[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Nov 10 2005, 09:14 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 10 2005, 07:11 PM, said:

Point to me is not about trick count but agreements - where, in a serious partnership, do you draw the line between "evaluation" and "misbid"?

I understand your point, I think we just differ in how rigid our requirements are for certain bids. Most of the systems I play offer a lot of room for judgement and "evaluation" and are not defined strongly (ie preempts or 2C openers). In my agreements (or lack thereof lol) this hand would be fine to open 2C or 1S.

Yes, exactly my question....how much leeway is or should be given in expert partnerships before it becomes destructive....interesting question.

Winston

[mike777]

Jlall, on Nov 10 2005, 06:48 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 10 2005, 06:33 PM, said:

If your system calls for 4 losers for 2C it is acceptable I would think to fudge that to 4 1/2.  But a full trick is too big of difference in Fudge Factor, IMO.

Winston

I still don't understand LTC obviously. Is Qx the same as xx in LTC? is AKJxxx the same as AKxxxx? I'm confused, but I wouldn't rate this hand as a full trick too weak for 2C. Mikeh rates it as "the ten of spades" too weak.

Yes! In general the answer to your question is Yes same loser count. Of course loser count in LTC is not repeat not used to evaluate opening bids! If you want to count losers for opening bids, FINE, but that is not Losing Trick Count (LTC).

Of course I understand LTC to help me with close decisions.
Qx would lean toward a plus.....AKJ would lean towards a plus. xx or AKx =clear loser count no plus.

In any case as usual I am surprised my 1s=1nt=4s is the only one in the field, oh well.

[Kalvan14]

mikeh, on Nov 10 2005, 06:25 PM, said:

Kalvan14, on Nov 10 2005, 05:49 PM, said:

2♣. This hand is too strong in controls and can make 4♠ against xxx in ♠ and a doubleton club. in any case my 2♣ includes this kind of hands, and, if pard is weak and in misfit, i can play 2♠ [2♣-2♠-P or 2♣-2♥-2♠-P]

As Justin said, posts that say: 'in my specialized method, this hand is easy' do nothing to advance our understanding of the issues raised by the post.

I am not attacking your method (I do not know enough about it to do so), but it has nothing to do with the thread.

And observing that game is good opposite xxx - xx in the blacks, with nothing else, is also unhelpful. Would partner know to commit to game with that, and not with xxx♠ xx♥/♦??? Would you be able to tell that he held xx♣ and not xxx??

The problem is not susceptible to a right or wrong answer approach. It is, however, useful for prompting a discussion of how various players (with a wide range of experience and skill levels) approach this everyday evaluation problem in the context of a standardish method.

I prefer 1♠, but I would not criticize a partner who chose 2♣: as I pointed out in my first post, a minor change to the hand could get me to vote for 2♣ myself.

I and my partners stretch to respond. If you need 6 hcp to respond, then open 2♣. If you would bid 1N (on the way to 2♠) with Qxx Jxxxx Qxx xx, then open 1♠.

If you bid aggressively in response to a 2♣ opener (I do) then open 1♠: I would, as partner, assume opener's hand was slightly stronger than this and thus might push a level too high in my slam hunt.

Those two factors are roughly equal, with the balance favouring 2♣. But what tips the scale for me is the presence of opponents. It is highly probable that one or the other will bid if I open 1♠. If It goes PPP, then there is a good probabilty that we have no fit: RHO will strain to reopen with short ♠, so a pass is an indicator (not an assurance) of ♠ length.

"my method" was just an aside. The issue is that I do not want the risk of pard passing with the little that i need to make a game.
Therefore, I rate it better to open this hand 2♣, and i would do it certainly playing either SAYC or 2/1.
The hand has 8 controls out of 12 and a solid spade suit. frankly 5 or 4.5 losers against 4 is not a major issue, IMHO

[Rebound]

It cracks me up that some of the same people who have previously advocated overbidding rather than underbidding (given no other choices) now rate this hand as a 1♠ opening. Not that I cannot understand that this is a different situation entirely, and not that I don't have a great deal of respect for their skill, intelligence, and analytical abilites (far moreso than my own lol), but it still gives me a chuckle :-)

FWIW, I feel that there are far too many holdings with which partner will pass 1♠ for me to open that with this hand so I would open 2♣. However, mikeh's post elucidated the point very well. As usual, it depends a lot on style and partnership understanding. My recurring partners, on the whole, will never stretch enough to bid over 1♠ with many hands that will produce game opposite the given hand.

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Nov 11 2005, 12:15 AM, said:

Hannie, on Nov 10 2005, 05:13 PM, said:

Playing Ben's inquiry2over1 this is a fairly straightforward 2C opener.

That is why this problem is not posed playing inquiry2over1.

I just dont understand posts like this. It would be the same as me saying "In precision, this is an obvious 1C."

Not quite I think. You see, whether you open this (not so rare) handtype 1S or 2C is, IMO, more of a style and overall system issue than a question of evaluation of this specific hand.

This style depends of course a lot on what follow-up agreements you have after 1S or 2C. Mike has special agreements after 1S-1NT that allow him to describe this hand well after 1S. In Ben's system, it is very convenient to stop below game after a 2C opening, allowing for this hand type in 2C. It is a small change from standard (well, is there a standard after 2♣?), and solves this frequent hand type well.

Arend

[Chamaco]

Jlall, on Nov 10 2005, 11:48 PM, said:

I still don't understand LTC obviously. Is Qx the same as xx in LTC? is AKJxxx the same as AKxxxx? I'm confused, but I wouldn't rate this hand as a full trick too weak for 2C. Mikeh rates it as "the ten of spades" too weak.

This is an important point if anyone is ever going to use LTC.
We should use our brain and reevaluate the hand.

To me, AKJxxx is 0.5 losers, not 1
Similarly,AJTxxx would be 1+ (or 1.25 if you like) losers, not 2, in view of the double finesse, but if pard is short, then it'll be downgraded to 2- losers (we might not be able to double finesse)

And, Qx, is 2- losers (or, say 1.75, but fractional cunt is not practical, so I usually jst count for + and - at the table), unless they bid the suit (then 2 losers, and some extra downgrade for having a wasted value);
if pard bids the suit, Qx becomes 1+ loser (or 1.25 if you like).

====

Ok, this post is not for you justin, of course you upgrade/downgrade better than any hand rating method, but for those who use LTC like robots and later complain that LTC overbid or underbid the hand. :-)

[kgr]

2♣ for me.
I don't like to open 1♠ and have to jump to 3♣ later. (or having to play 1♠ when partner has not else then ♣Q).
I rather like 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ to start with.
----------------------------------------------
In system I play with my regular partner:
2♣-2♦ relay-2♥-2♠ relay-3♠ : this is 20-21 pts and a 6-card ♠

[Gerben42]

Playing those nice ParadoX responses to 2♣

This hand is an easy 2♣ opening bid, planning to bid a nonforcing 2♠ over 2♥ 2nd negative and pass a 2♠ response (no tricks if ♠ are trumps).

My requirements for opening 2♣ are: If I open 1x and partner passes do I feel bad? Notice that if you play that you respond 1NT to 1♠ on junk you might open 1♠ instead but I'm still not buying that.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Nov 10 2005, 10:37 PM, said:

In any case as usual I am surprised my 1s=1nt=4s is the only one in the field, oh well.

you aren't... i thought i was

[FrancesHinden]

I'm glad nobody has selected 2NT, which to my mind is horrible.

I open 1S, but then
i) I have good methods after 1S-1NT (or at least, good enough methods to show this type of hand without going past 3NT)
ii) I play 2C as game forcing, and cannot get out below game.

While it's true that opening 1S may miss game, if you open hands like this 2C without having some means of showing it, you will reach some games where I get passed out in 1S but your slam bidding will be worse.

[Walddk]

Considering that Frances is from Acol-land, I am surprised to see that she didn't suggest a 2♠ opening. I know it's not an option by pigpenz, but isn't this a hand true Acol players would open 2♠? 8½-9 playing tricks.

2♠ - 2NT/3♣ (any negative)
3♠

Non forcing.

Roland

[Free]

2♣.

Btw, for me this is a 4 loser hand, not 5 losers! Qx is 2 losers, but AKJ is almost 0.5 loser, so it doesn't count for me.

[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Nov 11 2005, 06:55 AM, said:

Considering that Frances is from Acol-land, I am surprised to see that she didn't suggest a 2♠ opening. I know it's not an option by pigpenz, but isn't this a hand true Acol players would open 2♠? 8½-9 playing tricks.

I thought of it, yes.
But then I decided that saying it was a 2S opening in Acol was about as helpful as saying it's a 1NT opening playing Romex or a pass in a forcing pass system.

[mikestar]

I know that the problem was not posed that way, but paradox responses to 2♣ are so blatantly superior to other response schemes that it would be tragic not to mention them. Without a fundamental change in system, use of this method turns a common difficult decision into a no brainer--we open 2♣ with the possibility of getting out in 2♠ opposite a worthless hand: something even ACOl 2's can't do.

This is not the same as pointing out that this is an easy Precision 1♣ or Romex 1NT or FP pass.

[inquiry]

Walddk, on Nov 11 2005, 06:55 AM, said:

Considering that Frances is from Acol-land, I am surprised to see that she didn't suggest a 2♠ opening. I know it's not an option by pigpenz, but isn't this a hand true Acol players would open 2♠? 8½-9 playing tricks.

2♠ - 2NT/3♣ (any negative)
3♠

Non forcing.

Roland

Actually, since my choice to open this type of hand of 2♣ has been mentioned, allow me to explain. My 2♣ opening bid includes "Acol two bids" in either major as one possible holding. We use paradox 2♥/2♠ initial replies to this as instant double negatives. This is really, the method of Brit Chris Ryall, I just have incorporated it.

And as far as explaining it here, in the original post, there were a number of odd openings, including 1C forcing and 2NT twice. Without playing paradox responses to 2C (generic 2/1 GF, BBO advanced, Sayc), I would open 1S. This is one reason why I play Chris Ryall's method. :-)

[david_c]

mikestar, on Nov 11 2005, 05:06 PM, said:

I know that the problem was not posed that way, but paradox responses to 2♣ are so blatantly superior to other response schemes that it would be tragic not to mention them.

I would take issue with the word "blatantly". Paradox responses lose in a number of situations, perhaps most importantly because responder can't show a major at the two-level.

[Winstonm]

Evaluation of this hand is of interest I think....

The spade suit although good is not great....like MikeH pointed out, AKJ10xx improves the overall strength greatly by being able to withstand 4/1 breaks.

The shape is poor. 6332 patterns are not wonderful. I would rather have:

AKJ10xx
Q
Axx
AKxx

Without the spade 10 and with minimumish high cards, the location of cards and poor shape make it just short IMO. Rearrange it slightly to this and it's clear cut:

AKJxxx
x
AQx
AKxx

With the original hand, to have a reasonable prospect for game in spades, responder will need 2 cover cards and a reasonable fit: Minimum hands would be xx, Kxx, xxxx, Qxxx with which many would respond. Even xxx, Kx, xxxx, xxxx would keep the auction alive with a 1N forcing bid while many weak 4-card fits would make a weak jump raise.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that with the most reasonable holding for game, partner is unlikely to pass 1S while with the hands game will struggle will be passed: xx, J10xx, QJx, xxx.

On a side note: Cover cards. Take these holdings:
AKJxxx
xxx

If this fit is known, either the opening hand should subtract a loser or the responding hand should add a cover as the suit will be played for no losers over half the time - even with no entry.

And a final note: LTC as an opening bid mechanism is just a way to express in discussion the approximate requirements for a bid, not an evaluation tool. When I look at this hand it looks close to a 2C opener, but without thinking about it my instincts tell me that shape, body, and card location look off - so I double check with losers. 1 in spades. 2 in hearts. 1 in diamonds. 1 in clubs. My partner will have to produce 2 cover cards if he holds xx in spades - and we have agreed that he should raise to game with 1 prime cover and that likely isn't enough on this hand. So my system and agreements lead me to 1S.

Winston

[han]

cherdano, on Nov 11 2005, 04:15 AM, said:

Jlall, on Nov 11 2005, 12:15 AM, said:

Hannie, on Nov 10 2005, 05:13 PM, said:

Playing Ben's inquiry2over1 this is a fairly straightforward 2C opener.

That is why this problem is not posed playing inquiry2over1.

I just dont understand posts like this. It would be the same as me saying "In precision, this is an obvious 1C."

Not quite I think. You see, whether you open this (not so rare) handtype 1S or 2C is, IMO, more of a style and overall system issue than a question of evaluation of this specific hand.

This style depends of course a lot on what follow-up agreements you have after 1S or 2C. Mike has special agreements after 1S-1NT that allow him to describe this hand well after 1S. In Ben's system, it is very convenient to stop below game after a 2C opening, allowing for this hand type in 2C. It is a small change from standard (well, is there a standard after 2♣?), and solves this frequent hand type well.

Arend

This is too bad, I would have made the same point. Whether you open 2C or 1S is a question about style and partnership agreement. So I can't answer this question without saying who I'd be playing with. With Ben we open these hands more often with 2C than most partnerships do. 2C is still a strong opening with many kinds of patterns, and 1S is still natural with 5+ spades, so this is not the same as saying that we'd open 1C playing a strong club.

With my f2f partner I might have opened 2C, that was our style.

[fred]

For most of my bridge life I opened 1S and I was sure that was right.

Now I open 2C and I am sure that is right.

Perhaps this change can be explained as a result of my tendency toward more agressive 1-level openings. If you open light at the 1-level and if you are always super-solid for 2C, your 1-bids will have a very wide range. That puts a lot of pressure on responder either when he needs nothing to make a game or next to nothing to make a slam.

Lowering the standards for 2C openings makes things better in this regard.

There is a downside: your 2C auctions will sometimes be more difficult.

According to my current way of thinking, the gain (of playing slightly lighter 2C openings) is worth more than the loss (at least when you play lightish opening bids).

With this particular hand there is additional reason to open 2C. Any of the alternatives will often work, but any of the alternatives will also lead to disaster a significant % of the time. In other words, there are no really good alternatives.

Furthermore, when I pick up a hand like this, I make the practical assumption that we are going to play in at least game. 2C delivers that message rather nicely.

I would not be the least bit surprised if some day I change my mind (again) about all of this.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pigpenz]

as Fred says time moves on and things change! To me there are just to many things that cango wrong by opening 1♠ at imps and not 2♣! I most assuredly want to be in game on these cards ven if game doesnt make there are chances that maybe the opps have a playable spot if not a lead may let 4♠ make doesnt take much from partner to let me make four spades