[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 11 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 11 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

3♦.  What's wrong with this call?  Well-placed stiff, six-loser hand, body has not decreased in value, good lead-director.  All makes sense so far.

This post is another argument against loser count. Calling this a 6-loser hand is just ridiculous.

Why? I'm no big fan of loser count myself but there is a big difference between x Qxxxx AQxx Qxx and adding Q, 987, 9, T, those cards would seem to make up the difference to some extent.

Not to mention, context.

If I were to have this hand and decide in a vacuum whether it was a minimum or a maximum, I'd agree minimum.

However, assessing this hand in the context of competition in my short suit plus a cuebid (not even a mere constructive raise) in my long suit, this looks like "better than average" to me. Keep in mind that many opening strength hands seem to reduce to sub-minimum after LHO overcalls or after partner bids the wrong suit. Here, I like the overcall, and I like the inv+ raise.

As a bonus, furthermore, if you assess this holding and decide that it is borderline, you get to decide in a way that helps the defense against a possible spade contract, as actually occurs. When Opener's LHO's overcall is raised, and when their suit outranks out suit, aggressive game tries that happen to work as lead-directors seem to stand out as a good idea. Robson-Segal comes to mind.

[mikeh]

Calling this a 6 loser hand is, at best, a stretch and, imo, more accurately, a misuse of the loser count.

On the simplistic losing trick count that generates a LTC of 6, we are valuing Q32 the same way we value AJ10.

LTC not only allows but, for best use, requires that we recognize that a suit of Qxx is not the same as AJ10, and not even the same as A32. So I have no issue with the diamond suit being a 1 LTC suit (AQxx) but to refer to the rounded suits as 2 loser suits is misleading/mistaken.

Furthermore, LTC is only one measure, and a relatively crude one at that, of a hand's playability.

Look at the actual hand: N has a LTC of 6, according to Ken and Josh, while S has a LTC of 7 (or less, given that KJxxx in partner's known 5 card suit is upgradable). Thus the 2 hands combine, on LTC analysis, to be worth 11 tricks (24 minus the total LTC of the two hands). This is out by either 2 or 3 tricks, depending on whether they have and find a club ruff. Something ain't right if you think LTC has been correctly applied.

But, of course, it hasn't been. I would value the N hand at no more than 7 LTC and the S at 7, and now we have an expectation of 10... but even that is wrong... because, even this adjusted LTC undervalues Aces!!

And understanding this concept will go a long way to understanding why Ken is, in my view, wrong in his analysis.

Simply put: North has 12 hcp, including a dubious spade queen, only 1 Ace and zero Kings. This is a WEAK hand, folks. This is NOT a hand that would look for game opposite a limit raise.

Compare to x Axxxx AQxxx Qx... same hcp, different hand. Note that this IS a 6 LTC holding. Any metric that values x Axxxx AQxxx Qx the same as Q Qxxxx AQxx Q10x is wonky.

I love and use LTC. It is not the method that is wonky in Ken's analysis

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Apr 11 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

LTC not only allows but, for best use, requires that we recognize that a suit of Qxx is not the same as AJ10, and not even the same as A32. So I have no issue with the diamond suit being a 1 LTC suit (AQxx) but to refer to the rounded suits as 2 loser suits is misleading/mistaken.

Yeah, kind of like calling Q32 the same as QT7. Or Qxxxx the same as Q98xx that has been supported.

Quote

Look at the actual hand: N has a LTC of 6, according to Ken and Josh, while S has a LTC of 7 (or less, given that KJxxx in partner's known 5 card suit is upgradable). Thus the 2 hands combine, on LTC analysis, to be worth 11 tricks (24 minus the total LTC of the two hands). This is out by either 2 or 3 tricks, depending on whether they have and find a club ruff. Something ain't right if you think LTC has been correctly applied.

Well you are the one using silly formulas, not me. I never attempted to analyze using losing trick count, or apply it in any way. I simply argued against someone who said calling it 6 losers is ridiculous, on the basis that there are extra honors and spot cards helping to make up the difference. In fact I never even said it is a 6 loser hand! I just said calling it so is certainly not ridiculous.

Quote

Compare to x Axxxx AQxxx Qx... same hcp, different hand. Note that this IS a 6 LTC holding. Any metric that values x Axxxx AQxxx Qx the same as Q Qxxxx AQxx Q10x is wonky.

I have no idea what wonky means, but are you implying we throw high card points out the window then? After all, it shows the two hands as being the same, that crazy metric

Seriously, those hands have the same LTC, same HCP, but yours has better distribution, and better controls. So combining the four measures your example is better on two of them, and is thus a better hand. The only flaw in LTC that I can see here is your attempting to argue in a way that paints it as a stand-alone measure. 'how can you call both these hands 6 losers when mine is clearly better! ltc sux'. It would be like me saying 'age is a bad measure of desirability, since judging only by age I am more desirable than george clooney'. That doesn't make age a bad measure, it just means you can't consider only one factor and expect to be accurate. Of course I know you are fully aware of that, but the way you are arguing makes it seem like you aren't...

My cardboard box on the street is 1 mile from the highway, whereas your mansion is 2 miles away from the highway, but the mansion is a more desirable place to live. Thus considering highway access as a measure of desirability of a home is wonky!

[mikeh]

Josh.... I think you misread my post... look again at the passage that said that LTC is only one measure, and a relatively crude one, of a hand's playability.

I could, as readily, accuse you of turning into Walter the Walrus, with your support of the point count, but neither of us use any single method in valuing a hand.. and I'd guess that we are very close in our views on 99% or more of hands.

My point was that any metric that describes this hand as worthy of trying for game after a limit raise is either poor or, as I think was the case in Ken's use of it on this hand, in his 6-loser' post, misused.

[jdonn]

Random update: I looked up wonky, cool word. That's the second word I learned today after discommoding.

Anyway, I don't think I misread your post. You say

mikeh, on Apr 11 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

LTC is only one measure, and a relatively crude one, of a hand's playability.

But then contradict that (by implication, not explicitely) when you say

Quote

any metric that describes this hand as worthy of trying for game after a limit raise is either poor or [...] misused.

What I mean by that is, if every metric that isn't poor measures hands approximately the same (as the second part of what you said implies) then we wouldn't need more than one measure.

But of course using many in conjunction is correct (like you said in the first part), precisely because they don't all measure the same way. If one measurement calls two hands equal, and all other measurements say hand B is better, it doesn't make the one measurement either poor or misused. It just means the poor thing would be considering that one measurement on its own instead of considering them all together. LTC does a good job of measuring, as one example, that the hand in question is better than Qx Q98xx AQ9 QTx (well on the full hand it probably wasn't better, but overall it is). It does not do a good job of measuring whether the hand in question is better than x A98xx AQ9xx Qx. That doesn't make it a bad measurement.

[cherdano]

I see one spade loser, 2.5 heart losers, 1.2 diamond losers, and 2.5 club losers, all on average.

Meanwhile, I don't agree this hand goes up as much in values as Ken claims. We now have 10 working hcp (if partner had spades, the ♠Q might be working), we still have bad trumps opposite what is likely 3-card heart support, and pretty slow cards overall.

Also, the overcall didn't get raised, so partner may well have spade values, and in fact further competition by the opponents seems rather unlikely on this auction; so I disagree that the lead-direction of 3♦ is important at all.

[kenrexford]

First of all, the "6 Losers" observation was one of many arguments in favor of a 3♦ call.

That said, I don't think the analysis so far countering 3♦ makes any sense.

To explain:

LTC is miserably ineffective if you are so wonky (maybe this means retarded) as to use that silly 24-X-Y scheme. That's particularly stupid in the context of an auction like this.

Rather, the more astute individual has a rough-estimate establishment of loser count for the likely unbalanced hand and then expects partner to look at cover-card holdings.

Opener's hand has enough body to want to try for a game opposite something slightly better than three covers. With fewer than three covers, Responder would not cue. With four covers, Responder is going anyway. So, Opener wants about 3 1/2 covers. Heart Ace, Club Ace, and Diamond King ain't enough alone. So, Responder needs a tad more, like maybe the club or heart Jack.

If the analysis is calculated to produce a well-bid game, then the analysis seems to be on.

The problem with Mike's analysis is to revert to that stupid 24-X-Y analysis. Responder's hand has two damned covers, it turns out. Diamond King and Heart King. The spade King, which seems to be a hesitant value, turns out to be worthless, a fact that could be predicted. The doubleton diamond, opposite the known diamond suit (after 3♦), looks OK, except that clubs are too long. But, as I mentioned, he goes anyway, because he has ten trumps. Better than defending 3♠.

From a cover card analysis, Responder has no acceptance. He merely has ability to compete over 3♠. Again, the discussion of six and seven losers is "wonky."

The example of a "better hand" of x-Axxxx-AQxxx-Qx is equally silly. First of all, that's a "six-loser hand" that should blast to game, obviously. Why would you invite with that? The Qx is known to be undervalued by LTC, and 5-5's play better than expected. If you wanted to suggest x-Axxxx-AQxxx-xx, you are closer. That said, proper LTC analysis, as I understand it, evaluates up for understaed Ace power. That's why a five-five holding like shown, with a well-placed stiff and Aces, is a game blast. Partner's cue said enough.

So, I think understanding the concept of how to properly use cover card analysis in the context of a typically fit-dependent new suit game try, rather than silly subtraction from 24 games, will explain why my analysis, and that of Josh, is dead right.

[skjaeran]

I think LTC is a valuable help when evaluating my hands when we have a fit.

Q Q987x AQ9x QT7 equates to 1+2.5+1+2 losers to me, that's 6.5 losers. I count 2.5 losers for Qxx(xx), 2 for QTx. Not that this matters much to me when chosing to open or not. This is a clear opening hand to me.

After the overcall and partners inv+ support, I reevaluate the hand to 6 losers (only 2 in trumps with a fit). The 3♦ bid might be thougt as a stretch to some, I disagree - it's an OK bid.

Over 3♠, 4♥ doesn't set up a forcing pass IMO. I don't regard this as a game acceptance bid, only competitive over 3♠. Thus norht's pass over 4♠ isn't forcing to me. South could pass this out. On the actual south hand I'd double 4♠. I can't go to the 5-level with this, but I'd not expect opps to make often enough for double to be a losing bid.

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Apr 11 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

3♦.  What's wrong with this call?  Well-placed stiff, six-loser hand, body has not decreased in value, good lead-director.  All makes sense so far.

Sorry, I don't buy that for a minute.

We were counting the queen of spades for points. When you claim your stiff is 'well placed', you're effectively counting the singleton queen for 5 points.

I'd say the body has considerably decreased in value. Points have been shown on your left but not on your right, which makes it less likely that the AQxx will be a successful finesse or the QTx will pull full weight. And the queen of spades obviously isn't worth even close to full value any more.

I don't think expecting four queens to take three tricks is reasonable, and that's what you're doing by calling this a six loser hand.

This hand is one card away from the most balanced hand possible for the bid. It looks like it has 10 useful points, and most of them are finessable. It's worth showing extras because...it has one more nine than average? C'mon. If I dealt 99 1♥ openings, 98 of them would be better than this load.

If I had the South hand, I'd bid 4♥ with this hand, and then 5♥ after partner passed the 4♠, and I'd expect to make it. I would expect something like:

x
A9xxx
A9xx
KQT

A hand with the controls and count to go to game but needs help in diamonds. I have Kx in diamonds, therefore game is automatic. Edited to emphasize that. On the auction:

1♥ (1♠) 2♠ (P)
3♦ (P)

not only is there no hand responder can have with four trumps and Kx of diamonds that I would fail to go to game on, but I don't think there's a hand that exists with four trumps and the Kx of diamonds where I'd consider 3♥ to be a LA. If I had enough to make a limit raise, by gum, I have enough to go to game after the 3♦ call. Meanwhile, across the actual hand, most limit raises with those features simply aren't going to make it.

I would be very disappointed with the actual North hand.

Don't get me started on 24-x-y. If you want to use covers instead, be my guest. You're still asking for a literally perfect hand across to make game.

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Apr 12 2008, 01:05 AM, said:

x
A9xxx
A9xx
KQT

Don't get me started on 24-x-y. If you want to use covers instead, be my guest. You're still asking for a literally perfect hand across to make game.

First, the hand that you have provided is, IMO, an automatic 4♥ bid in this sequence. If your and Mike's definitions for good game tries opposite cuebids is a hand that should bid game itself, then my game tries, which advertise a need for help, would be weaker bids.

Second, you say that my 3♦ call, and that endorsed by other very good bridge players in this thread, asks for "a literally perfect hand" to make game. If by a "literally perfect hand" you mean something where Responder has primes in the black suits (spade or club Aces, maybe club King), secondaries in the red suits (per force, Aces and Kings), a ttal of three such (cover) cards, plus a little bit more (having already shown an expectancy of three covers by the cue), then your are absolutely correct. The 3♦ bid does ask for that "literally perfect hand." Of course, that was the intention of this bid.

I mean, what exactly does 3♦ do for partner? It suggests an inability to bid game alone by Opener. It shows a red two-suiter. Because Opener has both red Queens, he knows that Responder can only look at red Kings or Aces, because nothing else is available. It suggests looking only at primes in the black suits (duh!), and Opener is even expecting that Responder, from the spade agreement, will be able to infer a stiff spade (hard this time). As Opener has all the Queens, as you mention, he knows that Responder must again, per force, have primes and spaces. Thus, this is a (literally) perfect hand for suggesting cover card analysis.

Oh, and feel free to explain how CC analysis might be inferior to 24-X-Y analysis, oif you want. I'm intrigued.

[jtfanclub]

I don't like 24-x-y any more than you do, I find covers (and especially specific covers) much more valuable. Sorry I didn't phrase that more clearly.

Quote

First, the hand that you have provided is, IMO, an automatic 4♥ bid in this sequence.  If your and Mike's definitions for good game tries opposite cuebids is a hand that should bid game itself, then my game tries, which advertise a need for help, would be weaker bids.

It means that your cue bids are much stronger than what I expect. The way most people play it, the next bid up in strength from a single raise is a cue bid, and I'll assume that you do the same for these purposes.

Auction is 1♥ (1♠). You're holding

KTx
KJTx
Kx
xxxx

Second case:

Txx
Kxx
Kx
Axxxx

For me, both of these are bottom-end 2♠ calls. What are they for you?

[Winstonm]

Haven't read many other posts so this is my initial response - I don't like 5H with the wasted spade King, but the problem began with the opening bid, therefore, I deduce the ultimate cause of the rot was opening a hand that is not an opening hand. South is not blameless, though, for carrying on past 4S.

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Apr 12 2008, 08:58 PM, said:

Auction is 1♥ (1♠). You're holding

KTx
KJTx
Kx
xxxx

Second case:

Txx
Kxx
Kx
Axxxx

For me, both of these are bottom-end 2♠ calls. What are they for you?

Both are, as you suggest, (extreme) low-end cuebids.

However, take each case after a 3♦ call.

1. ♠K10x ♥KJ10x ♦Kx ♣xxxx

I have a dead minimum cuebid, and partner has just bid 3♦. My heart King is still a cover. My diamond King is a second cover. The doubleton diamond would be nice opposite Axx, but partner does not have that. He has length and values in diamonds. So, I might be able to use his length in diamonds to pitch clubs, but my club length in clubs is too deep to take advantage. Axx in clubs, and I'd like this doubleton. How about spades? I have the King well-placed, for a possible third trick, but I suspect duplication of values. Even if I givce that King full weight (opposite a stiff, but partner might have a slow club loser), I'm still only up to three covers. The J-10 in hearts are nice. The fourth trump might be used to ruff some stray diamond card. But, all-in-all I have a minimum for my bid. I'll resign to 3♥.

2. ♠10xx ♥Kxx ♦Kx ♣Axxxx

I again have a dead minimum cuebid, and again partner with that 3♦. I like the lack of any wasted values in spades, as I suspect shortness there. However, I lack a fourth trump to take full advantage of that -- ruffing on the long side actually will be bad and tappy. I like the diamond King, but the doubleton, again, gains little and is yielding picthes in a very long club suit or in a spade suit where probably useless. Plus, I lack a fourth trump to take care of stray diamond cards. The club body sucks (I assume no pips of value because of the x's), so establishing a long diamond will be difficult. Again, I seem to have my advertised three covers that partner will expect, and really nothing more. Make the clubs even A9xxx, and maybe...

So, neither would accept a game try.

Now, what about the auto game bid with ♠x ♥A9xxx ♦A9xx ♣KQ10?

Opposite ♠K10x ♥KJ10x ♦Kx ♣xxxx, I expect to lose one club, one spade, and maybe one heart. I either use the spade King to ditch the club 10 (most likely), or get clubs right, and I ruff out two diamonds, playing hearts to be 2-2. So, opposite that bare minimum cue, with the proposed GT hand, blasting will work.

Opposite ♠10xx ♥Kxx ♦Kx ♣Axxxx, again, I expect to make game opposite this minimum cue. Ten clubs, nine hearts, and two diamonds. Oops -- an overtrick.

So, why would I make game tries with hands that make game opposite dead minimum cues?

Am I missing something?

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Apr 12 2008, 10:15 PM, said:

Am I missing something?

Nope, I hadn't thought it through. You've convinced me.

[CSGibson]

jillybean2, on Apr 11 2008, 08:54 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 11 2008, 11:34 AM, said:

han, on Apr 11 2008, 09:29 AM, said:

North is right, it's a game try, but north was wrong to bid it, the hand is too poor.

Ok, so must North bid again, above game to make a slam try?

Vuroth said:

Woudln't 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ show that you were going game regardless of what partner had, and thus that your 3♦ bid was slammish?

Yes of course, if partner signs off below game.


3♦ : 4♥

4♠/5m slam try above game.

Jumping in on this point: As a responder, if you are accepting a game try, you might as well pretend that opener was making an advanced cue-bid and cue-bid something of your own on your way to game. A jump to the 4 level should say that you accept the game try, but don't have something to cue.

Partner will either take your responding cue-bid as a counter-try and sign off (if below 3 of your suit), which you then can raise to game, or partner will be delighted that you are cooperating in his slam-sequence.

Potential downside is that the opening lead will likely be more accurate. That's the price you pay for science, though.

[jchiu]

hrothgar, on Apr 11 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

Don't like the 1♥ opening - you're too weak
Would probably bid an immediate 4♥ over 1♠
Would definitely bid 3♥ over 2♠

I disagree on all counts.

1. While I don't like the stiff ♠Q, the shape and offensive potential make this an automatic opener for me
2. I have never gotten good results bidding 4♥, diagonal transfer to 4♠ in this auction
3. I think a 3♦ game try is reasonable, but somewhat of a stretch

Now, bidding 5♥ is just mad unless you are playing pass-double inversion. Practically the worst spade holding for further competition, and stale shape besides.