partner’s 5 card suit is valuable or that xxx is usually less valuable opposite a 5 card side suit than is xx, and so on.

 

I don’t know of any good player who uses any form of arithmetic to assess slam potential, beyond the most basic notrump quantitative auctions, and even there judgement, in terms of location of high cards, texture of suits etc plays a role on many hands.

 

Read the MSC in The Bridge World where true world class players discuss difficult bidding issues. I don’t pretend to be current and I don’t pretend to know how every player writes, but I cannot recall a single instance of an expert panelist discussing using these sorts of arithmetical formula. Yes, there will sometimes be references to, say, this hand being a ‘4 loser hand’ or such but never a comment that says..’and partner has shown a MLTC of 3.5 therefore slam is cold..or has no play, etc.

 

Imo spending the sort of effort we see described here on this approach can only detract from learning how to bid in the real world. It is akin to the very long discussions that we used to see about ZAR points. What we never saw was any pair using such an approach ever winning anything🤓

 

I’ll change my tune when proponents of the MLTC start winning or even qualifying for significant events (I apologize to any who have already)

[bluenikki]

Personally my view is that using any form of losing trick count to make slam decisions is a very poor approach. Any form of LTC can be a minor assist in the subtle task of hand evaluation, but raising it to an important metric confuses the map with the territory. Sort of akin to the way the Walruses of the bridge world thought point count was all that mattered

 

Metrics don’t win tricks. Cards win tricks…if they are the right cards in the context of partner’s cards.

 

On slam auctions, or near-slam auctions, absent preemption, a sound bidding method should virtually always establish or rule out fits and identify controls, and for interior fillers, a player should know that, say, the Queen of partner’s 5 card suit is valuable or that xxx is usually less valuable opposite a 5 card side suit than is xx, and so on.

 

I don’t know of any good player who uses any form of arithmetic to assess slam potential, beyond the most basic notrump quantitative auctions, and even there judgement, in terms of location of high cards, texture of suits etc plays a role on many hands.

 

Read the MSC in The Bridge World where true world class players discuss difficult bidding issues. I don’t pretend to be current and I don’t pretend to know how every player writes, but I cannot recall a single instance of an expert panelist discussing using these sorts of arithmetical formula. Yes, there will sometimes be references to, say, this hand being a ‘4 loser hand’ or such but never a comment that says..’and partner has shown a MLTC of 3.5 therefore slam is cold..or has no play, etc.

 

Imo spending the sort of effort we see described here on this approach can only detract from learning how to bid in the real world. It is akin to the very long discussions that we used to see about ZAR points. What we never saw was any pair using such an approach ever winning anything🤓

 

I’ll change my tune when proponents of the MLTC start winning or even qualifying for significant events (I apologize to any who have already)

 

Yes, but.

 

If your partner opens a suit you have four of, and you potentially cover SIX losers, that looks like slam zone to me. It doesn't mean you Blackwood right away. It does mean you try to make you ambitions clear as early as possible.

[PeterAlan]

I assume 7.5 for the 12-14 weak NT.

That doesn't sound accurate.

Taking a simple characterisation of weak NT as all 5332, 4432 & 4333, 12-14, and a simple loser count with all Qxx(x)(x) = 2 losers, then the average (mean) of this loser count is 7.49.

[mikeh]

Yes, but.

 

If your partner opens a suit you have four of, and you potentially cover SIX losers, that looks like slam zone to me. It doesn't mean you Blackwood right away. It does mean you try to make you ambitions clear as early as possible.

I think you misunderstand me.

 

If I have 4 card support for partner’s 4 or more suit, especially 5 or more, I like it. If I happen to hold the A or King, I like it a lot.

 

If I hold a good hand elsewhere in addition, again I like it.

 

If I have gf values immediately, I begin an exploratory auction. If I don’t, but partner shows extras, again I begin an exploratory auction.

 

In doing so, we try to identify degree of fit, side Aces and Kings and/or side shortness. Bidding is often, especially in slam sequences undisturbed by preemption, a dialogue…an exchange of information which often includes not only specific information as above but also general info such as ‘in the context of what we’ve shown so far, do I like my hand or do I think I’ve now told you all I can?’

 

In none of this process would either partner be using a numerical evaluation, whether it be high card points or MLTC or distributional points. We worry about what winners we can identify and what losers we think we have.

 

Now, to do this with some degree of accuracy requires detailed methods and significant experience. My point is that advancing players would, imo, be better served working on these parts of the game rather than being sidetracked into learning what is ultimately, imo, a dead-end with limited upside.

 

I know I sound like a broken record (a saying whose meaning may be obscure to players younger than me), but I’ve never had any discussion with any expert who thinks valuation techniques can ever be reduced to a simple number. Some, for notrump opening purposes, may refer to KnR values, but very very few experts ever downgrade out of their ranges even when KnR suggests they do. Experts often upgrade…rarely downgrade. And while I don’t use KnR, I’ve found that my ‘I like this hand’ or ‘I don’t like this hand’ pretty much mirrors KnR.

 

So put away the adding machines and your algorithms and learn how to value your cards based on the auction…the degree of fit, the controls or lack of them, the texture of suits and so on.

[mw64ahw]

What you describe is your own algorithm for reaching a contract albeit using a less obviously numerical approach. MLT is just another tool that encompasses those elements you use.

In the above example do you stop at 4♠ or move ahead given you know opener is balanced with both Majors? I know I take the extra step where a lot of club players pass and the majority of the time the slam is there or I stop in 5, with any losses mostly being attributed to my poor card play.

[mikeh]

What you describe is your own algorithm for reaching a contract albeit using a less obviously numerical approach. MLT is just another tool that encompasses those elements you use.

In the above example do you stop at 4♠ or move ahead given you know opener is balanced with both Majors? I know I take the extra step where a lot of club players pass and the majority of the time the slam is there or I stop in 5, with any losses mostly being attributed to my poor card play.

You have it backwards when you say that ‘MLT….encompasses those elements you use’, which is the problem, imo. A proper approach to evaluation is far more nuanced, far more subtle than MLT. Of course elements that result in a good valuation in MLT are likely to be present in and play a role in expert valuation, but to suggest that MLT ‘encompasses’ how experts value hands reflects that you don’t understand expert bidding. That’s ok….nobody (or virtually nobody) becomes expert without a lot of play and, importantly, playing with and against, and being involved in long discussions with, experts. Most players never get that experience, and many who do don’t have whatever it is that allows some to become expert. It isn’t just intelligence. Some of the smartest people I’ve met, enthusiastic about bridge, are not and never will be expert

 

Meanwhile, thinking that MLT or any other numerical algorithm capable of use at the table is better than or even equal to expert judgement will prevent you ever learning the latter.

 

I’m not saying that in a perfect world, with massive computer power and adequate time at the table, a purely arithmetic or mathematical approach wouldn’t be ‘the best’. I’m not claiming experts have supernatural powers. I’m merely stating that to replicate expert technique in an arithmetical model that can be learned and applied by humans and reduced to ‘a number’ isn’t feasible…or if it is, hasn’t yet been done.

 

Of course how I (and there are many experts with better judgement than I have) value hands could, if I ever understood it in detail, be reduced to an algorithm or two, but why bother? It’s mostly subconscious, which is good because one only has so much conscious cognition to use at the table.