BPO-004C

[flytoox]

Opps do have a fit, they just don't know where it is yet. If you pass they will find it.

I doubt this claim. LHO made a 1N response, Not a negative dbl. Then you think if I bid 2S, he will dbl for takeout? If I want to compete to 3S only, why not bid 2S and then compete to 3S if opps bid 3H?

[MickyB]

Yes, I am fairly sure that East will have spade shortage to balance with. We have a 9 card fit, opps must have an 8+card fit somewhere. I agree that 2♠ then 3♠ may be better on this particular auction, which is why I voted for 2♠!

[flytoox]

2S would be too pessimisstic, I must say:)

[MickyB]

I don't think so. Seems like pard will need two aces and a useful king for 4♠ to be on. Yes you have a pretty hand, but you are likely to lose a trump and pard is a passed hand.

[flytoox]

I don't think so. Seems like pard will need two aces and a useful king for 4♠ to be on. Yes you have a pretty hand, but you are likely to lose a trump and pard is a passed hand.

Here we agree to disagree:)

[P_Marlowe]

For me, 3S is also a kind of game try,

but would ask for help in the trump suit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[inquiry]

This hand the responses where divided between the strongly optimistic (two 4♠ bidders), the strongly pessimistic bidders (2-2♠ bidders), and the cautious game try group (mixture of 3♠ and 3♣ bids. Let’s start with those with guns blazing in glory.

 

 

Ritong 4♠ sexy hand.”

 

Luis 4♠ being vulnerable I think a shot at game is logical with this nice 6-4 hand. Other bids don't get us anywhere, it's either 2 or 4 spades and I prefer to play the vulnerable game. The 1NT bid is not a good sign but I can't stop short of game because of a 1NT bid that may be basically anything.

 

Counter these bids with the views of the pessimist.

 

Walddk 2S. “Responder shows a sound spade raise, but LHO has told me that we have at least one trump loser. It is unlikely that my passed partner can cover enough losers for game to make

.

reisig “2♠ (I prefer 2♠ over 1♥ - intermediate)”

 

I will have to admit two things, when I held this hand on this auction, I joined rich and Roland in passing.

 

Now for the distinction between 3♣ and 3♥ .

Fred “3♣ Feels like I should just bid 4S, but I have been warned that there is a trump loser and partner probably has some of his values in hearts. I will therefore give partner one chance to get out below game.”

 

ng 3♣ . 2♥ was invitation in spades, 3♣ is also a game try. I trust to partner, I have good shape and 6 losers, so it's worth to try the vulnerable game.

 

Sergey probably gave the most thoughtful answer on why 3♣ . Dinos1 3♣ “ trust to partner who showed working 8-11 pts and spade fit. Say sQxx d A and cK makes 4♠ contract cold. Partner obviously has no wasted values in hearts (or else he shd Dbl 1N or just raise to 2S). Over 3♣ partner will bid 4♠ with hand above and 3♦ having dK and cA instead. As to LHO bidding - my guess is he has great heart fit and is trying to bluff us out of 4♠ (look - RHO didn't Dbl 2♥ with good 6-carder and didn't open 2H). Though I don't exclude that bidding is honest (hearts are distributed as Q10 - Axxx - KJxxxx).

 

FLUFFY ”3♣ game seems likely, but let partner stop if he has ♣ xxx [/cl] .”

 

Bidding 3♠ were our two guest panelist.

Poky 3♠ ” which shows a good but minimal offensive hand. I expect partner to hold some 3-5-4-1 pattern. Partner should raise to game when holding one red ace and the spade queen. “ cherdano 3♠ ,” invitational I hope. Given the almost certain spade loser, I don't have enough to jump to game.”

 

So 3♣ is clearly the winner and scores 100 with four votes. The other bids each received two votes. I upgraded 3♠ , the game try, because although not as descriptive as 3♣ , which as fluffy points out gets to the heart of the hand, at least gives you a chance to be in 4♠ when it is right and to stop short of game on other hands. So that left the pessimistic 2♠ and the optimistic 4♠ . Since 8 out of ten pairs chose not to force to game, I could have down grade the aggressive leap to game, but on the other hand, since 8 out of ten tried for game (or bid it), I could have down graded the timid pass. Perhaps I am influenced by Roland’s comment that West has kindly told us he had a spade stopper, or perhaps because I choose the too timid pass myself at the table, that I went with downgrading more (slightly) the leap to game. All in all, I think the 3♣ bidders have it right on this hand. The scores,

3♣ = 100

3♠ = 80

2♠ = 60

4♠ = 50

 

Fred           3♣

Luis            4♠

Walddk     2♠

Fluffy         3♣

cherdano 3♠

reisig           2♠

ritong         4♠

ng                 3♣

Dinos1         3♣

Poky               3♠

[Walddk]

Now Henri, this is what you get for bidding 4♠ with a sexy hand :-)

 

Roland

 

P.S. Please explain how you define "sexy" in this context.

[MickyB]

Fair enough Dinos, who thinks that the 1NT response may be a psyche, but I'm not quite sure why everyone else is looking for game. Are they placing LHO with Qx in trumps? If you have a trump loser then partner will need two aces and a useful king to make 4♠, so even an invitation sounds like an overbid to me.

[luis]

You always learn something new in this game, today I learned that I will bid 1NT every single time I'm afraid my opponents may be able to win 4s whenever I have support for pd's suit but I know I will be outbid. Surprinsingly this silly bluff will change many players bid from 4♠ to some kind of "won't be my fault trial bid" or "will be my fault" 2♠.

 

Wild jumps to game and visions of slams in BPO4-A when NV and now they want to play a partscore being vulnerable with a 6-4 hand. God bless Henri is here or I would think the world has gone nuts.

[Walddk]

You always learn something new in this game, today I learned that I will bid 1NT every single time I'm afraid my opponents may be able to win 4s

I don't buy this. Next time it's your hand, and your partner will take you seriously when you bid 1NT and raise to 3NT. As to the opponents (us in this case), I think it's best to base our approach on the assumption that West has a spade stopper.

 

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

You always learn something new in this game, today I learned that I will bid 1NT every single time I'm afraid my opponents may be able to win 4s whenever I have support for pd's suit but I know I will be outbid. Surprinsingly this silly bluff will change many players bid from 4♠ to some kind of "won't be my fault trial bid" or "will be my fault" 2♠.

 

Wild jumps to game and visions of slams in BPO4-A when NV and now they want to play a partscore being vulnerable with a 6-4 hand. God bless Henri is here or I would think the world has gone nuts.

Hi Luis,

 

I have to agree, at the table in 9 times out of 10, I

would just blast to game, because "I'd rather got hang

for a sheep, than for a goat" and "if I die, hopefully it was

for a prize, worth fighting for".

 

I could not resist 3C, believing correctly, as it turned out,

that this would be the panels choice.

 

I made one observation on this forum: Most posters seem to try to find

every slam, even if the slam is only 50% at best, but on the other hand,

try to stop short before game on a dime.

 

Well that were enough "popular phrases" for a month.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ritong]

Now Henri, this is what you get for bidding 4♠ with a sexy hand :-)

 

Roland

 

P.S. Please explain how you define "sexy" in this context.

mm... in any context , sexy is a synonym for seductive :-)

 

not sure about " what you get for..." . i bid in polls like i do at the table , is the goal of a poll imho . at the table, then , i do not suspect opps are trying to trick me with a phony 1nt ( anyway, if one among you folks never bid 1nt on ♠Qx, he/she can throw the first stone at me), i can see that i have six net losers and i hope my cue bidding part covers three of them one way or another . an other way to perceive it is : my part invites , my hand seduces me, i accept. finally , in the " at the table "view, we play several hands . in my experience, it is not a bad thing opps are convinced you are a barbarian :-)

[MickyB]

You always learn something new in this game, today I learned that I will bid 1NT every single time I'm afraid my opponents may be able to win 4s

I don't buy this. Next time it's your hand, and your partner will take you seriously when you bid 1NT and raise to 3NT. As to the opponents (us in this case), I think it's best to base our approach on the assumption that West has a spade stopper.

While I obviously agree with you that we should assume that we probably have a spade loser, you did cut out the relevant bit of Luis's post - he said "whenever I have support for pd's suit but I know I will be outbid". He could then pull 3NT to 4♥.

 

And yes Luis, it does sound like a good psyche. The fact that you hadn't considered making it before now backs up my assumption that lefty probably has a spade trick :P

[MickyB]

OK, one of my bugbears...

 

Losing Trick Count. It is a very inaccurate method of hand evaluation - basically, it gives no values to tens or jacks, is frequently applied in a way that doesn't give proportional values to the top honours, and overvalues shape in comparison to high cards by assuming that there will be no wastage opposite. 4.5-3.0-1.5-0.75-0.25 honours count and 5-3-1 shortage count is a much better way of evaluating your hand (although obviously it requires further adjustments for supporting honours/bare honours, honours in short suits/long suits, etc). Compare this to LTC, which is basically a 4.5-3.0-1.5 honours count with a 9-6-3 shortage count.

 

You can read Neil Cohen's critique of the LTC here.

[cherdano]

I really like LTC -- it tells me the very optimistic view of distributional hands, assuming that none of partner's cover cards is wasted. (And of course I don't count Axx and Qxx as two losers, this is and has always been ridiculous.) And you have to be sure that you have enough trumps+hcp firepower to not loose control before establishing long suits. Taking all this into account, I find it really useful as an upper bound of the playing strength of distributional hands.

 

Arend

[Winstonm]

3S seems ideal. I have a pure 6-loser hand and need to let partner know not to worry too much about the 1N bid as my spades are pretty darn good. To me, 3C sound like a hand concerned about the spade quality, not a game try.

 

WinstonM

[whereagles]

OK, one of my bugbears...

 

Losing Trick Count. It is a very inaccurate method of hand evaluation - basically, it gives no values to tens or jacks, is frequently applied in a way that doesn't give proportional values to the top honours, and overvalues shape in comparison to high cards by assuming that there will be no wastage opposite. 4.5-3.0-1.5-0.75-0.25 honours count and 5-3-1 shortage count is a much better way of evaluating your hand (although obviously it requires further adjustments for supporting honours/bare honours, honours in short suits/long suits, etc). Compare this to LTC, which is basically a 4.5-3.0-1.5 honours count with a 9-6-3 shortage count.

 

You can read Neil Cohen's critique of the LTC here.

On the other hand, the LTC is the only evaluation method known to mankind that correctly deals with extra lenght in suits...

[MickyB]

Lol Whereagles, right you are ;) Noone else knows that when you have a four card suit, it will always split 3-3-3 around the table :rolleyes:

 

Fair enough Arend, but so many people use LTC as their only method of hand evaluation once a fit has been found.

[flytoox]

I am never a fan of LTC. My opinion is that Lawrence's Hand evaluation is much more helpful.

 

Talking about LTC isolatedly is meaningless. It must be viewed in context.

[Elianna]

Contestant's answers:

3♣ 14

3♠ 6

2♠ 6

4♠ 3